The science education community is deeply invested in growing the next generation of scientists. One way to do this is through evidence-based interventions that support the motivation and performance of students in introductory classes. The literature is replete with interdisciplinary research presenting such interventions. Unfortunately, the process of developing and evaluating pedagogical practices is not the same as the process required to scale those efforts into actual university classrooms. Efforts to spread the word about successful practices often move slowly, through relatively small personal and professional networks. We present a complementary proactive strategy designed to raise awareness of one exemplar intervention across a broad swath of U.S. biology faculty. Our 30-minute anonymous engagement (in three 10-minute asynchronous virtual sessions) resulted in this particular intervention being adopted in some form by more than 4 in 10 faculty who learned about it, reaching an estimated 7,500 students across the United States. We describe the three phases of our intervention adoption process, each informed by social psychology theories of persuasion and decision-making, and provide a detailed guide and ready-to-use resources to replicate the process using other evidence-based interventions ready for scale. © 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

What motivates faculty teaching gateway courses to consider adopting an evidence-based classroom intervention? In this nationally representative study of biology faculty members in the United States (N = 422), we used expectancy-value-cost theory to understand three convergent motivational processes the faculty members' underlying intentions to adopt an exemplar evidence-based classroom intervention: the utility value intervention (UVI). Although the faculty members perceived the intervention as valuable, self-reported intentions to implement it were degraded by concerns about costs and lower expectancies for successful implementation. Structural equation modeling revealed that the faculty members reporting lower intentions to adopt it tended to be White and to identify as male and had many years of teaching or were from a more research-focused university. These personal, departmental, and institutional factors mapped onto value, expectancies, and cost perceptions uniquely, showing that each process was a necessary but insufficient way to inspire intentions to adopt the UVI. Our findings suggest multifaceted, context-responsive appeals to support faculty member motivation to scale up adoption of evidence-based classroom interventions.

Objectives: Academia is grappling with how to address persistent underrepresentation and reduce inequities. With so many diversity-enhancing initiatives underway, some within the academic community might experience diversity fatigue, a construct we use to understand majority groups' feelings of weariness toward diversity efforts. Method: For our testing purposes, we focused on ethnic and minority underrepresentation, and collected data in four studies from 473 White American students and faculty. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and latent profile analysis, we develop and confirm the single factor structure of the final 6-item Diversity Fatigue scale. We measured associations with other established measures and examined the strength of the association between diversity fatigue and faculty's support for a diversity-enhancing intervention. Results: Results demonstrated scale reliability, convergent validity with system-justifying beliefs, and offer suggestive evidence of discriminant validity with inclusion concerns and implicit race-based associations. Although mean levels of diversity fatigue were low overall, diversity fatigue scores were related to concerns about the effort involved with diversity work and were significantly associated with faculty's motivation to adopt a diversity-enhancing classroom activity. Conclusions: Diversity fatigue in academia is a dampening in people's response to or enthusiasm for efforts that improve the experience of underrepresented people. This state experience is connected to system-justifying beliefs and is related to concerns about the effort required to do diversity interventions. Understanding and measuring this construct has implications for the psychology of intergroup relations, as well as practical implications for campus communities committed to diversity programs.

What goes into faculty decisions to adopt a classroom intervention that closes achievement gaps? We present a theoretical model for understanding possible resistance to and support for implementing and sustaining a diversity-enhancing classroom intervention. We propose, examine, and refine a diversity interventions-resistance to action model with four key inputs that help explain faculty's decision to implement (or not) an evidence-based intervention: 1) notice that underrepresentation is a problem, 2) interpret underrepresentation as needing immediate action, 3) assume responsibility, and 4) know how to help. Using an embedded mixed-methods design, we worked with a sample of 40 biology faculty from across the United States who participated in in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews and surveys. Survey results offer initial support for the model, showing that the inputs are associated with faculty's perceived value of and implementation intentions for a diversity-enhancing classroom intervention. Findings from qualitative narratives provide rich contextual information that illuminates how faculty think about diversity and classroom interventions. The diversity interventions-resistance to action model highlights the explicit role of faculty as systemic gatekeepers in field-wide efforts to diversify biology education, and findings point to strategies for overcoming different aspects of faculty resistance in order to scale up diversity-enhancing classroom interventions.