Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
education
sciences
Article
Individual-Centred Approaches to Accessibility in STEM Education
Theresa Davey 1, * , JoséVictorio Salazar Luces 2and Rebecca Davenport 3
Citation: Davey, T.; Salazar Luces,
J.V.; Davenport, R.
Individual-Centred Approaches to
Accessibility in STEM Education.
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652. https://
doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100652
Academic Editor: Mary V. Alfred
Received: 30 August 2021
Accepted: 13 October 2021
Published: 18 October 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Finemechanics, School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8579, Japan
2Department of Robotics, School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8579, Japan;
j.salazar@srd.mech.tohoku.ac.jp
3Max Born Institute, 12489 Berlin, Germany; rebecca.davenport@mbi-berlin.de
*Correspondence: theresa@tohoku.ac.jp
Abstract:
Equitable access to high-quality higher education is in line with the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals 4, 5, and 10, which indicate that it is crucial for a future sustainable
society. Globalisation and reductions in systemic barriers to university admission are creating
increasingly diverse higher education classrooms, but traditional education methods may unfairly
disadvantage some groups of students. Creating equity in access to high-quality education requires
teaching approaches that are considerate of each student’s individual sociocultural context as it affects
their educational attainment. Building on discipline-based education research (DBER) principles in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, a modified holistic approach
is proposed that primarily centres on students and tailors the teaching methods to the needs of the
individuals and the dynamic of the whole class. This work demonstrates that educational attainment
and student confidence was improved by applying an individual-centred teaching approach in a
highly diverse undergraduate engineering classroom. Trials of this approach in a pilot classroom
showed clear and consistent improvement over standard active learning approaches. Best practice
guidelines for individual-centred teaching in STEM classrooms are provided. Further work is needed
to examine the efficacy of this approach in a generalised setting, but the positive outcomes for student
attainment are in line with existing research in the literature. The best practice guidelines presented
herein may serve as a starting point for other educators to become more aware of the sociocultural
needs of their individual students and classrooms, which may result in a move towards equity in
STEM higher education.
Keywords: education; accessibility; equality; diversity; equity; DBER; sustainability; COVID-19
1. Introduction
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) 4, 5, and 10, are to
achieve quality education, achieve gender equality, and reduce overall inequalities [
1
],
and it is the intersection of these three goals that must be addressed in order to achieve
sustainability in education in the future. The trend towards globalisation in recent decades
makes it more likely than ever that the current generation of students will study or work
internationally from their home country or in highly international environments [
2
,
3
].
Additionally, work to reduce systemic barriers for historically marginalised students has
resulted in increasingly diverse classrooms [
4
]. Promoting diversity in university admis-
sions may show success in getting diverse people into the student body, but does not
guarantee equal access to the education that is provided [
4
]. Achieving sustainability
in education requires promoting access to quality education for all communities, which
requires additional considerations beyond admissions policies. For many time-pressured
academics [
5
] whose institutions undervalue teaching [
6
,
7
], teaching responsibilities are
an afterthought, meaning that they are very often unaware or unable to take advantage
of advances in educational practice. Unfortunately, traditional higher education teaching
methods, such as large-scale lectures and noninteractive classes, have been shown to rein-
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100652 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 2 of 16
force existing inequalities, as they tend to be the least beneficial to already underserved
and underrepresented communities [8].
In recent years, many higher education institutions have begun making the switch to
using discipline-based education research (DBER) to inform the design of their curricula,
particularly in introducing active learning, which has been shown to have a positive impact
on learning outcomes [
9
]. In this paper, building on established DBER-informed principles,
an individual-centred approach to education is presented, which was shown to improve
learning outcomes even further and increase student confidence and self-awareness. As
well as supporting students in learning the basic information in the curriculum, this holistic
approach helped students to develop important skills that will in turn help them navigate
increasingly diverse educational environments and workplaces in the future. This approach
was tested in controlled in-person and blended learning environments, showing consistent
results, and can therefore be used to bridge the attainment gap observed during the rapid
switch to online and blended learning during the COVID-19 pandemic [10].
Traditional educational approaches were developed centuries or millennia ago in
institutions that historically catered towards very narrow demographics. These educational
approaches may have been effective historically, but modern education research tells us
that learning outcomes can be improved by tailoring the teaching methods being applied
to the subject matter and context [
11
]. In recent decades, many studies have examined
the roles played by various factors in achieving successful learning in higher education,
including social factors such as sociocontextual influences, social involvement, and social
support, as well as individual learning practices [
12
]. Intercultural sensitivity, that is, to
“be interested in other cultures, be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences, and then
also be willing to modify their behaviour as an indication of respect for the people of other
cultures” [
13
], has been identified as vitally important for global societies [
14
] and central
to the role of education [
15
]. In a modern higher education context, this can apply both to
internationality and local social factors such as class, race, gender, etc. [
16
]. Furthermore,
these social factors can significantly influence students’ learning practices [
17
], which have
been shown to be among the most significant predictors of academic achievement [12].
Cultural differences and individual factors influence the efficacy of certain learning
styles [
18
,
19
], and students’ learning preferences broadly match their attainment under
a certain method [
18
,
20
]. For example, in a large study examining participants from
seven countries, Joy and Kolb found that preferences for certain learning styles (such as
learning through concrete experience, active experimentation, abstract conceptualisation,
or reflective observation) were found to be explained by culture, gender, level of education,
and area of specialisation [
19
]. Lee et al. examined the correlation between particular
learning strategies (motivation-related, assignment/task-related, planning/time-related,
and cognition-related strategies) and grade attainment among undergraduate students
in the United States and South Korea, and found that while the use of all four strategies
predicted GPA among students at the South Korean university, only motivation-related
and assignment/task-related strategies predicted success of students at the university
in the United States [
12
]. Particularly for online learning, the cultural background of an
individual can significantly impact motivation [
21
], which is an important factor in meeting
learning goals [
22
]. Students prefer multimodular learning styles, but the preferred types
vary across cultural groups and activity type [
23
]. For diverse groups of students, cross-
cultural collaborative learning requires understanding and valuing different cultures and
clarifying ambiguous situations for various cultural contexts [
24
], and culturally sensitive
design of learning environments is necessary [
25
]. The collectivist/individualist nature of
national cultures has been found to be a strong indicator of learning preferences [
19
,
25
] and
has previously been recommended as a factor for consideration in efficiently developing
effective teaching models [
25
]. It can therefore be recommended that opportunities should
be given to students to embrace their own cultural approaches to maintain motivation and
achieve the desired learning outcomes [22].
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 3 of 16
In developing different learning approaches to be used in the classroom, DBER has
proven useful in testing the effectiveness of different teaching methods, which facilitates
the discovery, validation, and uptake of improved methods compared to traditional large-
classroom, lecture-based approaches. Though DBER, it is possible to create a new model of
how learning happens [
26
]. DBER-informed teaching in science and engineering moves
away from artificial high-stakes exams as a measure of ability and expertise and has
more basis in performance in situations that more closely reproduce real-world environ-
ments. Additionally, DBER-informed teaching moves towards active learning approaches
(
compared
to passive textbook reading and lecture-based learning) such as classroom
discussion and discovering new principles through experimentation [27].
A typical active learning class may have the following workflow [28]:
1. Students are assigned a pre-class reading on a topic.
2. Students are asked a question about the topic, and vote on the answer.
3.
Before the correct answer is revealed, the students are given the opportunity to discuss
the question with their neighbours. During this discussion period, the instructor
observes and listens.
4. Students vote again on the answer.
5.
The instructor leads a discussion on the topic based on their observations during the
earlier discussion period.
This approach actively engages the students in thinking and reasoning, which has
been shown to benefit learning [
29
], and gives the instructor a better awareness of the
students’ level of understanding. Compared to standard lecture approaches, active learning
approaches have been shown to have tremendous success in improving student attainment
of learning objectives, resulting in significantly improved test scores [
30
]. This approach
is loosely based on “just-in-time-teaching”, whereby concepts are introduced as they are
needed [
26
], rather than “just-in-case-teaching”, where concepts are presented in advance.
DBER-informed active learning approaches have been shown to be effective independent of
the dominant culture [
28
,
31
], albeit with mixed success among international students due
to limitations of language ability in conversation-heavy teaching approaches [
32
]. However,
with careful design of interactive class components, such limitations can be mitigated [
32
],
and international students can see significant benefits due to social factors [
33
]. While
active learning methods have been shown to be more inclusive than traditional teaching
approaches [
34
] and may help to close the achievement gap between majority and minority
groups [
35
–
37
], certain implementations of active learning can present challenges for
typically underserved and underrepresented students in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) [
38
,
39
]. As such, further considerations and accommodations
can be made to address these challenges, and level the playing field [40].
Building on the recommended active learning class model from Wieman et al. [
28
,
30
],
an individual-centred approach to small-to-medium classroom teaching is presented,
suitable for higher education in STEM disciplines, that incorporates ideas of intercultural
sensitivity and culturally responsive teaching [
41
]. In this approach, the students are
centred as individuals in the design of the class structure and learning objectives. As in the
active learning approach outlined above, the instructor observes the students and bases
the teaching that follows on their observations. However, beyond observing students’
understanding of the topic, the instructor observes their individual needs without making
assumptions and provides accommodations where necessary such that all students are
able to participate in the class and meet the learning objectives, therefore providing an
equitable learning environment. It is also important to communicate with the students
regarding their needs, which may need to be done individually or privately. Careful
observation and communication facilitate active inclusion whilst avoiding “othering” a
student by highlighting a particular area in which they might be unique in the group
and suggesting that this makes them a “poor fit” for the environment. Creating a safe
environment for students to assert their need for certain accommodations empowers the
students in self-advocacy, which is critical in a sustainable workforce.
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 4 of 16
One key way of centring the students is to provide flexible teaching options, which al-
lows students to learn in different ways based on their individual needs. Although the idea
that students can only learn in one particular way has largely been debunked [
42
,
43
] and
all students can benefit from different kinds of learning approaches, the ease with which
students can learn in a particular style is affected by numerous factors including their previ-
ous learning experiences, cultural context and socioeconomic background, neurodiversity
status, and personality [18,19].
Allowing students to access information in a variety of ways avoids artificially reward-
ing students that are most familiar or comfortable with a specific teaching style. Having a
basic understanding of the comfortable learning style for each student allows the teacher
to ensure that every student is equally catered to in providing diverse learning options.
Furthermore, this understanding can facilitate the teacher encouraging students to de-
velop self-awareness of their own learning preferences and to develop proficiency in other
learning methods, both of which are associated with positive outcomes [23].
2. Method
The individual-centred active learning approach was trialled over three years during
regular teaching in a compulsory English-medium programming class for second year
mechanical and aerospace engineering undergraduates at Tohoku University in Sendai,
Japan (International Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Course (IMAC), Tohoku Uni-
versity, http://www.imac.mech.tohoku.ac.jp, accessed on 15 October 2021). The majority
of the students were part of a programme for international students only, a highly diverse
programme aimed at developing innovative global leaders. In this programme, there are
no quotas for entry, and each cohort generally has students from 6–10 countries on vari-
ous continents, who are required to meet the same entry criteria. International exchange
students may also join classes as a noncompulsory option. As the class was compulsory
for most students, there was consistently a significant variation in starting ability, from
students who had no experience with programming to those who had worked full-time
as programmers in the past. The class sizes in the pilot study were relatively small, with
12 students
in Year 1 (Y1), 17 in Year 2 (Y2), and 16 in Year 3 (Y3). Students who did not
pass the class would be required to take it again in subsequent years.
To maintain consistency with equivalent Japanese-medium classes, the syllabus, re-
sources, and mark schemes were kept the same throughout the three-year period. Because
of the small class size, the scores were not adjusted or scaled in any way to fit any sta-
tistical distribution. Y1 applied general active learning methods as recommended by
general DBER principles in STEM [
26
], and Y2 and Y3 used the more individual-centred
learning approach outlined above. Y1 and Y2 were conducted in person in a familiar
small-classroom setting, and Y3 was transitioned from in-person to online learning in the
second half of the class following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The contents of the class were taught in context as far as is possible. Concepts were
briefly explained and discussed, then immediately applied through practical exercises.
Where appropriate, students were encouraged to solve problems themselves using online
resources or by working together, mimicking a real-world coding environment. The final
grade in this class was a combination of attendance and homework submission (40%),
a take-home midterm assessment (10%), and a final project that was worked on in class
and at home over several weeks (50%). Homework assignments were designed to gauge
each student’s understanding of recent concepts, and thorough personal feedback was
provided to each student before the next lesson. Commonly misunderstood concepts were
incorporated into subsequent lesson plans. The attendance and homework contribution to
the final grade was given if the student attended the class and submitted the homework
assignment (regardless of score on each homework exercise). If students were unable
to attend a class or complete a task by the assigned date, deadline extensions for full
credit were given provided that the teacher was notified in advance or there were other
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 5 of 16
unavoidable circumstances. There were no closed-book assignments, and working together
was permitted, although submitted work had to be individual.
A typical workflow of the individual-centred approach is as follows.
1. Pre-class/in-class reading and (optional) brief explanation from instructor
→Targets students who prefer to learn from textbooks/in person explanation
2. Some students are asked to explain the concept to the class
→
Targets students who learn best by explaining under pressure (
e.g., Socratic method
)
3. Questions to and from the students, students are encouraged to lead the dialogue
→
Allows students to solidify their basic understanding, and targets students
who like a deep understanding before applying knowledge
4. Coding exercise to apply the new knowledge to solve a problem
→Some students may require very clear instruction
a. Students may work in groups
→Targets students who prefer informal settings
b. Peer-to-peer assistance is encouraged
→
Targets students who consolidate their own understanding by helping others
→Targets students who are initially uncomfortable applying new concepts
5.
Teacher moves around the classroom having discussions with individual students/groups
→Targets students who may prefer one-to-one explanations
→
Targets students who learn best through alternative explanations e.g., metaphors
6.
Extension tasks based on differentiated learning objectives are made available with
the initial exercise
→Focuses students’ creativity after they complete the basic task
During each part of the class, students who may particularly benefit from a specific
part of the workflow were encouraged to participate at that stage, for example, by calling
on students who solidify their understanding by explaining to the class (perhaps because
they have been educated in a system that is loosely inspired by the Socratic method of
guided discussion). Each student’s preferred learning style can be understood through
interactions with and observations of the students during the class. An awareness of
student gender, nationality, or secondary education culture can inform an understanding of
which learning methods that they may be most familiar with, but it is vital to avoid placing
stereotypes ahead of personal observations of individual students. It is also essential to
encourage students to be challenged by participating in all parts of the class, allowing them
to strengthen their abilities to learn in less-comfortable ways and build an awareness of
their educational identity [44–46].
While the individual-centred workflow follows the basic DBER principles, it is modi-
fied by an awareness of the context of each student and the social dynamics of the class
as a whole. This awareness may be gained through conversations with the students or
observations, depending on the setting. When making these observations, it is vital to
avoid othering any students or relying on stereotypes to draw conclusions. However, it
is important to have an awareness of wider trends that may impact certain groups. One
key example of this is a reported tendency for girls and women learning programming to
struggle initially. According to the founder and CEO of the organisation Girls Who Code,
the origin of this difficulty lies in the trial-and-error nature of learning programming, and
social conditioning of women towards perfectionism [
47
]. Generally, girls may tend to find
it harder to attempt to write and run code without knowing whether it is correct, whereas
boys may be comfortable making mistakes until it works. Although this does not apply
to every female student, having an awareness of this issue enables the teacher to rapidly
notice and assist should this issue arise in either female or male students. Consequently,
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 6 of 16
affected students can be helped to overcome their initial discomfort without becoming
discouraged, losing interest, or failing to achieve learning outcomes within their capability.
As in the typical DBER workflow, assigning reading ahead of the class (part 1) allows
better use of the class time for interactive and active learning. In parts 2 and 3, the teacher
allows students to lead a discussion but is also available to respond to any questions.
As the pilot class was small, the discussion was conducted with the whole class rather
than separate small groups. In setting tasks for the class (part 4), it is very important to
be mindful that some students may understand the same instructions differently, so it is
very important to ensure very clear unambiguous instruction and to offer clarification if
needed. During this period, students may work in groups to allow them to work together
to consolidate information. During the assigned activity, the instructor observes and assists
(part 5). Finally, differentiated learning objectives for each student are used to develop
extension tasks that will provide a challenge to all students, which are provided with the
initial assignment (part 6).
Previous familiarity with the material may vary in some subject areas; this is par-
ticularly pronounced in compulsory undergraduate programming classes such as the
pilot classroom. While all students are expected to learn the same core material (that is
examined for the final grade), challenge tasks are provided for students who may already
have familiarity with the concepts to maintain their engagement. These extension tasks
may involve the application of core concepts in new situations beyond the syllabus or
incorporate self-learning of new ideas. The design of such tasks can be tailored to the
students according to their experience, interest, and proportion of the class, and may be
open-ended or less formally constructed than the tasks designed to consolidate the core
curriculum concepts. If appropriate, students can also be asked to suggest tasks, which
may encourage educational independence and reduce instructor load. Generally, while
feedback is always given, extension tasks are not always graded.
In this approach, students are exposed to multiple learning styles, and the differenti-
ated learning possibilities ensure that each student is challenged both in their knowledge
of the topic and their comfortable learning method.
The efficacy of the teaching approach was analysed by descriptive statistical analysis
of the grade distribution and teacher-made observations of student understanding and
confidence. As student feedback was not collected during Y3 because of the COVID-19
pandemic, said feedback could not be used as a criterion by which to judge the outcomes
of this approach; however, it may be anecdotally stated that students were more engaged
with the tasks in the class during Y2 and Y3.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Outcomes
The grade distribution for the pilot classroom in Y1–3 is shown in Figure 1. To pass,
students had to achieve 60% of the available marks. Only passing grades are shown,
and the distribution was normalised by the number of students. Students who did not
receive passing grades scored 18% and 20% in Y2 and 4% and 20% in Y3, showing clear
nonengagement with the class. In Y1, the grade distribution resembled a typical grade
distribution for an active learning class [
30
], where the mean score was 83% and the
standard deviation was 11%. In Y2 and Y3, there was a clear increase in attainment; the
mean score was 96% in both Y2 and Y3, with standard deviations of 5% and 4% in Y2 and
Y3, respectively.
The mark scheme was designed such that in order to achieve an A grade (80–90%),
students had to have very good understanding of the core principles, and the AA grade
(
90–100%
) could be achieved by applying the contents of the class in a new way, demon-
strating clear understanding of the material. Following the individual-centred approach in
Y2 and Y3, all students achieved either an A or AA grade, demonstrating that all the core
learning objectives were met. Additionally, the students appeared to be more confident in
their knowledge, allowing far more of them to attain the highest grade.
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 7 of 16
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17
was 96% in both Y2 and Y3, with standard deviations of 5% and 4% in Y2 and Y3, respec-
tively.
Figure 1. Normalised grade distribution for passing students in Y1 (grey), Y2 (black), and Y3
(stripes).
The mark scheme was designed such that in order to achieve an A grade (80–90%),
students had to have very good understanding of the core principles, and the AA grade
(90–100%) could be achieved by applying the contents of the class in a new way, demon-
strating clear understanding of the material. Following the individual-centred approach
in Y2 and Y3, all students achieved either an A or AA grade, demonstrating that all the
core learning objectives were met. Additionally, the students appeared to be more confi-
dent in their knowledge, allowing far more of them to attain the highest grade.
The time requirement to apply the individual-centred approach was the same as that
of the lecture-plus-problem-solving classes usually used to teach programming, in that no
additional time was required outside the class hours (beyond providing feedback on
homework assignments). However, it is notable that the instructor effort was slightly
higher during class time, as the instructor had to evaluate more aspects of the students’
performance than in conventional teaching approaches. The approach also made use of
homework assignments and timely feedback to ensure that students did not get left be-
hind while avoiding punishing students (through loss of marks in homework) for being
unable to understand abstract concepts at an early stage. This closed-loop system of con-
stant feedback between teacher (or TA) and student consumed more time than some other
homework styles but proved to be immensely beneficial in getting every student in the
class to understand all the core concepts.
3.2. Blended Learning
Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person teaching was halted all
over the world in a sudden shift to online learning. The unavoidable, rapid, and un-
planned change to online learning brought disadvantages and advantages in terms of ac-
cessibility [48,49]. Furthermore, the sudden change to a new learning style while students
were pressured to meet the same learning objectives proved to have a severe impact on
the mental health of students [50,51] in addition to the strains brought on by social isola-
tion during the pandemic [52]. For teachers, the change brought additional challenges, as
many of the most effective in-person teaching methods were not immediately transferra-
ble to online environments [53,54]; for example, it was harder to observe students to assess
their progress. On the other hand, online learning made it possible to use subtitles for
lectures for hearing-impaired students, and it was possible to make much more of the
material available on demand instead of at a strict schedule.
Figure 1.
Normalised grade distribution for passing students in Y1 (grey), Y2 (black), and Y3 (stripes).
The time requirement to apply the individual-centred approach was the same as that
of the lecture-plus-problem-solving classes usually used to teach programming, in that
no additional time was required outside the class hours (beyond providing feedback on
homework assignments). However, it is notable that the instructor effort was slightly
higher during class time, as the instructor had to evaluate more aspects of the students’
performance than in conventional teaching approaches. The approach also made use of
homework assignments and timely feedback to ensure that students did not get left behind
while avoiding punishing students (through loss of marks in homework) for being unable
to understand abstract concepts at an early stage. This closed-loop system of constant
feedback between teacher (or TA) and student consumed more time than some other
homework styles but proved to be immensely beneficial in getting every student in the
class to understand all the core concepts.
3.2. Blended Learning
Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person teaching was halted all
over the world in a sudden shift to online learning. The unavoidable, rapid, and unplanned
change to online learning brought disadvantages and advantages in terms of accessibil-
ity [
48
,
49
]. Furthermore, the sudden change to a new learning style while students were
pressured to meet the same learning objectives proved to have a severe impact on the
mental health of students [
50
,
51
] in addition to the strains brought on by social isolation
during the pandemic [
52
]. For teachers, the change brought additional challenges, as many
of the most effective in-person teaching methods were not immediately transferrable to
online environments [
53
,
54
]; for example, it was harder to observe students to assess their
progress. On the other hand, online learning made it possible to use subtitles for lectures
for hearing-impaired students, and it was possible to make much more of the material
available on demand instead of at a strict schedule.
In the future, the adoption of blended learning styles may have long-term success in
leveraging the positive aspects of both online and in-person teaching [
25
,
55
]. In terms of
applying the individual-centred teaching approach online, it is necessary to consider how
to provide individual attention to students when the teacher cannot see them in person.
The second half of the Y3 class was taught online, following the transition to online
learning in early 2020. Because the class comprised only international students, there were
additional issues arising from many of the students being unable to return to Japan from
their home countries, where they did not necessarily have good access to internet or a
stable working environment. In this case, the relationships with the students that were
established in the first half of the semester were instrumental in maintaining engagement.
Students were highly encouraged to seek support and to have a more personal online
learning experience, both through video interactions (where possible) and one-to-one
correspondence. In order to provide flexibility to students, all course material was made
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 8 of 16
available online, including some recorded explanations of key concepts. During class
hours, an online discussion and problem-solving class was held to complement the pro-
vided materials, but this was not compulsory because of the limitations of some students’
environments. Instead, a compulsory small homework task was assigned each week to
assess individual engagement and progress, and personal feedback and correspondence
was provided. One-to-one video meetings with a teaching assistant (TA) or the instructor
were available during class time or office hours to allow students to adjust to the increased
visibility of staff–student interactions in online classrooms.
To provide a comparative point, the Y4 class (teaching is ongoing, so the grade
distribution was not included in the analysis) was fully online, which posed additional
challenges. After a year of online learning, students were reluctant to use video for classes,
and without previously established student–teacher relationships, student understanding
of the active-learning nature of the class, or teacher understanding of the individual
learning preferences of the students, it was significantly harder to maintain engagement.
Homework assignments were designed to evaluate the needs and progress of the students;
personal feedback and correspondence was given as in Y3. Attendance in some online
discussion classes was made compulsory, although exceptions were permitted on request.
The overall grade distribution in Y3 was broadly unaffected by the shift to online
learning. The mean score (96%) was consistent in Y2 and Y3, but the standard deviation
of the grade distribution was 5% and 4% in Y2 and Y3, respectively, suggesting that Y3
had slightly higher performance levels compared to the previous year. However, upon
looking more closely at the distribution of scores in Figure 2, it can be seen that fewer
students achieved the maximum mark in Y3. This can be attributed to reduced teacher
contact, meaning that there were fewer opportunities to get feedback on assignments
before submission. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic required a sudden shift to online
teaching at the halfway point of the Y3 class. As the students had no prior experience
with online learning, an approach was taken that mimicked the in-class environment as
closely as possible while making accommodations where needed. Despite these changes,
the expectations for student participation and performance remained consistent in Y3; the
same mark scheme was used to evaluate their final assignments, ensuring a consistent
degree of educational attainment between Y2 and Y3. Therefore, the results show that
students were able to achieve the same learning outcomes via online learning within the
support framework outlined above.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
Figure 2. Normalised score distribution for Y1 (grey), Y2 (black), and Y3 (stripes), broken down into
5% increments.
3.3. Extrapolation to Other Environments
Rather than providing a formal study of the efficacy of this approach, these results
are a retrospective observation based on a small sample size. The results seen in applying
the individual-centred method of teaching in the pilot classroom are by no means in-
tended to be taken as conclusive evidence for improved pedagogical technique, but in-
stead are an experiential reporting of improvement in educational attainment in this case.
However, the substantial and consistent improvement in test scores, alongside anecdotal
improvement in student confidence, is consistent with trends in the literature indicating
the importance of cultural sensitivity in teaching [15,25].
The approach laid out in the pilot classroom study was developed through teaching
small classes, and the typical workflow may not be generally suitable for larger classes
(~100 students). Although teaching in larger classes was not trialled in the present study,
it is also possible to provide individual-centred learning in such cases. In such a case, in-
dividual observations of students may be impossible, but specific feedback can be solic-
ited from students regarding their learning preferences, and the teaching method can be
adapted to accommodate their needs. Instructors can make use of student–teacher inter-
actions (whole class—making use of technology such as clickers, small-group—via in-
class discussions, and one-to-one—in office hours or correspondence), student–TA inter-
actions, group work, and lectures or question-and-answer sessions to ensure that students
are given opportunities to learn in a variety of learning styles.
The time requirement for instructors adapting this method is also an important con-
sideration. Generally, the time requirement can be broken down into class design and
planning, in-class teaching, grading and feedback, and other student interactions (e.g.,
replying to emails, office hours, etc.). Converting a traditional lecture-based education to
a DBER-informed active learning programme can require substantial effort, and further-
more, there are learning curves in skill attainment for instructors [26]. If only minimal
changes to traditional teaching are possible, some individual centring of students can be
applied to traditional teaching approaches by ensuring necessary accommodations are
provided for all students. This has a very limited time requirement that consists mostly of
increased student interactions. Active learning approaches tend to require a higher level
of effort from instructors during the class, but do not have substantially increased time
requirements beyond the initial planning stage, as feedback can be given to students dur-
ing class rather than in graded homework if the former is more appropriate. Some active
learning techniques, such as in-class discussion and small-group work, can be easily in-
serted with a small amount of prior planning to ensure that all core concepts are
Figure 2.
Normalised score distribution for Y1 (grey), Y2 (black), and Y3 (stripes), broken down into
5% increments.
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 9 of 16
3.3. Extrapolation to Other Environments
Rather than providing a formal study of the efficacy of this approach, these results are
a retrospective observation based on a small sample size. The results seen in applying the
individual-centred method of teaching in the pilot classroom are by no means intended to
be taken as conclusive evidence for improved pedagogical technique, but instead are an
experiential reporting of improvement in educational attainment in this case. However, the
substantial and consistent improvement in test scores, alongside anecdotal improvement
in student confidence, is consistent with trends in the literature indicating the importance
of cultural sensitivity in teaching [15,25].
The approach laid out in the pilot classroom study was developed through teaching
small classes, and the typical workflow may not be generally suitable for larger classes
(~100 students). Although teaching in larger classes was not trialled in the present study, it
is also possible to provide individual-centred learning in such cases. In such a case, individ-
ual observations of students may be impossible, but specific feedback can be solicited from
students regarding their learning preferences, and the teaching method can be adapted
to accommodate their needs. Instructors can make use of student–teacher interactions
(whole class—making use of technology such as clickers, small-group—via in-class dis-
cussions, and one-to-one—in office hours or correspondence), student–TA interactions,
group work, and lectures or question-and-answer sessions to ensure that students are given
opportunities to learn in a variety of learning styles.
The time requirement for instructors adapting this method is also an important consid-
eration. Generally, the time requirement can be broken down into class design and planning,
in-class teaching, grading and feedback, and other student interactions (
e.g., replying
to
emails, office hours, etc.). Converting a traditional lecture-based education to a DBER-
informed active learning programme can require substantial effort, and furthermore, there
are learning curves in skill attainment for instructors [
26
]. If only minimal changes to
traditional teaching are possible, some individual centring of students can be applied to
traditional teaching approaches by ensuring necessary accommodations are provided for
all students. This has a very limited time requirement that consists mostly of increased
student interactions. Active learning approaches tend to require a higher level of effort
from instructors during the class, but do not have substantially increased time require-
ments beyond the initial planning stage, as feedback can be given to students during class
rather than in graded homework if the former is more appropriate. Some active learning
techniques, such as in-class discussion and small-group work, can be easily inserted with a
small amount of prior planning to ensure that all core concepts are presented. In this way,
the paradigm shift currently being seen in higher education institutions towards active
learning methods [26] can be effected gradually by time-limited instructors.
Applying the individual-centred approach does not require substantial additional
time compared to conventional active learning methods, as adaptations (such as adjusting
the time for group work or instructor-guided discussion) can be made flexibly during the
class or for subsequent classes based on student feedback and observations. For these
adjustments, the instructor may need to reflect on different learning possibilities (see
Section 4) and consider how to apply them in each class. Providing clear, personalised
feedback in response to homework assignments was the largest additional time requirement
in the pilot study. However, if the homework assignments are very similar in each year of
teaching, a database of commonly occurring problems and feedback could be made and, if
desired, administered by trained TAs. In larger classes, multiple-choice quizzes that are
designed to reveal misunderstandings may be more appropriate assignments; common
issues could be addressed in the following class.
Employing individual-centred teaching methods may appear to provide unfair advan-
tages to some students through personalisation of the educational experience. In traditional
education methods, all resources are provided to all students (lectures, class notes, textbook
recommendations, homework assignments, etc.), but not all students will make use of
every resource, with some preferring to learn only from class notes and others choosing
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 10 of 16
not to attend lectures or submit homework assignments according to their individual
learning preferences or circumstances. The proposed individual-centred approach is no
different, in that there are many routes for learning, and all students have access to all
resources. The difference lies in ensuring that the learning preferences of all students are
met in the resources and learning possibilities that are made available, which may not be
the case in traditional teaching methods. Furthermore, providing accommodations such
as flexibility in terms of in-class participation or deadline extensions may also be seen to
unfairly advantage certain students. Once again, this is a misconception, as such accommo-
dations are readily available to all students as required. Describing such an approach as
individual-centred emphasises the fact that the individual needs of all students are met,
rather than suggesting that the education provided to individual students differs. In fact,
all students can benefit from access to alternative learning routes as they develop a greater
awareness of their learning preferences. The individual-centred approach presented here
is one possible way to create a more equitable educational environment and improve the
skill and knowledge attainment of all students.
4. Best Practices
Some guidelines for best practices for instructors implementing an individual-centred
teaching method as described above are presented below. The best practices can be broken
into two parts: (1) creating an inclusive environment; (2) understanding the needs of the
students and making the necessary accommodations in teaching.
4.1. Setting up an Inclusive Environment
•Inclusive introductions
o
Introduce self, giving correct pronunciation of name and pronouns as well as
the level of formality expected from students.
o
If possible, take time to learn student names (and pronunciations)
and pronouns.
o
Make it clear that the class is flexible in response to student needs, and requests
for accommodations are welcome.
oClearly provide contact information.
•Set clear expectations
o
Define the cultural expectations of the class (regarding formality, student
participation, information provision vs. facilitating learning).
o
Provide clear outlines of the course (class structure, syllabus, grading, deadlines).
oExplain the teaching style (active learning) and why it is being used.
4.2. Understanding and Meeting Student Needs
•Provide flexibility without unfairness, with equity as the goal.
•Provide requested accommodations.
oBe mindful of local disability provision and discrimination laws.
oAdvocate for students with university administration where appropriate.
•Observe carefully to proactively offer accommodations.
oDo not make assumptions, but be mindful of trends.
o
Provide options to students, but be aware that they may not use accommodations.
•
Review and update general accommodations based on the individual needs of the
current cohort.
•
Be aware that because students have competing needs, there is no perfectly
accessible space
.
•
Understand that external factors may make some accommodations impractical. Ex-
plain this to the student, maintaining empathy, and raise issues with the administration
where relevant.
•
Be mindful that some provisions (such as providing closed captions for video lectures)
that may benefit many people can be very time consuming. Make use of available
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 11 of 16
tools, such as automatic closed captions available through some online platforms. If
possible, petition university administration for university-wide provision.
•
Remember that the teacher is also a person in the classroom who may require accom-
modations: self-reflection is key.
Table 1provides an incomplete list of things to consider in creating an accessible,
inclusive learning environment:
Table 1. Some basic best practice guidelines for centring students in active learning approaches.
Accessibility Factor Adjustment
Learning environment
Large classroom/lecture hall
•Often a tiered lecture hall with stairs
→Ensure space accessibility provisions
(e.g., wheelchair access) are not othering
→Ensure that everyone is easily able to
participate in group work
→Ensure access for those with temporary
mobility impairment (e.g., injury that may not
be reported to the university)
→
Ensure that audio is clear throughout the space
•Group work is more challenging than in
smaller classroom settings
•
Challenging to speak personally to all students
→Set small-group work with neighbours
→Make use of clickers/smartphone-based
voting or text submission
→Observe if any students are not engaged
→If possible, combine with seminars on the
same topic
→Set clear office hours
→If possible, make use of TAs
•Organise such that each student’s
contact/grading is done by the same TA
•Train TAs to flag issues
Small classroom/seminar room
•Layout may be inconsistent but is changeable
•Possible narrow spaces or unstable furniture
•Seating arrangements, light levels, or
architectural features (e.g., pillars) may impair
view
•Fewer options for students to choose their
preferred environment, e.g., find a quiet corner
•Temperature/air ventilation is changeable
→
Ensure the room is physically accessible for the
needs of the students
→Ensure a clear line of sight from each seat
→Provide flexibility for students to leave the
room if possible
→Encourage students to request
temperature/airflow adjustments as required
•More observational opportunities
→Try to understand the preferred learning style
of all students
→Design lesson plans with specific students’
needs in mind
•Smaller groups have a higher probability of
cliques and bullying
→Observe social dynamics and intervene
quickly and robustly
→Reorganise groups or adjust group work
requirement where necessary
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 12 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Accessibility Factor Adjustment
Online platform
•On demand vs. live lectures
→Ask students their preference
→
Remember that students may not have suitable
equipment/space/privacy/bandwidth
availability
→Create a clear camera on/off policy for live
classes
→Differentiate style for one-to-one discussions
or small-group work
•Less personal interaction/fewer observation
opportunities
→Personalise individual
correspondence/feedback (make use of TAs
where necessary)
•Requires more self-organisation from students →Provide a clear class structure/study plan
→Track which students are not engaging
Individual needs
General cultural needs
•Class, culture, and/or previous educational
exposure (learning preferences)
•Cultural context (what is a lesson? Should the
teacher provide information or facilitate
self-directed student research? Gender roles,
speaking vs. listening preferences)
→Set clear expectations
→Provide multiple learning possibilities
→Be mindful of social and cultural dynamics in
the class
Physical ability
•Physical mobility (short-term or long-term
needs)
→Ensure group work allows for those with
limited mobility
•Sensory needs (e.g., colour blindness, hearing
or vision impairment)
→Be considerate in developing materials
→Solicit specific feedback
Logistical and neurological challenges
•Home lives (e.g., part-time jobs, caring
responsibilities, childcare)
•Neurodiversity (autism, ADHD, mental health
challenges, sensory overload etc.)
→
Observe whether anyone obviously struggling
to participate or be in the classroom
→Check in with students
→Allow some absences if appropriate
→Provide flexibility in attendance
requirements/deadlines
→
Set clear expectations and curriculum structure
within the flexible framework
→Clearly indicate the start and end of each
activity
→Provide downloadable/on demand content
→llow assistive devices
→Discuss group work in advance if appropriate
Below are some possibilities for different learning methods that may be used to achieve
effective learning depending on the needs of the class.
Learning possibilities
•Preclass/in-class reading;
•oral explanations from teacher (lecture: formal or informal);
•oral explanations from students;
•group discussion (students only or students/teacher);
•clickers/smartphone response to problem solving;
•one-to-one explanations/discussions;
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 13 of 16
•questions to/from students;
•information searching by students;
•task-based information discovery;
•individual/group exercises to apply new concepts;
•peer-to peer assistance;
•differentiated learning outcomes and extension tasks;
•open book/closed book assignments;
•classwork/take home assignments;
•compulsory attendance/flexible study.
Figure 3provides an example of the application of these guidelines in a hypothetical
classroom. The physical space, individual challenges, and group dynamics must all be con-
sidered alongside the goals of the class in making any necessary adjustments. Considering
the physical and sociocultural dynamics personalises the student body, ensuring that all
students are comfortable within the class and able to meet the learning objectives.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17
Figure 3. Example of the application of the individual-centred approach in a hypothetical classroom.
5. Conclusions
Sustainability in education requires removing barriers to quality education for all
communities. Outdated teaching methods serve to reinforce existing inequalities, while
DBER-based education has yielded positive outcomes and removes some artificial aspects
of education. An educational approach that centres the students as individuals was pi-
loted in an undergraduate engineering class at Tohoku University over three years. The
approach aims to promote self-awareness and empathy, which are essential for navigating
increasingly diverse education and workplace environments. The attainment of students
under the piloted system was consistently improved in comparison with that of students
under general DBER methods, and students under the piloted system were found to have
higher confidence in their understanding of the key principles.
It is difficult to extrapolate the findings in this work to all STEM teaching, or wider
higher education teaching generally, because of the small sample size and highly specific
nature of this study. Furthermore, because of the observational nature of this study and
the available data, no comparisons could be made with traditional teaching methods in
the statistical analysis. Finally, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic during the third year
of teaching may have biased the results, although every reasonable effort was made to
ensure a consistent standard of education. Despite these limitations, the results of this
study show that this method has promising potential to improve not only academic at-
tainment but other social skills required for modern education and workplace environ-
ments through equitable access to resources. To justify recommending the wide applica-
tion of this method, further work is needed to investigate the efficacy of the approach
when applied more widely, including considering application to different subject areas,
class sizes, consistent in-person/blended/online teaching styles, and with comparison to
traditional teaching methods (rather than DBER-informed active learning approaches).
Some guidelines for best practices in applying this approach are provided. These
guidelines may serve as a starting point for other STEM educators who wish to incorpo-
rate individual centring of students into their teaching praxis to explore its effectiveness
in their own classes.
Ensuring equal access to effective higher education is an ongoing challenge. Beyond
traditional understanding of accessibility limitations in the classroom, different learning
contexts presented by students from different sociocultural backgrounds present
Physical space –
seminar room
•Good observational
opportunities
•Some line-of-sight issues
•Students are self-
grouping by nationality
Group dynamics –big clusters (from India and USA)
•Different expectations for "just-in-time" versus "just-in-case"
learning
•Different expectations for student participation
•Students are expecting to be "assessed" –treat homework as a test
•Some socially isolated students
•Other cultural backgrounds also present!
Individual
challenges
•Part-time job
•Social anxiety
•Varying
English
abilities
Adjustments
•Use a mix of teacher-assigned groups and student-selected groups (varying each class)
•Take particular care that student with anxiety isn't overwhelmed but can participate
•Do not highlight individual errors when going over homework
•Offer more theoretical background in optional pre-class reading
•Request participation when desired, discourage interruptions
•Take care when requesting participation from individual students –let comfortable students
speak but do not let them dominate the discussion
•Make deadlines flexible on an individual basis
Goals
•All students achieve core learning objectives
•Balance of student comfort and student development
•Every student participates as far as they are able
•Student learning is maximised because information is presented in an easy-to-absorb way
Figure 3. Example of the application of the individual-centred approach in a hypothetical classroom.
5. Conclusions
Sustainability in education requires removing barriers to quality education for all
communities. Outdated teaching methods serve to reinforce existing inequalities, while
DBER-based education has yielded positive outcomes and removes some artificial aspects
of education. An educational approach that centres the students as individuals was
piloted in an undergraduate engineering class at Tohoku University over three years. The
approach aims to promote self-awareness and empathy, which are essential for navigating
increasingly diverse education and workplace environments. The attainment of students
under the piloted system was consistently improved in comparison with that of students
under general DBER methods, and students under the piloted system were found to have
higher confidence in their understanding of the key principles.
It is difficult to extrapolate the findings in this work to all STEM teaching, or wider
higher education teaching generally, because of the small sample size and highly specific
nature of this study. Furthermore, because of the observational nature of this study and the
available data, no comparisons could be made with traditional teaching methods in the
statistical analysis. Finally, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic during the third year of
teaching may have biased the results, although every reasonable effort was made to ensure
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 14 of 16
a consistent standard of education. Despite these limitations, the results of this study show
that this method has promising potential to improve not only academic attainment but
other social skills required for modern education and workplace environments through
equitable access to resources. To justify recommending the wide application of this method,
further work is needed to investigate the efficacy of the approach when applied more
widely, including considering application to different subject areas, class sizes, consistent
in-person/blended/online teaching styles, and with comparison to traditional teaching
methods (rather than DBER-informed active learning approaches).
Some guidelines for best practices in applying this approach are provided. These
guidelines may serve as a starting point for other STEM educators who wish to incorporate
individual centring of students into their teaching praxis to explore its effectiveness in their
own classes.
Ensuring equal access to effective higher education is an ongoing challenge. Beyond
traditional understanding of accessibility limitations in the classroom, different learning
contexts presented by students from different sociocultural backgrounds present additional
challenges to learning. Although perfect accessibility cannot be achieved because of
students’ often competing needs, it is essential to make deliberate and specific attempts to
meet student needs with the goal of sustainable education in mind. The authors believe
that members of the STEM higher education community have a responsibility to persevere
in exploring the efficacy of new educational approaches with the goal of ensuring equitable
access to high-quality education.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, T.D.; methodology, T.D.; validation, T.D. and R.D.; formal
analysis, T.D.; investigation, T.D. and J.V.S.L.; data curation, T.D.; writing—original draft preparation,
T.D.; writing—review and editing, T.D., J.V.S.L. and R.D.; visualization, T.D.; supervision, T.D.; project
administration, T.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due
to its nature as a retrospective observational study.
Informed Consent Statement:
For this type of study, formal consent was not required, and all data
were anonymised before analysis.
Acknowledgments:
This education activity has been supported by the International Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering Course (IMAC-U) Program organized by the Global Learning Center and
School of Engineering, Tohoku University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 15 October 2021).
2.
Czaika, M.; De Haas, H. The Globalization of Migration: Has the World Become More Migratory? Int. Migr. Rev.
2014
,48,
283–323. [CrossRef]
3.
Maringe, F.; Sing, N. Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: Pedagogical,
quality and equity issues. High. Educ. 2014,67, 761–782. [CrossRef]
4.
Deil-Amen, R. The “Traditional” College Student: A Smaller and Smaller Minority and Its Implications for Diversity and Access
Institutions. Mapp. Broad-Access High. Educ.
2011
, 1–39. Available online: https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/2011
Deil-Amen11_11_11.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2021).
5.
Jacobs, J.A.; Winslow, S.E. Overworked Faculty: Job Stresses and Family Demands. Ann. Am. Acad. Politi- Soc. Sci.
2004
,596,
104–129. [CrossRef]
6. Peters, D.S.; Mayfield, J.R. Are There Any Rewards for Teaching/. Improv. Coll. Univ. Teach. 1982,30, 105–110. [CrossRef]
7.
Wright, M. Always at Odds?: Congruence in Faculty Beliefs about Teaching at a Research University. J. High. Educ.
2005
,76,
331–353. [CrossRef]
8.
Morgan, H. Improving schooling for cultural minorities: The right teaching styles can make a big difference. Educ. Horizons
2010
,
88, 114–120.
9. Talanquer, V. DBER and STEM education reform: Are we up to the challenge? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2014,51, 809–819. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 15 of 16
10.
Littlejohn, A. Seeking and sending signals: Remodelling teaching practice during the Covid-19 crisis. ACCESS: Contemp. Issues
Educ. 2020,40, 56–62. [CrossRef]
11.
Park, E.L.; Choi, B.K. Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. High. Educ.
2014,68, 749–771. [CrossRef]
12.
Lee, H.-J.; Lee, J.; Makara, K.; Fishman, B.J.; Teasley, S.D. A cross-cultural comparison of college students’ learning strategies for
academic achievement between South Korea and the USA. Stud. High. Educ. 2015,42, 169–183. [CrossRef]
13.
Bhawuk, D.; Brislin, R. The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. Int. J.
Intercult. Relations 1992,16, 413–436. [CrossRef]
14.
Hammer, M.R.; Bennett, M.J.; Wiseman, R. Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. Int. J.
Intercult. Relations 2003,27, 421–443. [CrossRef]
15.
Nieto, C.; Booth, M.Z. Cultural Competence: Its influence on the teaching and learning of international students. J. Stud. Int.
Educ. 2009,14, 406–425. [CrossRef]
16.
García, S.B.; Dominguez, L. Cultural Contexts That Influence Learning and Academic Performance. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin.
North. Am. 1997,6, 621–655. [CrossRef]
17.
Dukhan, S.; Cameron, A.; Brenner, E.A. The Influence of Differences in Social and Cultural Capital on Students’ Expectations of
Achievement, on their Performance, and on their Learning Practices in the First Year at University. Int. J. Learn. Annu. Rev.
2012
,
18, 337–352. [CrossRef]
18.
Zane, N.W.; Sue, S.; Hu, L.-T.; Kwon, J.-H. Asian-American assertion: A social learning analysis of cultural differences. J. Couns.
Psychol. 1991,38, 63–70. [CrossRef]
19. Joy, S.; Kolb, D.A. Are there cultural differences in learning style? Int. J. Intercult. Relations 2009,33, 69–85. [CrossRef]
20.
Zhu, C.; Valcke, M.; Schellens, T. Cultural differences in the perception of a social-constructivist e-learning environment. Br. J.
Educ. Technol. 2008,40, 164–168. [CrossRef]
21.
Tapanes, M.A.; Smith, G.G.; White, J.A. Cultural diversity in online learning: A study of the perceived effects of dissonance in
levels of individualism/collectivism and tolerance of ambiguity. Internet High. Educ. 2009,12, 26–34. [CrossRef]
22. Lim, D.H. Cross Cultural Differences in Online Learning Motivation. Educ. Media Int. 2004,41, 163–175. [CrossRef]
23. Alkooheji, L.; Al-Hattami, A. Learning Style Preferences among College Students. Int. Educ. Stud. 2018,11, 50. [CrossRef]
24.
Kumi-Yeboah, A. Designing Cross-Cultural Collaborative Online Learning Framework for Online Instructors. Online Learn.
2018,22. [CrossRef]
25.
Renner, D.; Laumer, S.; Weitzel, T. Blended Learning Success: Cultural and Learning Style Impacts. In Proceedings of the
Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings, Osnabrück, Germany; 2015; p. 92. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2015/92
(accessed on 15 October 2021).
26.
Wieman, C. Improving How Universities Teach. Lessons From the Science Education Initiative; Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2017; ISBN 9780674972070.
27. Talbot, R.M.I.; Doughty, L.; Nasim, A.; Hartley, L.; Le, P.; Kramer, L.H.; Kornreich-Leshem, H.; Boyer, J. Theoretically Framing a
Complex Phenomenon: Student Success in Large Enrollment Active Learning Courses. In Proceedings of the Physics Education
Research Conference, Sacramento, CA, USA, 20–21 July 2016. [CrossRef]
28. Wieman, C. Improving How Universities Teach: A Scientific Approach; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019.
29. Wieman, C.; Perkins, K. Transforming Physics Education. Phys. Today 2005,58, 36–41. [CrossRef]
30.
DesLauriers, L.; Schelew, E.; Wieman, C. Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science
2011
,332, 862–864.
[CrossRef]
31.
Fowler, M.R. Transplanting Active Learning Abroad: Creating a Stimulating Negotiation Pedagogy Across Cultural Divides. Int.
Stud. Perspect. 2005,6, 155–173. [CrossRef]
32.
Simpson, C. Language, relationships and skills in mixed-nationality Active Learning classrooms. Stud. High. Educ.
2015
,42,
611–622. [CrossRef]
33.
Marrone, M.; Taylor, M.; Hammerle, M. Do International Students Appreciate Active Learning in Lectures? Australas. J. Inf. Syst.
2018,21, 1–20. [CrossRef]
34. Dewsbury, B.; Brame, C.J. Inclusive teaching. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2019,18, 1–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Haak, D.C.; HilleRisLambers, J.; Pitre, E.; Freeman, S. Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in
Introductory Biology. Science 2011,332, 1213–1216. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Ballen, C.J.; Wieman, C.; Salehi, S.; Searle, J.B.; Zamudio, K. Enhancing Diversity in Undergraduate Science: Self-Efficacy Drives
Performance Gains with Active Learning. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2017,16, ar56. [CrossRef]
37.
Theobald, E.J.; Hill, M.J.; Tran, E.; Agrawal, S.; Arroyo, E.N.; Behling, S.; Chambwe, N.; Cintrón, D.L.; Cooper, J.D.;
Dunster, G.; et al.
Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science,
technology, engineering, and math. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020,117, 6476–6483. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Cooper, K.M.; Brownell, S.E. Coming Out in Class: Challenges and Benefits of Active Learning in a Biology Classroom for
LGBTQIA Students. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2016,15, ar37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Eddy, S.L.; Brownell, S.E.; Thummaphan, P.; Lan, M.-C.; Wenderoth, M.P. Caution, Student Experience May Vary: Social Identities
Impact a Student’s Experience in Peer Discussions. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2015,14, ar45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 652 16 of 16
40.
Gin, L.E.; Guerrero, F.A.; Cooper, K.M.; Brownell, S.E. Is Active Learning Accessible? Exploring the Process of Providing
Accommodations to Students with Disabilities. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2020,19, es12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Gay, G. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
42. Kirschner, P.A. Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Comput. Educ. 2017,106, 166–171. [CrossRef]
43.
Newton, P.M.; Miah, M. Evidence-Based Higher Education—Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’ Important? Front. Psychol.
2017
,8, 444.
[CrossRef]
44.
Beasley, S. Linking the Emancipatory Pedagogy of Africana/Black Studies with Academic Identity Outcomes among Black
Students Attending PWIs. J. Pan African Stud. 2016,9, 9.
45.
Singer, A.; Montgomery, G.; Schmoll, S. How to foster the formation of STEM identity: Studying diversity in an authentic learning
environment. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020,7, 1–12. [CrossRef]
46. Kim, A.Y.; Sinatra, G.M. Science identity development: An interactionist approach. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2018,5, 1–6. [CrossRef]
47. Saujani, R. Brave, Not Perfect: Fear Less, Fail More, and Live Bolder; Currency: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 1524762334.
48.
Mukhtar, K.; Javed, K.; Arooj, M.; Sethi, A. Advantages, Limitations and Recommendations for online learning during COVID-19
pandemic era. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2020,36, 1–5. [CrossRef]
49.
Zhang, H.; Nurius, P.; Sefidgar, Y.; Morris, M.; Balasubramanian, S.; Brown, J.; Dey, A.; Kuehn, K.; Riskin, E.; Xu, X.; et al.
How Does COVID-19 impact Students with Disabilities/Health Concerns? arXiv
2020
, arXiv:2005.05438. Available online:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05438 (accessed on 15 October 2021).
50.
Wang, C.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, H. Chinese College Students Have Higher Anxiety in New Semester of Online Learning During
COVID-19: A Machine Learning Approach. Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 587413. [CrossRef]
51. Irawan, A.W.; Dwisona, D.; Lestari, M. Psychological Impacts of Students on Online Learning During the Pandemic COVID-19.
KONSELI J. Bimbing. Dan Konseling 2020,7, 53–60. [CrossRef]
52.
Hamza, C.A.; Ewing, L.; Heath, N.L.; Goldstein, A.L. When social isolation is nothing new: A longitudinal study on psychological
distress during COVID-19 among university students with and without preexisting mental health concerns. Can. Psychol. Can.
2021,62, 20–30. [CrossRef]
53.
Bennett, S.; Lockyer, L. Becoming an Online Teacher: Adapting to a Changed Environment for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education. Educ. Media Int. 2004,41, 231–248. [CrossRef]
54.
Coman, C.;
T
,
îru, L.G.; Mese
s
,
an-Schmitz, L.; Stanciu, C.; Bularca, M.C. Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during
the Coronavirus Pandemic: Students’ Perspective. Sustainability 2020,12, 10367. [CrossRef]
55.
Jones, K.; Sharma, R.S. On Reimagining a Future for Online Learning in the Post-COVID Era. SSRN Electron. J.
2020
. [CrossRef]
