Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education: Supporting Equitable and Effective Teaching (2025)
Chapter: Front Matter
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Gates Foundation (INV-045634), the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (092622), the National Academy of Sciences W. K. Kellogg Foundation Fund, and the National Science Foundation (Award 2309335). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72998-7
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/28268
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025936436
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.
The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.
Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education: Supporting Equitable and Effective Teaching. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28268.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN UNDERGRADUATE STEM EDUCATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONS, EDUCATORS, AND DISCIPLINES
ARCHIE HOLMES (Chair), Professor, Chandra Family Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin; and Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, The University of Texas System
TRACIE ADDY, Founding Director of the Institute for Teaching, Innovation, & Inclusive Pedagogy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick
HILLARY BARRON, Assistant Professor of Biology, Bemidji State University
WILLIAM CLEMONS, Hanisch Memorial Professor of Biochemistry, Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Caltech1
MICHAEL DENNIN, Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning; Dean, Division of Undergraduate Education; Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine
ERIN DORAN, Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Foundations, University of Texas, El Paso
ANNE EGGER, Professor, Geological Sciences, Science and Mathematics Education, Central Washington University; and Executive Director, National Association of Geoscience Teachers
MARCO MOLINARO, Executive Director for Educational Effectiveness and Analytics, University of Maryland, College Park
MARY MURPHY, Herman B. Wells Endowed Professor, Indiana University
JOSEPHINE PINO, Instructor of Biology, Portland Community College
MELONIE SEXTON, Professor of Psychology and Undergraduate Research Coordinator, Valencia College
ELLI THEOBALD, Assistant Professor of Biology, University of Washington
CRISTINA VILLALOBOS, Myles and Sylvia Aaronson Endowed Professor, School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences; Interim Dean of the Honors College, and Founding Director, Center of Excellence in STEM Education, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
GABRIELA WEAVER, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research, University of Massachusetts System; and Professor of Chemistry, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
___________________
1 Resigned July 2024.
JOHN WILLIAMS, Associate Professor of Biology, and Chair, Department of Natural Sciences, Albany State University
SEAN YEE, Associate Professor of Mathematics Education, Co-Director of the Center for Science Education, University of South Carolina
Study Staff
KERRY BRENNER, Study Director
JANET GAO, Program Officer
LUCY OLIVEROS, Senior Project Assistant
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Board Director
BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
SUSAN R. SINGER (Chair), President, St. Olaf College
SUE ALLEN, Co-Director, Clean Conferencing Institute
MEGAN BANG, Learning Sciences, Northwestern University
VICKI L. CHANDLER, Provost, Minerva University
KIRSTEN ELLENBOGEN, President and CEO, Great Lakes Science Center
MAYA M. GARCIA, Chief Program Officer, Beyond100K
DAVID GOLDSTON, Director, MIT Washington Office
G. PETER LEPAGE, Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Cornell University
WILLIAM PENUEL, School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder
STEPHEN L. PRUITT, President, Southern Regional Education Board
K. RENAE PULLEN, K–6 Science Curriculum Instructional Specialist, Caddo Parish Schools, Louisiana
K. ANN RENNINGER, Social Theory and Social Action, Swarthmore College
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, Chancellor (Retired), Los Angeles Community College District
MARCY H. TOWNS, Bodner-Honig Professor of Chemistry, Purdue University
DARRYL N. WILLIAMS, Senior Vice President, Science and Education, The Franklin Institute
Staff
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director
This page intentionally left blank.
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by MELANIE COOPER, Michigan State University, and ANA P. BARROS, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This project also included a discussion draft released in fall 2023 to share an initial proposal for the principles of equitable and effective teaching in order to solicit public input. We thank MELANIE COOPER for overseeing that review and the following reviewers of that discussion draft for their helpful input during our study process:
Acknowledgments
The Committee thanks the sponsors of the study, the Gates Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the National Science Foundation, for providing the funding for this important project on equitable and effective teaching of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
Commissioned papers provided great insights into several of the topics of the study. The committee gratefully acknowledges the work of Leslie Gonzales (University of Arizona) and Dawn Culpepper’s (University of Maryland) A Framework for Change Agents: Fostering Equity-Minded Change within and across STEM Teaching and Learning Contexts; Xueli Wang’s (University of Wisconsin-Madison) Paving Community College Student Pathways for Equitable STEM Education; Michael Brown’s (University of Michigan) Toxic Combinations, Content Repetition, and Delayed Momentum: Conceptualizing the Emerging Evidence on Curricular Complexity in Four-Year Institutions as Influence on Equitable and Effective Teaching in Undergraduate STEM Education; Melissa Vito (The University of Texas at San Antonio), Marcela Ramirez (The University of Texas at San Antonio), and Angela Gunder’s (University of Arizona) Bridging Innovation and Access: Academic Innovation to Advance Student Success in Undergraduate STEM Education; Milagros Castillo-Montoya (University of Connecticut), Bryan M. Dewsbury (Florida International University), Corbin M. Campbell (American University), and Brian McGowan’s (American University) A Response to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Draft Report of Equitable and Effective Teaching. The committee thanks the above contributors for preparing the commissioned papers for this study.
We thank all those who asked questions and shared ideas at our public meetings and conference presentations. We are especially grateful to the invited experts who participated in our meetings, including Matthew Hora (University of Wisconsin-Madison); Michelle Smith (Cornell University); Daniel Reinholz (San Diego State University); Ruthmae Sears (University of South Florida); Jayme Dyer (Durham Technical Community College); Cassandra Horii (Stanford University); Corbin Campbell (American University); Brian McGowan (American University); Milagros Castillo-Montoya (University of Connecticut); Bryan Dewsbury (Florida International University); Ebony McGee (Johns Hopkins University); Luis Perez (CAST); Suzanne Wakim (Butte College); Carol Hurney (Colby College); Flower Darby (University of Missouri); Danny Caballero (Michigan State University); Nicole LaDue (Northern Illinois University); Jon-Marc Rodriguez (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee); Sarah Rodriguez (Virginia Tech); Tatiane Russo-Tait (University of Georgia); April Strom (Chandler-Gilbert Community College); Terrell Morton (University of Illinois, Chicago); Amber Simpson (Binghamton University); Greg Walton (Stanford University); Karen Vignare (Association of Public and Land Grant Universities); Angela Gunder (Online Learning Consortium); Muhammad Hossain (Claflin University); Jim DeKloe (Solano College); Kelly Neiles (St. Mary’s College of Maryland); Koari O’Connell (Oregon State University); Linda Powell (Community College of Philadelphia); Adam Fontecchio (Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning); Francine Glazer (New York Institute of Technology); Susan Bickerstaff (Teachers College, Columbia University); Alison Cook-Sather (Bryn Mawr College); Sarah Whitley (Center for First-Generation Student Success); Steve Dandaneau (Colorado State University and the Association of Undergraduate Education at Research Universities); Anne-Marie Núñez (The University of Texas, El Paso); Gita Bangera (Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities); Kemi Jona (University of Virginia); Asim Ali (Auburn University); Joseph Dumit (University of California, Davis); Amanda Holloman (University of Florida); Shandy Hauk (San Francisco State University); Hironao Okahana (American Council on Education); Darren Hoffmann (University of Iowa); Edward Watson (American Association of Colleges and Universities); Bennett Goldberg (Northwestern University); Sarah Hokanson (Boston University); Robin Greenler (University of Wisconsin, Madison); and Donald Gillian-Daniel (University of Wisconsin, Madison).
The Committee also wishes to extend our thanks to all who those who provided public input on the discussion draft through the online questionnaire, at our fifth committee meeting, at conference presentations, or by submitting written comments. The Committee thanks the reviewers listed in the previous section and also Carl Wieman (Stanford University)
for his very helpful input to the study. In addition, Gregory W. Pearson is appreciated for his assistance with writing and organizing the discussion draft, Heather Kreidler for assistance with fact checking, and Laura Yoder for amazing editing.
The Committee also wishes to extend its gratitude to the staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE) and in particular the Board on Science Education. They are especially grateful to Kirsten Sampson Snyder of the DBASSE staff for exemplary work in supervising the review of both the discussion draft and this final report.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
WHY DOES EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN STEM MATTER?
THE CHALLENGE OF ADVANCING EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING
INTERPRETING THE CHARGE AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY
Defining Equitable and Effective
Information Gathering and Use of Evidence
Developing a Framework and Guidance on Implementation
THE COMMITTEE’S VISION FOR EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE STEM EDUCATION
2 Institutional Context of Post-Secondary STEM Education
THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF LEARNERS
Inequities in STEM Degree Attainment and Workforce Participation
TODAY’S STEM LEARNING ECOSYSTEM
Institution Types and Enrollment Patterns
THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL WORKFORCE
The Impact of Funding on Higher Education Institutions
HISTORY CONTINUES TO INFLUENCE TODAY’S APPROACHES TO EDUCATION
Gradual Increases in Access to Higher Education
Systemic Inequities in Teaching and Learning Remain
3 Understanding Teaching, Learning, and Equity
LEARNING IS COMPLEX AND WELL STUDIED
Understanding Mastery and Mindset
ACTIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCES IMPROVE STUDENT UNDERSTANDING
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LEARNING IN THE STEM DISCIPLINES
Curricula and Course Combinations
Teaching and Learning in the Field
Learning and Technology: STEM Learning in a High-Tech World
PRACTICES COMMONLY USED TODAY CONTRIBUTE TO INEQUITIES IN STUDENT EXPERIENCES
Disciplinary and Institutional Norms
4 Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching of Undergraduate STEM Education
Principle 1: Students Need Opportunities to Actively Engage in Disciplinary Learning
Principle 3: STEM Learning Involves Affective and Social Dimensions
Principle 4: Identity and Sense of Belonging Shape STEM Teaching and Learning
Principle 5: Multiple Forms of Data Can Provide Evidence to Inform Improvement
Principle 7: Intentionality and Transparency Create More Equitable Opportunities
5 Using the Principles to Improve Learning Experiences
The Universal Design for Learning Framework
Designing Around Clear Learning Goals
Deepening Engagement in Disciplinary Knowledge and Work
Assessing Learning and Providing Feedback
CULTIVATING AN EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Reflecting on Your Own Assumptions
Creating a Sense of Community and Belonging
Empowering Students to Take Control of Their Own Learning
6 Role of Academic Units in Achieving Equitable and Effective Teaching
ACADEMIC UNITS AND THEIR ROLE IN EQUITABLE TEACHING
THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC AND DISCIPLINARY CULTURE IN SETTING EXPECTATIONS
FOCUS ON COURSE AND PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES
Designing Curricula That Prepare Students for Life and Work
Career and Technical Education Curricula Integrate Workforce Needs
CONSIDER CURRICULAR COMPLEXITY AND COHERENCE
Attending to Foundational Courses
Consider Student Experiences Taking Courses Across Multiple Academic Units
Measure Curricular Complexity to Understand Student Experiences
7 Student Pathways Through Undergraduate STEM Curricula
STUDENT MOTIVATION TO PURSUE STEM AND DEVELOPMENT OF STEM IDENTITY
TRANSITIONS FROM HIGH SCHOOL TO COLLEGE
Dual Enrollment Courses and Programs
Bridge and First-Year Support Programs
NAVIGATING PATHWAYS WITHIN COLLEGE
The Role of Teaching and Learning Environments
Career and Technical Education Programs
Experiences of Diverse Student Populations
8 Supporting Equitable and Effective Teaching Through Ongoing Professional Learning and Development
CURRENT NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
KEY TOPICS FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
Awareness of Beliefs, Values, and Positionalities Related to Teaching
TECHNOLOGY AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
COMMUNITY IS A KEY COMPONENT OF SUPPORTING STEM INSTRUCTORS
Community in the Education Literature
Lessons Learned from the Preparation of Future K–12 Teachers
Methods for Delivering Professional Learning and Development
Providers of Professional Learning and Development
Developing Instructor Identity
Considerations for Postdoctoral Scholars
Considerations for Undergraduate Learning Assistants
9 Role of the Institution in Creating Equitable and Effective Learning Environments
CULTIVATE A CULTURE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Understanding Theories of Organizational Change
CREATE STUDENT-READY INSTITUTIONS
Assess Resources and Infrastructure
Measuring Progress in Multiple Ways
Data Dashboards and Decision Making
Tools and Approaches Across the Instructional System
Different Approaches to Teaching Evaluation
10 Recommendations for Current Action and Future Research
TOWARD EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCES
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING INSTRUCTION AND COURSES
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VALUING AND SUPPORTING INSTRUCTORS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEASURING AND ADVANCING SYSTEM CHANGE
Actions for Institutional Leaders
Actions for Academic Unit Leaders
Toward Equitable and Effective Learning Experiences
Valuing and Supporting Instructors
Advancing and Measuring Systemic Change
Appendix A Public Comments on Draft Report and Committee Response
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
1-2 Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching
5-1 Approaches and Resources for Actively Engaging STEM Students in Learning
5-2 Encouraging Collaboration Through Peer-Led Team Learning
6-1 Using a Curriculum Matrix in the Geosciences
6-2 How Departmental Action Teams Advance Equity
7-1 Pathway Reform at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College
8-1 Supporting VITAL Educators
8-2 The Student Experience Project
8-3 Inclusive STEM Teaching Project
9-1 Moving Toward Equity via Course Redesign
9-2 Equity Dashboards at the University of California, Santa Barbara
9-3 Equity Dashboards at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
9-4 Equity Dashboards at California State University
9-5 Know Your Students at University of California, Davis
FIGURES
4-1 Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching in undergraduate STEM education
5-1 The Universal Design for Learning guidelines
6-1 Curriculum matrix sample for an undergraduate program in the geosciences
7-1 Chemistry prerequisite pathways for chemical engineering majors
9-1 Institutional context impacts interactions and student learning
9-2-1 Percentage of students enrolled each quarter who started in that department
9-2-2 Percentage of students enrolled each quarter who switched into that department
9-3-1 Performance on individual assignments
9-3-2 Data on DFW course grades across semesters
9-4-1 Disaggregated data on DFW course grades
9-4-2 Explanatory text in dashboards designed to guide instructors in interpreting data
9-5-1 Aggregate student demographics and academic data at the course level
9-2 Course taking across multiple STEM departments
TABLES
4-1 Instructional Practices Illustrating the Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching
5-1 Changes That Can Increase Teaching Strategies Focused on Student Learning
Preface
Improvement in post-secondary education will require converting teaching from a solo sport to a community-based research activity.
—Herb Simon
In August 1986, when I stepped onto the campus at the University of Texas at Austin to begin college, I would not have imagined the transformational experience that my studies in electrical engineering would afford me: a faculty career and my current role at the University of Texas System. While there are many factors that have enabled this, an important one was that I was fortunate to be able to successfully navigate the undergraduate curriculum and use it to build upon the talents, skills, and motivation I possessed. Being in the classroom as a faculty member made me realize that what I experienced in my educational journey was not widely experienced. There are many students who also have the talents, skills, and motivation (sometimes more than I had) to complete science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and are not well served by the status quo. For others, the STEM education they receive through general education, other curricular requirements, or personal interest does not provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to fully participate in an economy and society where science and technology will continue to play a critical role. This has serious implications for our economy and society, and we can and must do better.
For the past two years, I have had the honor of chairing the Committee on Equitable and Effective Teaching in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Framework for Institutions, Educators, and Disciplines. My esteemed
colleagues and I have been hard at work discussing how to change the status quo that dominates current undergraduate STEM education. Our approach, outlined in this report, features seven Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching in undergraduate STEM education. The Principles outlined draw from the research base on what has been demonstrated to lead improved equitable and effective teaching and learning. In order to fully impact the entire undergraduate STEM education ecosystem, we discussed how these Principles would be enacted given variations in modes of teaching (e.g., in-person, online, and hybrid), learning environments (e.g., the classroom, the laboratory, and the field), institutional contexts (e.g., two-year colleges, liberal arts colleges, and research universities), and across multiple levels of the system (e.g., individual instructors, academic units, and institutional leadership). We also contemplated the role that technology (e.g., artificial intelligence, virtual reality) does and will play in support of this effort.
Our development of the seven Principles greatly benefited from a public discussion of a draft of the Principles presented at a Committee meeting in December 2023. At that event, invited panelists and participants (both in-person and virtually) provided us with invaluable feedback which has helped the Committee refine its thinking and these Principles. We are incredibly grateful to those who were able to participate in that discussion and share their ideas.
Through its work, the Committee also recognized that the Principles alone cannot lead to the change needed. As the quotation from Herb Simon states at the beginning of this Preface, change must be a community-based activity. Everyone from instructors to administrators to external partners has an important role to play. To support this, the Committee also had discussions about the importance of institutional infrastructure, academic units and their leaders, and the policies and practices that define the environment in which undergraduate STEM education occurs.
I feel confident that these factors, along with the Principles, will help all institutions achieve equitable and effective teaching and learning for all students. Taken as a whole, this report, its Principles, and the Committee’s recommendations provide faculty, academic units, and institutions with a playbook that will help them be successful on this journey.
Probably like all committee chairs that have come before me (and those who will follow), I want to make sure that this report makes a difference. Given the time of this Committee’s report (early 2025), there are two challenges worth mentioning here. The first are the conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion (also known as DEI) in higher education. The evidence presented in this report makes the Committee’s position on this issue clear: effective and equitable teaching benefits all students and is intricately linked to excellence. While there are some who do benefit from
the status quo, implementation of this report will ensure that students who are currently underserved by higher education benefit as well. The benefits of this implementation do not go just to these students: more equitable learning environments benefit everyone. Given the current climate, there are instructors who are committed to serving all students but do not feel enabled to do this work. Success will require academic unit and institutional leaders along with external partners such as disciplinary organizations to be advocates for equity being a core value and the lens through which effective teaching is enabled.
The second challenge is related to the burnout felt by many in higher education. While much of the focus has been on the mental health of students (and rightly so), instructors and leaders in higher education are also experiencing the same and similar issues. The Committee and I acknowledge that integrating these Principles into learning environments and the policies and practices of academic units and institutions is not easy work; it will take time and focused effort. Having plans for both the short and long terms coupled with appropriate incentives will be critical. Inviting instructors to co-create these plans is important in order to ensure that their needs are appropriately assessed and the timeline to make meaningful change is reasonable. Leaders also need to factor in the workload of those who will do the work and ensure that the work is equitably shared by all (e.g., not tasking an individual such as an instructor of color to do the work that is everyone’s responsibility).
In the end, I think that the most important reason for creating equitable and effective learning environments for all students is the impact on them, their families and communities, and our nation. When I think about those who will directly benefit from this work, my thoughts go to my niece’s daughter. Currently four, she will be part of the Class of 2043. When she enters the college/university of her choice, what I want for her most of all is to be exposed to STEM in such a way that it is her choice on how STEM impacts her life and career and that the system that educated her does not make that decision for her and her classmates.
Archie Holmes, Chair
Committee on Equitable and Effective Teaching
in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Framework
for Institutions, Educators, and Disciplines
This page intentionally left blank.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
| AAU | Association of American Universities |
| AI | artificial intelligence |
| APLU | Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities |
| ATE | Advanced Technology Education program of NSF |
| CBE | competency-based education |
| CCPI-STEM | Community College Presidents’ Initiative in STEM |
| CIRTL | Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning |
| CoP | Community of Practice |
| CTE | career and technical education |
| CTL | Center for Teaching and Learning |
| CURE | course-based undergraduate research experiences |
| DAT | Departmental Action Team |
| DBER | discipline-based education research |
| DFW | D, F, and withdraw |
| EP3 | Effective Practices for Physics Programs |
| FAITE | Financial Alignment with Inclusive Teaching Effectiveness |
| HBCUs | Historically Black Colleges and Universities |
| HHMI | Howard Hughes Medical Institute |
| HSIs | Hispanic Serving Institutions |
| ISTP | Inclusive STEM Teaching Project |
| LGBTQIA+ | Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual/Aromantic/Agender, plus other related identities |
| LMS | Learning Management System |
| MSI | Minority Serving Institution |
| NABT | National Association of Biology Teachers |
| NACUBO | National Association of College and University Business Officers |
| NIST | National Institute on Scientific Teaching |
| NSEC | Network of STEM Education Centers |
| NSF | National Science Foundation |
| OER | open educational resource |
| PDSA | Plan-Do-Study-Act |
| PERTS | Project for Education Research That Scales |
| PLC | Professional Learning Community |
| PLD | professional learning and development |
| PLO | program-level learning outcome |
| PLTL | peer-led team learning |
| POGIL | Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning |
| PULSE | Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education |
| PWI | Predominantly White Institution |
| SAGE 2YC | Supporting and Advancing Geoscience Education at Two-Year Colleges |
| SEISMIC | Sloan Equity & Inclusion in STEM Introductory Courses |
| SEP | Student Experience Project |
| SI | supplementary instruction |
| SoTL | scholarship of teaching and learning |
| STEM | science, technology, engineering, and mathematics |
| TA | teaching assistant |
| TCUs | Tribal Colleges and Universities |
| UDL | Universal Design for Learning |
| UERU | Association for Undergraduate Education at Research Universities |
| UFERN | Undergraduate Field Experiences Research Network |
| URM | underrepresented minority |
| VITAL | visiting faculty, instructors, teaching assistants, adjunct faculty, and lecturers |
This page intentionally left blank.
