Skip to main content

Research & Teaching

Intentionally Addressing Equity in the Classroom

An Initial Look at Inclusive Practices in Major and Nonmajor Courses in Biology and Geology

Journal of College Science Teaching—November/December 2022 (Volume 52, Issue 2)

By Jessica Kansman*, Makenzie E. Mabry*, Aaron Morrison*, Stephanie Rosbach*, and Marcelle A. Siegel

Equity, as we define it, means striving to serve the needs of others and enhancing belonging by focusing on “whole humans” in emotional, sociocultural, and personal contexts. Integrating equitable practices in STEM classrooms has advantages ranging from helping students grasp concepts to better fostering student transitions into STEM culture. Through class observations, teacher interviews, and open-ended student surveys, we explore differences in perceptions of equity between major and nonmajor biology and geology courses. We uncover several themes, including that students’ science identity may determine course enjoyment and that students have a variable understanding of equity. Professors acknowledge the need for equitable practices but face challenges when implementing them, especially when their teaching is perceived as undervalued in the promotion and tenure process. We provide practical applications for instructors to incorporate equity into their classrooms. Our observations highlight the importance of recognizing students’ identities, intentionally discussing inclusive practices with students to promote equity, and designing lessons to meet the needs of a diverse classroom, regardless of the perceived diversity that exists. We argue that if universities value equitable instructional practices, they must increase the weight of teaching in the tenure and promotion process and provide support for faculty to incorporate equitable teaching methodologies.


Equity is critical for education and effective teaching in science courses (Boykin & Noguera, 2011; Hurtado et al., 2011). Students of color, first-generation college students, adults, international students, part-time students, transfer students, and students from low-income families now make up the “new majority” of students attending universities (Schneider, 2005). This population has historically been excluded from higher education (Schneider, 2005), and many universities have a long way to go to begin supporting these new majority students with equitable instruction. Traditional instructional systems are driven largely by a deficit understanding of new majority students—that is, a view that these students are less capable or disadvantaged, rather than valuing the critical contributions of a diverse student population. This view tends to further marginalize and limit the educational opportunities of such students (DiGiacomo & Gutiérrez, 2017; Valenzuela, 1999).

While the new majority numbers increase in higher education, many are less likely to complete college. Black, Native American, and Latinx students have lower completion rates, and only 9% of students in the lowest income quartile complete college by age 24 (Witham et al., 2015). Why do less than 50% of students intending to earn a bachelor’s degree in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) complete the degree (Eagan et al., 2014; National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017)? Ongoing research has demonstrated that pedagogical changes are one of the most effective mechanisms for altering these patterns (Tsui, 2007), yet STEM instructors receive little professional development in pedagogy, let alone in equitable teaching practices.

While the policies and structures at universities are important to consider when studying equity, we focus on classroom practices in this article. Both professors and students were included in this multidisciplinary study because targeting these groups is vital to enhancing equitable instruction. We focused on students’ science identity—view of self as a “science-type” person—because science identity is linked to student retention in the research literature (e.g., Hurtado et al., 2010; Morton & Parsons, 2018). It is important to include multiple data sets in this work, such as personal attitudes (of both students and professors) and the pedagogy and practice of professors, as well as an understanding of students’ backgrounds and perceptions or misperceptions, to aid in revealing the structures that inhibit equity (Hurtado et al., 2011). Research has shown ways that culturally relevant pedagogies can create more equitable learning for new majority students (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Although many definitions exist for defining equity (Figure 1), we view equitable instruction as building on this work of Ladson-Billings (1995) to serve the needs of all students and enhance belonging (Al-Issa, 2004; Rosser, 1998); develop science identities (Carlone et al., 2011; Carlone & Johnson, 2007); and focus on “whole humans” in emotional, sociocultural, and personal contexts (Fong & Siegel, 2005; Lee, 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). Acknowledging and accommodating students as people rests at the center of critical and culturally relevant science pedagogy. This can help show students that science is relevant to their daily lives and is open for them as a potential career path (Barton & Tan, 2009; Horowitz et al., 2018; Hurtado et al., 2010).

Figure 1

Perspectives on equity.

It has been difficult to come to a consensus on a definition of equitable teaching in the field of education because the concept is multifaceted, requiring an understanding of both historical context and innovative teaching to meet the needs of all students. Here are several perspectives on equity to consider: 

  • “The concept of equity encompasses many specific components … both the conditions of learning as well as the outcomes.” (Gutstein et al., 2005, p. 93)
  • “Equity does not mean equality, and that equity requires that public institutions, recognizing present and past inequities, contribute to rectifying the economic and social inequalities and injustices of today.” (Gutiérrez, 2002, paraphrased in Gutstein et al., 2005, pp. 93–94)
  • “Consistency in the quality of existing services delivered to groups and individuals,” and “examination of whether policies and programs have the same impact for all groups and individuals served.” (Svara & Brunet, 2004, pp. 101–102)
  • “To become more culturally competent, educators must, at minimum: (1) engage in critical self-examination ... (2) acquire and use accurate information about culturally diverse groups ...(3) learn how to infuse multicultural perspectives and materials into curriculum and instruction ... and (4) build partnerships with diverse families, communities, and organizations.” (Ford & Harmon, 2001, p. 144)
  • “Equity/inequity are related not only to equality/inequality, but also to value judgments about the presence (or absence) of systematic, but remediable, differences among population groups in terms of distribution of opportunities and resources as well as experiences and outcomes. With the former, the valence of the terms is primarily about sameness (equality) or difference (inequality), while with the latter, the valence of the terms has primarily to do with fairness and justice (equity) or unfairness and injustice (inequity).” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016, p. 69)

To begin to assess equity in the classroom, we looked at introductory biology and geology courses that have corresponding major-specific sections. This helped us highlight equitable practices across disciplines and between major and nonmajor courses. We were interested in how equity is considered in a classroom setting from the perspectives of students and professors. This included practices that were already being used in the classrooms to improve equity, how these are different between disciplines, and what strategies can be used to improve equity in other science courses.


Research setting

We observed four classes: a biology nonmajor course, a geology nonmajor course, a biology major course, and a geology major course. The professors of these courses included one full tenured professor, two tenure-track assistant professors (one of whom was teaching the course for the first time), and one non-tenure-track teaching professor. Each of these professors organized and developed the course in which they taught. During our multiphase project, we combined qualitative methods from classroom observations, interviews with professors, and student surveys. The research was conducted after Institutional Review Board approval.

Class observations

Observations were used to highlight practical methods directed at improving equity. At least two authors attended a single, midsemester class section from each course to observe the classroom environment. Observation criteria included the following categories that all researchers recorded notes on: students’ behavior and engagement, activities done in class, faculty-student interactions, and the resources utilized for instruction.

Professor interviews

After the class observations, we interviewed each professor for approximately 60 minutes to learn their perspectives and pedagogy. We asked them questions designed to develop a deeper understanding of their teaching philosophies and how equity played a role in their course (Table 1). At least two authors were present for each interview.

Student surveys 

Open-ended surveys were designed to identify trends in the perspectives of students in each course. Student surveys were distributed after observations were made for each class. We used Google Forms to disseminate the surveys to the professors who were responsible for emailing the link to the students. We let the students respond over the course of 2 weeks before assessing the results. We ordered the survey questions in such a way that the students were prompted to reflect on their identities first before thinking about equity in the classroom (Figure 2). To avoid limiting students in how they identified or in their perceptions of equity, we designed all survey questions as free response. When asked about equity, students were provided a simplified definition that was intended for those who were less familiar with the concepts surrounding equity: “Equity is an educational focus on teaching styles that addresses the needs of all students in a class with a variety of backgrounds, ages, educational experience, gender, ethnicity, ableness, etc. Note: This is different from equality, the idea of sameness.” Questions about equity and resources were left open ended intentionally to allow students to explore these concepts themselves without bias. To test if there was a correlation between student identity as a STEM person and the student’s enjoyment of the course, we performed a Fisher’s exact test (ɑ = 0.05; Fisher, 1954) for each course.

Figure 2

Student responses to survey question “What do you think about equity in your classroom?”

1. Equity as availability of resources: Students focused on equity in terms of resource availability, especially as those resources provided by professors or universities related to ableness.

  • “I think most of the classes I’ve taken have been geared towards equitable practices, the resources for them are usually available for pretty cheap and everybody has an equal opportunity to do well.” (white, male, depressed, dependent; geology nonmajor class)
  • “I think that the equity in the classroom is not a problem at all. My instructor has the microphone on loud enough to where people in the back can hear [them].” (white, female; biology nonmajor class)
  • “Equity seems to be intact but flawed. I have missed class on an occasion due to a mental illness and there was nothing I could do to make those points back up.” (white, nonbinary, physically/mentally disabled; biology nonmajor course)

2. Responsibility of equity: Students believed it was their responsibility to curate an equitable classroom environment.

  • “I believe equity can be achieved when needed in the classroom through connections with the disability center. If a student does not express a need for a resource, it will not be given automatically.” (Native American and white, female, diagnosed anxiety, lower middle class; biology major class)
  • “Everybody is given the same opportunity to learn in life. It’s the work that will separate good students from mediocre students. So, the equity of our classroom is prime and [professor] is very good at checking for understanding during class and leaves the rest up to the student to relearn a subject if they do not understand the topic immediately.” (white, male, able, middle class; biology major class)
  • “I believe that it doesn’t completely reach equity, but I don’t see how in a classroom this big, one professor could teach in a way that addresses everyone and their needs.” (Hispanic, female, diagnosed anxiety, lower middle class; biology major class)

3. Race/gender bias in identifying equitable instruction: Students believed the class was equitable, but thought that they couldn’t speak out because they were not from an underrepresented group.

  • “This class seems to have equity to me, but I don’t think I’m the best judge of this.” (white, female, mental health issues, upper middle class; biology nonmajor class)
  • “As a white male, I have not faced any type of unfair treatment in the classroom, but I cannot speak for members of other [racial backgrounds] or genders.” (white, male, upper middle class; geology nonmajor class)
  • “I feel that the equity in our classroom is not perfect, but it is as good as it is likely to get. But I know that I am in the majority so it is likely my opinion is extremely inherently bias[ed].” (white, female, able; biology major class)

Note. Several themes in student responses emerged, and example responses are included in the figure. The full data set of student responses is available in the Online Appendix.

Student identity and engagement in major versus nonmajor courses

One pattern from the students’ responses in the surveys was the correlation between student identity as a “science type (STEM) person” and their enjoyment of the corresponding course. For both the nonmajor biology and geology courses, we recovered a P value of 1.0 from the Fisher’s exact test, meaning that students may or may not identify as a STEM person and still like the class. However, for the biology major course, we recovered a P value of 0.056, meaning students who identify as a STEM person like the course and students who do not identify as STEM do not like the course. Although we could not perform a Fisher’s exact test for the geology major course (due to sample size), all five students who responded to the survey identified as STEM and liked the course. With several studies showing that science identity influences science persistence (Hazari et al., 2013; Hughes, 2012; Olitsky, 2007), identifying techniques to help make science more appealing, even to those who don’t immediately identify as STEM, is necessary. For example, in the biology nonmajor course, which was a flipped classroom, the professor utilized several teaching strategies to encourage student participation through inquiry. These techniques included a short lecture with iClicker responses, as well as an in-class assignment based on reading a newspaper article, answering questions on a worksheet, and sharing responses using a wireless microphone (e.g., Catchbox). The geology nonmajor course was more of a traditional lecture-based class; however, the professor provided a variety of examples to back up each topic. They lectured from the front of the room using different types of visuals on lecture slides, the chalkboard, and a large map on the wall. The professor was very approachable and complimented students when they asked questions. Both of the courses for majors were traditional lecture-based classes with many open questions to gauge student understanding. From observations made, students seemed engaged and responded to questions posed by the professors. Although patterns revealed by the student surveys show that students who declare STEM majors more readily identify as STEM students, we still highlight the success of nonmajor courses in engaging students who do not idenify as STEM students. This is an important aspect that should be fostered in order to improve the accessibility of science fields to those who may not have initially thought they would be welcomed.

Professors’ and students’ perspectives on equity

Professors’ comfort level with discussing and utilizing equitable techniques seems to stem from their previous training in education (interviews summarized in Table 3). The non-tenure-track professor with a full teaching appointment seemed the most knowledgeable about equity, having an open dialogue on equity with the students at the start of each semester. Although professors are typically aware of the need for equitable practices, some seem to lack a clear idea of concrete ways to do this. One professor commented that they struggle to get underrepresented groups (broadly defined) and non-underrepresented groups to intermingle. Another professor expressed concern with the unknown inequity (i.e., inequity that has not been identified and is left unaddressed). One professor even noted that equity was not something that they had been forced to consider directly. 

Students have a more wide-ranging sense of equity in the classroom, with some students exhibiting a thorough understanding and others showing minimal understanding (see Online Appendix). By keeping the questions open ended, we allowed students to interpret the questions in their own way, resulting in varied replies that ranged from informed, lengthy responses to a single emoji (e.g., 👌; intention unknown). This suggests some students may lack understanding of the concept, did not wish to share opinions or feelings, or did not have enough motivation to complete the survey in detail. The students who provided more thoughtful responses tended to be from underrepresented groups (e.g., students from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds or students with a physical or mental disability). Collectively, of the 89 responses, several themes were identified as commonalities between all courses. Typically, students thought that (i) equity only concerned the availability of resources; (ii) they were responsible for creating equity; and (iii) they were not able to identify what is equitable, due to their gender or race (Table 5). Within these themes, however, no relationships were obvious between students’ identities and their responses. For example, responses showed no pattern between students who identified as able versus disabled, male versus female versus nonbinary, and so on (possibly limited by sample size). In some responses, students highlighted the disability services center as a resource but acknowledged that they must advocate for themselves. A higher proportion of students from the biology nonmajors course had more thorough responses to the survey questions on equity in the classroom. This is the same course in which the professor began the semester by discussing equity with the students, suggesting that this discussion was successful in engaging students to think about equity in the classroom despite being a large lecture. While equity was still valued and considered important in the geology courses, the classes were composed of a less diverse population of students than the biology courses. This, again, could be due to the sample size available (Figure 3). However, the geology major course professor pointed out that equity discussions within a field are sometimes dependent on the diversity of that scientific community. While geology has improved with regard to gender diversity, the racial composition of the field is still fairly homogenous.

When asked about their racial, economic, gender, and ableness identities, student responses were clear, with the exception of ableness (Figure 3). Responses to S4 (Table 2) include “Able, though I do have anxiety” or “Physically able, some struggles with mental illness,” suggesting a disassociation of ableness with the challenges of mental health. The biology nonmajor professor gave an extreme example of a student who filled out a Scantron in pen because their pencil broke. They could not bring themselves to ask other students, the proctors, or the professor for a replacement, which ultimately impacted their success. These examples demonstrate that students may be diverse in ways that are not readily apparent or visible, such as their gender identity, ableness, mental health, economic status, or other ways that have yet to be identified. As the biology major professor pointed out, equitable practices also have to address aspects of student identity that are currently invisible, unseen, or unknown. This challenge is further complicated by confusion surrounding the concept of equity (Figure 1), what it is, and how to be equitable. From the professor interviews and student surveys, it is clear how much perceptions of equity deviate between individuals and can influence instructional choices. The biology nonmajors’ professor identified trying to use an overarching view of inclusion and equity in course development by incorporating several strategies. This included group and class discussions and recording lectures for English as a second language (ESL) and hearing-impaired students (also done by the geology nonmajor professor). However, this professor also stated that inclusive practices can exclude other students with social anxiety or discourage class attendance, identifying how equitable teaching practices can be flawed themselves. The geology nonmajor professor’s view of equity focused on students’ ableness and economic status. The professor specifically mentioned contemplating ways to make field trips more accessible for disabled students, which has historically not been the case for geology courses (see additional vignettes in Table 3). The biology major professor’s main equity concerns were differences in students’ prior science education and determining barriers that have yet to be identified. This professor provides out-of-class opportunities for students to seek additional assistance to try to accommodate as many student needs as possible, which becomes exponentially more difficult as class size increases. Deciding which teaching strategies best benefit the varying backgrounds and struggles of students can be difficult, especially given the confusion surrounding our current understanding of equity. 

Figure 3
Self-identified demographics of students in each course.

Self-identified demographics of students in each course.

Note. These data come from the survey given to each class and only reflect the students who self-selected to participate, not the classes as a whole. Survey questions were free-response format with no drop-down options. Total responses to surveys from each class were as follows: 49/347 for the biology nonmajor course, 17/120 for the geology nonmajor course, 18/298 for the biology major course, and 5/9 for the geology major course.

Practical applications

Assisting students in cultural border crossings in STEM classrooms

As instructors of diverse groups of students, teachers assist students in “cultural border crossings,” taking into consideration students’ classroom experiences combined with their cultural perspective and identity (Cobern & Aikenhead, 1997). Students’ identity is relevant to their learning and can be used to engage them in learning science (Fong & Siegel, 2005; Tatum, 2000). In another sense, student identity as a “STEM” or “science-type” person has been important in social science research on student retention in the sciences (Hurtado et al., 2010) and especially critical for underrepresented groups within science (Hazari et al., 2013). In this study, we identified that in classes for majors, there was a direct correlation between students’ enjoyment of the course and their identity as a STEM student. However, the same was not true for classes of nonmajors, with students liking the course regardless of their STEM identity. Several practices can be integrated to demonstrate that diverse identities are valued in the classroom. One observed practice was starting the semester by asking students to share their concerns regarding the class and something interesting about themselves, prompting students to provide information about their identity. Creating flexible assignments and exploring other types of culturally relevant pedagogy are ways to facilitate engagement with diverse groups of students (Horowitz et al., 2018). Using students’ real-life experiences or cultural backgrounds to connect with disciplinary content can show students that instructors value them and their diverse experiences (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Allowing students to have input on the material covered in the course, such as suggestions of literature assigned, is another method that gives students agency over the material (Sleeter, 2016). We list additional strategies and tips with resources for setting up an equitable classroom in Table 4

Intentionally discussing equity in the classroom

Although many definitions exist for equity (Figure 1), one of the most powerful strategies we observed was simply addressing equity from the first day of class. Across all of the classrooms included in this study, an overwhelming majority of students seemed unfamiliar with what equitable teaching practices look like and how it may impact their success as students. As instructors, this is a great place to start. Acknowledging the cultural wealth students bring to the classroom signals to diverse students that this will not be another class that operates from a deficit perspective. By beginning the course discussing this topic, instructors can demonstrate to all students that they are aware and ready to address issues of equity and inclusiveness. As the course develops, it is the responsibility of the instructor to be conscious and self-reflective in their use of equitable practices (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Shadiow, 2010). By understanding the lens with which one observes the world and being critical of prior assumptions, one can more effectively engage with critiques of their teaching practices and make lessons more equitable.

Incorporating equitable practices in the classroom

Our experience with gathering student and faculty views on equity prompted us to ask, “Do classrooms incorporate more equitable practices because of their student diversity, or do equitable practices draw in a more diverse student population?” We suggest that instructors start including equitable teaching methods into courses regardless of the current class demographics. The structure of the class will then be predesigned to work for a diverse classroom. This is a preferable choice because, as discussed earlier, not all diversity is visible or known. Oftentimes, students forgo getting accommodations to avoid the stigma of needing additional help (Kranke et al., 2013; Reutlinger, 2015). Therefore, by creating an equitable classroom, instructors can account for visible and invisible, known and unknown, present and future diversity while embedding practices that lessen the “othering” of students who require accommodations.

Teaching strategies and resources suggested by students (Table 5) to make classes more equitable include utilizing online recording and file distribution systems (e.g., Tegrity, Blackboard, D2L), posting lecture slides, offering additional homework options, using two-stage testing (where students have the chance to revise their exam responses), and reducing costs or using open educational resources. However, student suggestions tend to be teacher centered. Instructors need to go beyond these recommendations to incorporate student-centered instruction, which is shown to be more engaging and effective for learning (e.g., Borda et al., 2017; Chaplin, 2009; Kamen & Leri, 2019; Wright, 2011; Table 4). Instructors should promote a supportive classroom community, incorporate team-building activities, and foster peer support and review as a way of centering student success in the classroom (Hurtado et al., 2011; Shadiow, 2010). Equitable practices also include assessment policies that promote peer collaboration instead of competition. Assessment should include clear criteria that are shared, modeled, and practiced with students, if not developed by the students themselves (Siegel, Halverson et al., 2011; Dorimé-Williams, 2018). Providing multiple opportunities to use both instructor and peer feedback to revise and resubmit work for evaluation that has clear criteria is another recommended practice for equitable assessment (Siegel et al., 2011). Additionally, further studies with a broader depth are warranted to assess the outcomes of incorporating suggested practices on retention in STEM and improved learning.

The variety of observed teaching practices may be linked to the career stage of the professors. Both geology professors are “early career” and have not had the same amount of time to hone their teaching practices. One professor admitted not having needed to think about equity until this position. Another reason for these differences may be a result of the departmental structure. Biology is a much larger department than geology, and non-tenure-track teaching professors in biology can focus on developing equitable teaching strategies. Geology has no such positions, and all faculty must balance teaching with research and service. This challenge is also exacerbated by the fact that, from faculty perspectives, teaching is less valued by academia when considering promotion and tenure (Green, 2008; Gardner & Veliz, 2014). Research faculty are mainly evaluated on research productivity through grants, publications, and other materials and often have little to no training in how to teach. Teaching faculty are evaluated on their teaching and typically have additional training and time to provide more equitable environments for students. Therefore, we feel teaching faculty members are critical and underappreciated (and likely underpaid) as resources in helping departments develop more equitable courses.

Valuing teaching

The trend of higher research productivity and devalued teaching has been occurring throughout the 21st century (Green, 2008). This trend is systemic and must reverse in order for meaningful change to occur. We recognize that such an undertaking is difficult at every level, demanding time and energy that are already in short supply. To accomplish the suggestions laid out in the previous sections, universities and colleges will need to support professors in providing both opportunities and support for training, professional development, and the hiring of additional teaching-focused faculty with competitive pay and tenure options. Incorporating the strategies mentioned in this article will take time and effort on the part of the faculty members (i.e., time taken away from research). If a move toward more equity in the classroom is going to happen, then it should be explicitly stated at the university, department, and promotion and tenure committee levels that this is an expected, valued, and acceptable use of a faculty member’s time. We are not suggesting that universities no longer focus on scholarship or maintaining high levels of research output. However, what we are suggesting is that universities reevaluate their expectations of faculty members engaged in those activities. Is having a more inclusive and equitable student environment worth the reduction in research output? If not, can the teaching and research responsibilities be shared to maintain fidelity on both fronts? These questions need to be grappled with by institutions at the highest levels in order to effect change.


In this study, we have demonstrated that students’ understanding of equity is more robust when instructors intentionally address it in the classroom. Many students associated equitable teaching with resource availability or ableness, perhaps unaware that equitable instruction could also be used to benefit students struggling with anxiety and other mental health challenges in addition to creating more inclusive environments for underrepresented groups. However, implementing equitable teaching structures can be challenging for professors due to intense research demands and the lack of time for training and resources available to them. Equity is a complex issue that reaches far beyond just the classroom. More in-depth studies should be undertaken to better understand how equity is defined and perceived for different groups and how higher education can foster environments where the population can come to an agreed-upon understanding of what equity means and how to move closer to it.


We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Dr. Christopher Slaten, all of whom helped us greatly improve the original manuscript. We thank the four professors who let us sit in their courses for observations, met us for interviews, and helped us send surveys to their students. They were instrumental in this study process, and we are grateful for their willingness to participate. We also thank our University of Missouri college science teaching classmates for thought-provoking discussions and support of our ideas. Lastly, we thank Dr. Terrell Morton for the advice on project design and assistance with data interpretation.

*These authors contributed equally.

Jessica Kansman ( is a doctoral student in the Division of Plant Sciences, Makenzie E. Mabry ( is a doctoral student in the Biological Science Department, Aaron Morrison ( is a doctoral student in the Department of Geological Sciences, Stephanie Rosbach ( is a doctoral student in the Department of Geological Sciences, and Marcelle A. Siegel ( is a professor in the Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum and the Department of Biochemistry, all at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.


Al-Issa, A. (2004). Global nomads and the search for cultural identity tips from the classroom. College Teaching, 52(1), 31–32.

Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.

Berry, T., Cook, L., Hill, N. T., & Stevens, K. T. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching, 59(1), 31–39.

Borda, E. J., Boudreaux, A., Fackler-Adams, B., Frazey, P., Julin, S., Pennington, G., & Ogle, J. (2017). Adapting a student-centered chemistry curriculum to a large-enrollment context: Successes and challenges. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(5), 8–13.

Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. ASCD Press. 

Carlone, H. B., Haun-Frank, J., & Webb, A. (2011). Assessing equity beyond knowledge- and skills-based outcomes: A comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 459–485.

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.

Chaplin, S. (2009). Assessment of the impact of case studies on student learning gains in an introductory biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(1), 72–79.

Cobern, W. W., & Aikenhead, G. (1997, March 21–24). Cultural aspects of learning science [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL, United States.

Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center? Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 67–78.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources, and student achievement. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1(2), 213–246.

DiGiacomo, D. K., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2017). Seven chilis: Making visible the complexities in leveraging cultural repertoires of practice in a designed teaching and learning environment. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(1), 41–57.

Dorimé-Williams, M. (2018). Developing socially just practices and policies in assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 177, 41–56.

Eagan, K., Hurtado, S., Figueroa, T., & Hughes, B. (2014). Examining STEM pathways among students who begin college at four-year institutions. National Academy of Sciences.

Fisher, R. A. (1954). Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd.

Fong, S. R., & Siegel, M. A. (2005). Teaching well: Science teachers’ investigation and use of student sociocultural background. In D. M. McInerney & S. van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 5, pp. 101–128). Information Age Publishing.

Ford, D. Y., & Harmon, D. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 141–147.

Gardner, S. K., & Veliz, D. (2014). Evincing the ratchet: A thematic analysis of the promotion and tenure guidelines at a striving university. The Review of Higher Education, 38(1), 105–132.

Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 181–186. 

Green, R. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: The relative importance of teaching, scholarship, and service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 117–128.

Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 145–187. 

Gutstein, E., Fey, J. T., Heid, M. K., DeLoach-Johnson, I., Middleton, J. A., Larson, M., Dougherty, B., & Tunis, H. (2005). Equity in school mathematics education: How can research contribute? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 92–100.

Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 82–91. 

Horowitz, G., Domzalski, A. C., & Elizalde-Utnick, G. (2018). Can we teach science in a more culturally responsive way without sacrificing time or content? Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(6), 8–10.

Hughes, R. (2012). Gender conception and the chilly road to female undergraduates’ persistence in science and engineering fields. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(3), 215–234.

Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553–579.

Hurtado, S., Newman, C. B., Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J. (2010). Improving the rate of success for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project. New Directions for Institutional Research, 148, 5–15.

Kamen, E. & Leri, A. (2019). Promoting STEM persistence through an innovative field trip-based first-year experience course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(2), 24–31.

Kranke, D., Jackson, S. E., Taylor, D. A., Anderson-Fye, E., & Floersch, J. (2013). College student disclosure of non-apparent disabilities to receive classroom accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(1), 35–51.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

Lee, J. D. (2002). More than ability: Gender and personal relationships influence science and technology involvement. Sociology of Education, 75(4), 349–373.

Martin, M. T., Belikov, O. M., Hilton III, J., Wiley, D., & L. Fischer. (2017). Analysis of student and faculty perceptions of textbook costs in higher education. Open Praxis, 9(1), 79–91.

Montgomery, K. (2002). Authentic tasks and rubrics: Going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching. College Teaching, 50(1), 34–40.

Morton, T. R., & Parsons, E. C. (2018). #BlackGirlMagic: The identity conceptualization of Black women in undergraduate STEM education. Science Education, 102(6), 1363–1393.

National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways. The National Academies Press.

Olitsky, S. (2007). Facilitating identity formation, group membership, and learning in science classrooms: What can be learned from out-of-field teaching in an urban school? Science Education, 91(2), 201–221.

Panke, S. (2011). An expert survey on the barriers and enablers of open educational practices. eLearning Papers, 23.

Reutlinger, C. J. (2015). The ableist Othering of disability in the classroom: An experiential investigation of academic adjustments in higher education [Master’s thesis]. Kansas State University.

Robinson, T. J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. (2014). The impact of open textbooks on secondary science learning outcomes. Educational Researcher, 43(7), 341–351.

Rosser, S. V. (1998). Group work in science, engineering, and mathematics: Consequences of ignoring gender and race. College Teaching, 46(3), 82–88.

Russo, A., & Warren, S. H. (1999). Collaborative test taking. College Teaching, 47(1), 18–21.

Schneider, C. G. (2005, Spring). Making excellence inclusive: Liberal education & America’s promise. Liberal Education.

Shadiow, L. K. (2010). Classroom interactions: Constructing a room with a view. College Teaching, 58(2), 58–61.

Siegel, M. A., Halverson, K. L., Freyermuth, S. K., & Clark, C. G. (2011). Beyond grading: A series of rubrics for science learning. The Science Teacher, 78(1), 28–33.

Siegel, M. A., Roberts, T. M., Freyermuth, S. K., Witzig, S. B., & Izci, K. (2015). Aligning assessment to instruction: Collaborative group testing in large-enrollment science classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 75–82.

Sleeter, C. E. (2016). Learning to work while white to challenge racism in higher education. In Joseph, N. M., Haynes, C., & Cobb, F. (Eds), Interrogating whiteness and relinquishing power: White faculty’s commitment to racial consciousness in STEM Classrooms (pp. 13–26). Peter Lang. 

Svara, J. H., & Brunet, J. R. (2004). Filling in the skeletal pillar: Addressing social equity in introductory courses in public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(2), 99–109.

Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322–331. 

Tatum, B. D. (2000). The complexity of identity: “Who am I?” In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, H. W. Hackman, X. Zuniga, & M. L. Peters (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, classism and ableism (pp. 9–14). Routledge.

Tsui, L. (2007). Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of the research literature. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(4), 555–581.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press.

Willems, J., & Bossu, C. (2012). Equity considerations for open educational resources in the glocalization of education. Distance Education, 33(2), 185–199.

Witham, K., Malcom-Piqueux, L. E., Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). America’s unmet promise: The imperative for equity in higher education. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92–97.

Advocacy Equity Inclusion Teacher Preparation Teaching Strategies Postsecondary

Asset 2