Covering stereotype threat and imposter syndrome

[duffymeg]

This morning, Chris and I met with Victoria from CRLT to talk more about how to cover the topics of stereotype threat and imposter syndrome. As a reminder, we were thinking of covering these relatively briefly at the beginning of all workshops.

The ideas we had were:

1. To do one or more activities related to confronting our biases.
   a. One option would be to ask people to draw someone who is a competent R user.
   b. Another option would be to have people do the Gender-Science Project Implicit test that is available from here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html We would have them to do this at home, and then might have a way for them to anonymously report their results (perhaps via a poll or google doc).
2. Give a summary of stereotype threat. This would probably be in the form of a handout with a discussion highlighting key points.
3. Talk about things that can be done to counter stereotype threat. For me, this was interesting to think about, because I've thought about what I can do as an instructor, but not what I can do for myself. Keys will probably be to reinforce a positive personal narrative and to encourage a growth mindset.
4. Have time for reflection. We were thinking of doing this the second morning, as a way of providing continuity and emphasizing the importance of this topic. Some possible reflection activities include:
   a. thinking of a time when you were discouraged/demotivated based on societal norms/expectations,
   b. thinking of a time when you did something that you thought you couldn't do.
   We weren't sure of how to share these -- possibly in small groups.
5. Finally, we thought we would cover imposter syndrome, which is related but different, and which is something that many workshop participants will likely identify with!

All of the above is open to discussion. I just wanted to get the ball rolling on the discussion. At some point, once we've thought about this more, we can maybe propose it as a mini-lesson. I can imagine that, depending on how it works, this might be of interest to the bigger SWC/DC community.

[pschloss]

I like this idea a lot.

I wonder whether there's a way to do it without making it seem like something extra, rather can we make it integrated into the introductory content. I'm thinking of the activity Greg had us do in the teacher training when we talked about how we introduce ourselves and how that affects our ability to connect with students.

Do you think we could come up with an activity that is analogous to that? For instance, we could have them think about the differences between two groups of people that do the same thing but have different names. I'm think along the lines of the windows/mac, python/R, vi/emacs, bioinformatics/computational biologist debates. In these contrasts, (IMHO) the differences are mostly cosmetic and matters of personal preference. But (IMHO) they do more to alienate people and set up an unfortunate hierarchy.

The goal would be two-fold - first: make everyone feel welcome and like they belong in the class and second: drive home the stereotype threat concept and how we can generalize that to other areas including gender, race, ability, etc.

[arthur-e]

I particularly like the idea of having participants complete the Gender-Science Project Implicit test ahead of time. This is a great time-saver and should allow us to illustrate, right off the bat, the imperative in combating stereotype threat. Based on the ideas so far, I'd suggest an outline like:

1. Some kind of intial engagement Re: Pat's point... "introduce ourselves and how that affects our ability to connect with students"--Have participants share one experience where they felt unwelcome/ intimidated in a learning environment (Re: Meghan, "thinking of a time when you were discouraged/demotivated based on societal norms/expectations") via EtherPad (anonymously)?
2. Highlight some things shared on EtherPad (particularly any detailing the experience of women and minorities).
3. Share results of the Gender-Science Project Implicit test
4. "Give a summary of stereotype threat." (Should do this only after the test results and introduction exercise, I feel)
5. Open discussion: What can we do to counter stereotype threat?
6. Define imposter syndrome.

[cgates]

I like the ideas discussed above. As Pat suggested above, if we could incorporate these ideas into the introduction it would feel more integrated and less adjunct. That said, I'm less versed in how to present/discuss stereotype threat/impostor syndrome (STIS), so personally I would be amenable to either Meg (or another designate) leading this section, or leading it cooperatively with another. (Of course, I would be willing to solo given support/guidance, but that approach seems like a missed opportunity.)

Arthur, thanks for this outline. The initial engagement exercise where we share moments when we felt uncomfortable/unwelcome is interesting and was effective in the instructor training and I can imagine it being really productive and engaging. However, it seems like a tricky opening play: learners/instructors are sharing something potentially personal and upsetting, I'm concerned that it doesn't necessarily emphasize the positive narrative out of the gate. It's easier for me to imagine that dialogue being more effective later in the first day or perhaps the second day.

Also, WRT schedule, we might consider moving the second STIS session to later in the second day; perhaps first session after lunch. This lets people jump onto the keyboards right away on day 2, and would give folks more time together which (if things work well) will create more interesting connections/trust among the group. And evidently, people are more open to challenging ideas when they are rested and well fed (http://www.economist.com/node/18557594). Just a thought.

[arthur-e]

However, it seems like a tricky opening play: learners/instructors are sharing something potentially personal and upsetting, I'm concerned that it doesn't necessarily emphasize the positive narrative out of the gate. It's easier for me to imagine that dialogue being more effective later in the first day or perhaps the second day.

@cgates That's a fair point. We're doing this the first 30 minutes of both days? We could have learners and instructors share "moments when we felt uncomfortable/unwelcome" at the start of the second day instead of the first?

How could we engage the audience on the first day instead?

[ACharbonneau]

Could we do an anonymous moment share? I've done this with other questions where people might not want to announce their answer to a crowd. Essentially we have them write their answer on a sticky note, and then stick it to the wall.
We could have everyone in class mill around reading them for a few minutes, then discuss commonalities among them, and/or how to address some of them (either as an instructor, or for yourself)

[pschloss]

I like this! To make it potentially more anonymous, could we set up a blank etherpad where people would not include their names and encourage them to write their comments there? That might also have the advantage of getting people used to using etherpad and might not be as disruptive as having people get up and down and moving around the room in a short period of time.

Pat

On Aug 4, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Amanda Charbonneau [email protected] wrote:

Could we do an anonymous moment share? I've done this with other questions where people might not want to announce their answer to a crowd. Essentially we have them write their answer on a sticky note, and then stick it to the wall.
We could have everyone in class mill around reading them for a few minutes, then discuss commonalities among them, and/or how to address some of them (either as an instructor, or for yourself)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #7 (comment).

[cgates]

Nice. I like an exercise that prompts interaction with the etherpad. Given the choice, I would actually lean toward stickies; in my experience the physical movement/interaction promotes individual and group engagement in a way that the computer doesn't. (My $0.02.)
cg

[ACharbonneau]

I tend to agree with Chris about the physical objects vs the computer. It would work on etherpad, but I think seeing the same sorts of experiences written in a multitude of hands is more striking than that same list on etherpad. However, even if we did stickies, I think we could incorporate the etherpad as the way to group the ideas and discuss them.
I suppose it depends on what else you want the mini-session to do. Getting up and moving papers around will definitely be more time-consuming than an etherpad list.

[duffymeg]

Thanks for all the feedback! There are some great thoughts in here. I've tried to incorporate them in what I'm proposing below.

Prior to workshop:
Instructors will send everyone the link to the Project Implicit Gender-Science test that is available from here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
Instructors should ask students to do the test and keep track of their result.

Day 1:

1. Five min (or less): Instructors introduce themselves, introduce idea that we'll all be interacting a lot over next two days. Instructors should stress that we want to make sure everyone feels comfortable.
2. Five min: Students could each draw a picture of what a competent R (or Python, if that's the focus of the workshop) user looks like. Also ask students -- if they feel comfortable -- to write on a separate post-it note what their result was on the Project Implicit test. [The drawing part might make some people feel a little silly, but I think that kind of helps with the icebreaker aspect. Thoughts? Mine would be a stick figure, reflecting my complete lack of artistic ability!]
3. Five min: Instructors can briefly group the pictures into major groupings (e.g., long-haired vs. not; glasses vs. not; gender groupings if seem apparent from pictures) and summarize those. Instructors should also summarize results of Project Implicit test, stressing that we all have biases regarding these sorts of things.
4. 5 min: Instructors can then explain idea that we all have mental images of groups of people. These are really useful in some cases, meaning we don't have to start from scratch every time we meet a new person. But it also means we have stereotypes about what certain kinds of people look like. Because of negative stereotypes of certain groups (some common ones, e.g., are that women are not good at math as men, or that older people are not as good at using technology and computers), members of those groups underperform in high-pressure situations.

Why are we talking about this here? Part of why we're talking about this because knowing stereotype threat exists helps counter its effects, making it so that people in the negatively stereotyped groups are less affected by it. One study (Johns et al. 2005 Psychological Science) found that performance of women on a math test was significantly improved by telling students “it’s important to keep in mind that if you are feeling anxious while taking this test, this anxiety could be the result of these negative stereotypes that are widely known in society and have nothing to do with your actual ability to do well on the test.” We're also talking about this because we want to make sure we do our best in this workshop to not do or say things that will trigger stereotype threat. Please be conscious of letting everyone speak, and realize that, for some people, speaking will be harder. And, if you feel like you don't have something to contribute, please realize that you do, and that stereotype threat may well be impacting how you feel about your ability to contribute!

1. 5 min: In the etherpad, write:
   a. one thing you can do to try to counter stereotype threat that you might experience related to this workshop.
   b. one thing you think classmates can do to try to counter stereotype threat or imposter syndrome in themselves.
   c. one thing you think classmates can do to try to avoid triggering stereotype threat in others.

Instructor then summarizes, making sure to note two key things people can do to counter stereotype threat in themselves: reinforcing a positive personal narrative, and encouraging a growth mindset (that is, the idea that the ability to program/code/do stats is something that can be learned, not an innate thing that someone is good or bad at).

1. Finishing up: Instructor can point out that, if students are interesting in learning more about this, we've linked to some useful references on the etherpad. [I will need to work on assembling these. I have two blog posts that might be useful:
   https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/stereotype-threat-a-summary-of-the-problem/
   https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/countering-stereotype-threat/
   Clearly there are other resources, too. Suggestions welcome!]

Day 2:

1. Come back to idea of stereotype threat. Ask students to write on post it note (or anonymously on an etherpad) describing
   a. a time when you were discouraged/demotivated based on societal norms/expectations,
   b. a time when you did something that you thought you couldn't do.
2. I'm not sure how to wrap things up, and suggestions would be welcome. Maybe just another quick summary of stereotype threat/imposter syndrome?

[ACharbonneau]

Thanks for all the feedback! There are some great thoughts in here. I've tried to incorporate them in what I'm proposing below.

Prior to workshop:
Instructors will send everyone the link to the Project Implicit Gender-Science test that is available from here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
Instructors should ask students to do the test and keep track of their result.

Day 1:

1. <5 min: Instructors introduce themselves, introduce idea that we'll all be interacting a lot over next two days. Instructors should stress that we want to make sure everyone feels comfortable.

2. Five min: Students could each draw a picture of what a competent R (or Python, if that's the focus of the workshop) user looks like. Also ask students -- if they feel comfortable -- to write on a separate post-it note what their result was on the Project Implicit test. [The drawing part might make some people feel a little silly, but I think that kind of helps with the icebreaker aspect. Thoughts? Mine would be a stick figure, reflecting my complete lack of artistic ability!]

3. Five min: Instructors can briefly group the pictures into major groupings (e.g., long-haired vs. not; glasses vs. not; gender groupings if seem apparent from pictures) and summarize those. Instructors should also summarize results of Project Implicit test, stressing that we all have biases regarding these sorts of things.

4. Five min: Instructors can then explain idea that we all have mental images of groups of people. These are really useful in some cases, meaning we don't have to start from scratch every time we meet a new person. But it also means we have stereotypes about what certain kinds of people look like. Because of negative stereotypes of certain groups (some common ones, e.g., are that women are not good at math as men, or that older people are not as good at using technology and computers), members of those groups underperform in high-pressure situations.

   Why are we talking about this here? Part of why we're talking about this because knowing stereotype threat exists helps counter its effects, making it so that people in the negatively stereotyped groups are less affected by it. One study (Johns et al. 2005 Psychological Science) found that performance of women on a math test was significantly improved by telling students “it’s important to keep in mind that if you are feeling anxious while taking this test, this anxiety could be the result of these negative stereotypes that are widely known in society and have nothing to do with your actual ability to do well on the test.” We're also talking about this because we want to make sure we do our best in this workshop to not do or say things that will trigger stereotype threat. Please be conscious of letting everyone speak, and realize that, for some people, speaking will be harder. And, if you feel like you don't have something to contribute, please realize that you do, and that stereotype threat may well be impacting how you feel about your ability to contribute!

5. Five min: In the etherpad, write:

   a. one thing you can do to try to counter stereotype threat that you might experience related to this workshop.
   b. one thing you think classmates can do to try to counter stereotype threat or imposter syndrome in themselves.
   c. one thing you think classmates can do to try to avoid triggering stereotype threat in others.

   Instructor then summarizes, making sure to note two key things people can do to counter stereotype threat in themselves: reinforcing a positive personal narrative, and encouraging a growth mindset (that is, the idea that the ability to program/code/do stats is something that can be learned, not an innate thing that someone is good or bad at).

6. Finishing up: Instructor can point out that, if students are interesting in learning more about this, we've linked to some useful references on the etherpad. [I will need to work on assembling these. I have two blog posts that might be useful:
   https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/stereotype-threat-a-summary-of-the-problem/
   https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/countering-stereotype-threat/
   Clearly there are other resources, too. Suggestions welcome!]

Day 2:

1. Come back to idea of stereotype threat. Ask students to write on post it note (or anonymously on an etherpad) describing
   a. a time when you were discouraged/demotivated based on societal norms/expectations,
   b. a time when you did something that you thought you couldn't do.
2. I'm not sure how to wrap things up, and suggestions would be welcome. Maybe just another quick summary of stereotype threat/imposter syndrome?

[pschloss]

This is excellent! I worry that you're trying to say everything in one go.
How about moving 5&6 from day 1 to day 2? I worry that there's too much on
day 1. I think 4 offers an opportunity to wrap things up and launch the
workshop. Then 6 would offer a wrap on day 2.

Pat

[duffymeg]

My only concern with moving Day 1 5&6 to Day 2 is if it means some people are dealing with more stereotype threat during day 1 (that is, the first half of the workshop) than they would if we covered that. Thoughts?

Also, to explain @ACharbonneau's copying of my post: she was trying to help me work out a number formatting issue after I asked for help on twitter. Thanks, Amanda!

[pschloss]

I'm not sure I follow... It seems like you have a nice summary after 4 already that you could use to tie things up for Day 1. then on Day 2 you could have them do the activity you already planned and then have them do the activities 5 and 6 with 6 being a summary for the overall activity. What before may have taken 30 and 10 min on the two days may move to 20 and 20 min, right?

[duffymeg]

Yes, the timing would work out better in terms of having things be more even. But my hope was that maybe spending the extra 10 or so minutes that first day would make it so we could reduce the amount of stereotype threat people face that first day of the workshop. Does that make sense?

[pschloss]

Gotcha.

[arthur-e]

I see @duffymeg 's point. We could split the difference and keep point 5 (countering stereotype threat) on Day 1 and move point 6 (more resources) to Day 2.

My only comment on the proposed content is with regards to Day 1, point 2 (draw "competent R programmer"). Maybe it's just because I have a strong social contract--I think, as a participant, I would consciously avoid stereotypes in my drawing. Would this reduce the impact of the exercise? Perhaps we could expand/ modify the exercise to ask people to describe, e.g., Who are Computer Science majors at this school? Who is going to Silicon Valley to work for Facebook and Twitter? These questions point not only to stereotypes but to actual disparities in the recruitment of minorities and women.

Alternatively, a discussion of the recruitment and retention problem in STEM could be the final point on Day 2's intro, as we don't currently have anything there.

[cgates]

Instructors will send everyone the link to the Project Implicit Gender-Science test that is available from here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html Instructors should ask students to do the test and keep track of their result.

If we want them to do this before the workshop they would need this link today. Alternatively, we can introduce the topic on Wednesday and assign the exercise as homework (my preference, actually). Note that there actually 14 distinct IAT tests, so I'm thinking we should either pick only 1 or 2 or have the participants pick 1 or 2.

cg

[duffymeg]

@arthur-e Yes, I also wondered the same thing about having them draw. But, even if they don't draw a stereotyped drawing, maybe having to think about that will still drive home the message? I'm totally open to other suggestions.

@cgates: I was thinking we should tell them to do the Gender-Science IAT. Whether they then spend the rest of the evening doing all the others is up to them. ;) I'm fine with either sending it today or assigning it as homework.

[cgates]

On further reflection, I'm attracted to the idea of focusing on the picture first day (followed by clustering and discussion of stereotype threat as a phenonemon), having participants execute IAT on Wednesday night and discussing results on Thursday.

Note that if the instructors are clustering the drawings we will be exposing our own implicit biases. Wonder if we should split the group in two and let them cluster and present?

I'm happy to defer on the "demoralized exercise" for now. I think I'm afraid of that exercise because:
a) I'm worried it could de-energize the growth mindset orientation,
b) it's tricky to execute that with 20 folks in the time allotted and I do not want to rush that exercise,
c) I worried I will be mentioned by name (oh - is that my impostor syndrome showing?)

Thoughts?
cg

[pschloss]

Hi Jared,

Several of us at the U of M have recently launched a partnership with SWC to offer a number of workshops over the course of the year. As part of this, there are a decent number of instructors on campus that are comfortable teaching R. Is anyone out there interested in teaching a workshop on September 28 and 29?

Pat

Begin forwarded message:

From: maneesha [email protected]
Subject: UMich Software Carpentry Workshop, Sep 28-29
Date: August 25, 2015 at 2:53:25 PM EDT
To: Pat Schloss [email protected], Jared Lyle [email protected]

This email is to introduce Jared Lyle of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research and Pat Schloss, who is also at University of Michigan and has worked with Software Carpentry on several workshops. Pat has offered to help secure some instructors so I wanted to put you two in touch directly.

Right now we have a couple of leads - one instructor who's in the area but can only do the 28th, and one who is in Seattle so would need funding for travel/accommodations. Pat, if you have any other leads please share with me & Jared.

Any other questions, please let me know.

Best,
Maneesha

[pschloss]

Here’s additional information about the ISR group that is interested in a workshop...

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jared Lyle [email protected]
Subject: Re: UMich Software Carpentry Workshop, Sep 28-29
Date: August 25, 2015 at 3:52:03 PM EDT
To: Pat Schloss [email protected]

The dates are firm and we have a room reserved at the Institute for Social Research http://home.isr.umich.edu/. We're interested in version control (Git), data management (R), and task automation (Unix).

ICPSR http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ is a social and behavioral science data archive. The workshop is connected with our biennial meeting of 'Official Representatives' (also known as 'ORs'). ORs are people at our member institutions' campuses who can help local data users with questions about accessing and reusing data. Some of the ORs have extensive training in data management and analysis. Others have minimal training.

Thanks,
Jared

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Pat Schloss <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
My pleasure - can you give me some background on what you all are looking for? Also, are the dates pretty firm? Do you have a room already?

Thanks,
Pat

On Aug 25, 2
015, at 3:29 PM, Jared Lyle <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks, Pat.
Jared

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Pat Schloss <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jared,

Several of us at the U of M have recently launched a partnership with SWC to offer a number of workshops over the course of the year. As part of this, there are a decent number of instructors on campus that are comfortable teaching R. Is anyone out there interested in teaching a workshop on September 28 and 29?

Pat

Begin forwarded message:

From: maneesha <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: UMich Software Carpentry Workshop, Sep 28-29
Date: August 25, 2015 at 2:53:25 PM EDT
To: Pat Schloss <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>, Jared Lyle <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]>

This email is to introduce Jared Lyle of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research and Pat Schloss, who is also at University of Michigan and has worked with Software Carpentry on several workshops. Pat has offered to help secure some instructors so I wanted to put you two in touch directly.

Right now we have a couple of leads - one instructor who's in the area but can only do the 28th, and one who is in Seattle so would need funding for travel/accommodations. Pat, if you have any other leads please share with me & Jared.

Any other questions, please let me know.

Best,
Maneesha

[arthur-e]

I just want to say that whatever @cgates did in today's workshop is great. He's really nailing the whole thing so far but, in particular, the presentation of the "Draw a competent R/ Shell/ whatever programmer" went really well.

1. Participants draw themselves on one sheet of paper and write three words to describe "themselves and their drawing."
2. Participants draw a "competent Shell programmer" on another.
3. With a partner, trade the "competent Shell programmer" drawing and write three words to describe your partner's drawing.
4. Does your partner's drawing look like your drawing of yourself? What's different? What's similar?
5. You have an image in your head of what members of the group of people who are "competent Shell programmers" look like. If you think you are different--not a member of the group--that may lead you to think you don't belong; that you can't be a competent Shell programmer. But you can! Stereotype threat, etc.

Just a really great job today.

[duffymeg]

Hooray! Thanks for the update, @arthur-e! I'm sure @cgates is doing a great job. I like that way of implementing it! How are people responding to being asked to draw?

[arthur-e]

One participant drew @cgates for the "competent Shell programmer." (=3) There was some confusion about Step 4 (as listed above)... Does Partner A compare Partner B's "competent Shell programmer" to his/her own self-portrait or to Partner B's self-portrait?

Definitely heard some participants, before anything started, marginalize their own abilities, jokingly or otherwise (e.g., "I'm just too old."). After the exercise, people seemed to be more confident.

[marschmi]

@michberr and I will be co-teaching the upcoming SWC workshop in the Department of Human Genetics on October 19 and 20th. I am wondering, are there any exercises from the workshop in August that should be implemented again? Were the ideas that @ACharbonneau mentioned performed in the August workshop? If so, how did they go? Thoughts here would be appreciated!

[cgates]

We only did an abbreviated variation on the drawing exercise @ACharbonneau suggested; @arthur-e described the actual experience very well above.

I have to admit, that I was less comfortable facilitating these exercises than presenting the traditional SWC curriculum (and I was not practiced at the SWC curriculum to begin with). I think they worked well, but that exercise would have worked better with a followup at the end, and possibly with permission a posting of some of the "best-of" images to the etherpad at the conclusion of the workshop. I would invite feedback from @ACharbonneau, @arthur-e, and Shweta ([email protected]).

Good luck on upcoming workshop. Happy to chat if you have other questions.
cg

[ACharbonneau]

I'm not sure I have much to add. I think that the individuals in our course fell on a distribution where most of the people had a medium confidence level coming in, a few were quite experienced and confident, and a few were very inexperienced.

The two-thirds of the class that fell into the medium and upper confidence levels coming in seemed to either gain a bit more confidence, or at least maintain their incoming confidence level.

In my opinion, the third (or so) of individuals who came in feeling very inexperienced tended to have a different trajectory. They got a confidence boost at first, but they seemed to quickly become disheartened. One of the pitfalls of starting with "you too can become a competent programmer" is that it doesn't always capture the "with a lot of hard work" part of the process...so when learning doesn't turn out to be easy, it can all backfire. There were a few participants who would get a little behind and then just give up, and I heard them say lots of things like "I really am just too old for this" and "I just can't do this" throughout the course.

This isn't to say the stereotype threat bit wasn't good. Like @arthur-e mentioned, most people responded in the way you'd like. I just think it's important to make sure that when you're inspiring people to go outside their comfort zone, that you're also setting realistic expectations.