Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education: Supporting Equitable and Effective Teaching (2025)
Chapter: 1 Introduction
1
Introduction
Thousands of post-secondary education institutions exist in the United States. While their missions can differ—sometimes significantly—these institutions share a common aim: to provide an education that affords students the knowledge and skills needed to thrive in their personal and work lives in the present and the future. At its best, the nation’s undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education system can equip all students of all backgrounds to better understand the world around them, make informed decisions as members of society, and meet their individual goals. For some students, a STEM education can provide entry into the STEM workforce, which helps drive American innovation, national security, and economic growth.
For far too long, undergraduate STEM education in the United States has not delivered fully on its promises. Identity plays a role in determining learning experiences and student success. Not all students have been welcomed and supported to enter, pursue, and complete STEM credentials. While there are multiple factors that have contributed to this state of affairs, two overarching issues stand out:
- The STEM education system as a whole has often not prioritized concerns of equity, and the failure to do so is severely limiting the participation and success of certain groups of students.
- STEM teaching at the undergraduate level is not as uniformly effective at promoting student learning and engagement as education research shows it could be.
Combined, these two factors have major consequences for individuals and for society as a whole. Currently, commonly used teaching practices in undergraduate STEM education, held in place by related institutional policies and practices, alongside inequities across the system as a whole contribute to a situation in which membership in a marginalized group is frequently predictive of academic performance and educational attainment (Canning et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2020; Holland, 2019; Steele-Johnson & Leas, 2013; Thiele et al., 2014; Weston et al., 2019). For STEM education, the list of marginalized groups is long and can include students who are female; Black; Latina/o; Indigenous; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic/agender, plus other related identities (LGBTQIA+); veterans; students who are parents; those with both visible and invisible disabilities; as well as those who are from families with low socio-economic status or who are the first in their families to attend college. These inequities have significant costs to the nation: loss of STEM talent, unrealized dreams for individuals, and an overall population that is less able to engage in public discourse about STEM-related issues. In many ways, the nation cannot reach its full potential without doing the critical work of addressing inequity in undergraduate STEM education. Creating equitable and effective learning experiences that promote the success of students from groups that have been and continue to be marginalized in higher education and society is an essential step.
WHY DOES EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN STEM MATTER?
STEM education is a wonderful opportunity for people to learn about the world around them and to become knowledgeable about natural processes, technological innovations, and the built environment. The STEM workforce is an important component of the economy and, more importantly, has produced impressive advances in scientific understanding and technology that have improved the quality of life for millions of people. Colleges and universities deserve enormous credit for the research they have conducted and the education they have provided to their students.
Looking ahead to future needs for innovation to benefit individuals, communities, and society, it is critical to design educational experiences that provide a greater percentage of learners with access to an equitable and effective undergraduate STEM education. Society will not fully benefit from the development and use of future discoveries and innovations if full access and opportunity to effective STEM education is not provided to all, nor will society have the information, tools, and resources needed to address future challenges facing our planet.
While teaching and student learning is one responsibility of all institutions of higher education, ensuring equitable access to high-quality teaching is not always a driving priority. Undergraduate education in the United States, especially in STEM subjects, too frequently relies on a model of passive information transfer, where instructors lecture to students. This approach is not aligned with what is known about how people learn, causing many students to struggle mastering concepts and skills when they are expected to listen passively as opposed to having an opportunity to actively engage with the course material. This mismatch between teaching approach and the complex processes important for learning (see Chapter 3) is quite common in introductory STEM courses and means that many students do not feel welcomed and supported to enter, pursue, complete STEM courses, and go on to earn STEM credentials (certificates, minors, degrees, etc.). In fact, the standard methods of teaching undergraduate STEM education have benefited a relatively small percentage of learners (who are more likely to be male and White or Asian), while many other learners conclude that STEM education is not for them and find other ways to use their talents (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Seymour & Hunter, 2019). This second group includes people who are female, non-binary, Black, Latina/o, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, veterans, multi-lingual learners, students who are parents, those with both visible and invisible disabilities, those who are from families with low socio-economic status, and those who are the first in their families to attend college, among many other identities.
Current inequities in undergraduate STEM education have significant costs to both individuals and to the nation. In their 2024 report Learning and Earning by Degrees: Gains in College Degree Attainment Have Enriched the Nation and Every State, but Racial and Gender Inequality Persists, Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) quantified some of the economic and non-economic costs of not fully delivering on this promise for all students (Carnevale et al., 2024). Addressing these equity gaps would have added an additional $11.3 trillion in net lifetime earnings, benefiting both those who receive the credential and society overall.
As one step toward addressing inequities in undergraduate STEM education, this report presents a set of Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching (listed in Box 1-2; discussed in most detail in Chapter 4) that will enable instructors, with the support of their academic units and institutions, to improve instruction in ways that benefit all students. This report conceives of equitable and effective teaching as the provision of learning experiences that are student centered, where course goals are made clear to the students, the students’ role in their own learning is recognized, and students have agency to engage in the course material in ways that respect their identities. These student-centered evidence-based approaches help
students best leverage their prior experiences, talents, and skills to complete a STEM education aligned with their aspirations and expectations. Thus, equitable and effective undergraduate STEM teaching can provide learning opportunities to a diverse array of learners who can in turn help to address global and societal challenges, improve the workforce, create a more informed population better prepared to grapple with the complexities of our technological society, and increase opportunities for meaningful life by enhancing connections to the designed and natural world.
THE CHALLENGE OF ADVANCING EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING
Achieving equitable and effective teaching for all students will require concerted and consistent action by multiple stakeholders, across and beyond the higher education system. One key aspect of making undergraduate STEM education more equitable and effective is to change how teaching is prioritized in academia. In a March 2024 op-ed in Inside Higher Ed, Thorp and Goldstein, authors of Our Higher Calling: Rebuilding the Partnership between America and Its Colleges and Universities (Thorp & Goldstein, 2018), address this challenge as follows (emphasis ours):
Myriad analysts have determined where to place the blame for the de-prioritization of teaching. The truth is, there is a lot of blame to go around […] Administrators are constantly being pressured to grow and do new things that their external and internal stakeholders want. Growing research grants is the simplest way to achieve this in the short run […] This leads to pressure on faculty to increase their research. They are behaving perfectly rationally when they seek time away from teaching to spend more time generating grants and high-profile publications […] Meanwhile, trustees like to see positive news coverage and improvement in the rankings, which rewards high-profile faculty research. Trustees also tend to want success in athletics, which comes with significant costs and makes the ability to win grant funding to pay faculty salaries even more important when the bills for athletics come due.
Making teaching a high priority will not happen as long as one set of stakeholders is the only one required to change. If faculty are simply told to put more emphasis on teaching without changes to the incentives, nothing will happen. Nearly every college president has started off their tenure by saying they are going to emphasize teaching, but usually with no effect. Trustees hear pained testimonials from students and ask for more emphasis on the classroom, but they are unwilling to make the financial tradeoffs necessary to make this happen. All of the groups are going to have to collaborate to get this done. (Thorp & Goldstein, 2024)
It is clear to the committee that many instructors are committed to providing their students with equitable and effective education and have gone to great lengths to serve all of their students and achieve equitable and effective outcomes. The committee also acknowledges that many academic leaders care deeply about supporting teaching in undergraduate STEM education. All of these efforts are to be commended. However, as Thorp and Goldstein emphasize above, the most significant barriers to widespread application of equitable and effective approaches lie not with the behavior of individuals but in our current system. These barriers result from policies and practices that disincentivize use of and rewards for adopting sound pedagogy. This is not an issue that can be addressed via solutions based in a deficit perspective that calls for “fixing” students or faculty; it is a challenge to be addressed by changing mindsets, approaches, policies, and structures at multiple levels of the system.
Undergraduate learning occurs within a system that undervalues teaching and does not generally prioritize equitable outcomes for students. Many institutions retain policies that do not incentivize spending time, money, and other resources on teaching, leading to instructional approaches that are not aligned with evidence about how people learn and that are only helpful for a small number of students. While many instructors go to great lengths to serve their students, widespread equitable and effective teaching is dependent on changes to the larger system. In the present system, instructors are often unsupported in learning and implementing approaches to instruction that are informed by research and that allow for the creation of learning experiences that engage a wider variety of students and can be applied in the classroom, laboratory, field, and online learning experiences. Instructors cannot be expected to offer equitable and effective teaching if they are not educated in pedagogy, provided with ongoing professional learning and development, and supported with appropriate rewards, recognitions, and resources. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 discuss the research on learning and provide guidance and examples for teaching in an evidence-based manner. Chapter 8 looks at the importance of ongoing professional learning and development in support of equitable and effective teaching.
As a whole, this report examines and explains the systemic changes needed to align incentives in order to facilitate and support better teaching and learning. It discusses multiple levels of the system that could change to work in concert and support instructors, on both the individual and collective levels, so that undergraduate learning experiences (in classrooms and laboratories, both on campus and online) become more equitable and effective. It also acknowledges the challenges and changes that need to be addressed in order to support instructors and administrators in making these crucial changes.
INTERPRETING THE CHARGE AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY
The Committee on Equitable and Effective Teaching in Undergraduate STEM Education was convened by the Board on Science Education, part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), to examine efforts to support and improve undergraduate STEM education, and to provide guidance to undergraduate STEM educators and institutions, as well as other stakeholders, on how the interdependent objectives of equity and effectiveness can be achieved in undergraduate STEM teaching. Meeting such objectives is critical to eradicating existing disparities in STEM education and providing rich opportunities for all students to better understand STEM principles, concepts, and practices.
The committee includes members with knowledge and expertise in areas of STEM education research, practice, and leadership relevant to undergraduate STEM education. Committee members represent a diverse set of post-secondary institutions that award certificates, associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and doctoral degrees in the STEM disciplines. The institutions are based at urban, suburban, and rural campuses across the United States. Some of the committee members changed institutions during the course of the study, and in these cases, their institution at the time of publication is listed in the front matter. Therefore, the affiliations listed do not represent the full breadth of their experiences in higher education, and more details can be found in the committee bios in Appendix B.
The Charge to the Committee
The project’s statement of task (Box 1-1) describes the charge to the committee and guided the development of this report. The study is funded by the Gates Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the National Science Foundation.
Defining the Scope
In considering their charge, the committee discussed at length the topics and perspectives that they would include within the scope of their work. The charge was specific about some aspects of which populations and institution types should be included, but not prescriptive in other areas. The committee here articulates the inclusive nature of the view they took of the report scope in order to include all types of students, instructors, and institutions involved in undergraduate STEM education in the United States.
BOX 1-1
Study Charge
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will convene an ad hoc committee on equitable and effective teaching in undergraduate STEM education. Through examination of successful efforts to improve and support instruction, the committee will develop a framework for equitable and effective teaching in undergraduate STEM and identify policies and practices at the departmental, programmatic, and institutional levels that can facilitate implementation of the principles in the framework.
The committee will conduct a two-phase study. The first phase will produce a discussion draft that outlines a framework for equitable and effective teaching. It will call out practices that may be particularly important for virtual, blended, and hybrid instruction. The discussion draft will serve as a tool to solicit input from stakeholders that will be used to improve the framework. The second phase will revise the framework, call out areas in need of further research, and provide guidance and recommendations for institutions, educators, and disciplines. Specifically, the final report will
- Present a framework for equitable and effective teaching that includes attention to
- Approaches to and guidelines for evidence-based, inclusive teaching;
- Equitable and effective teaching practices for different modes of teaching (e.g., in-person, online, blended and hybrid teaching), and different educational contexts (e.g., two-year colleges, hybrid program, research institutions);
- The roles that technology does, or can in the future, play in supporting equitable and effective teaching.
- Discuss the experiences and training opportunities graduate students and postdoctoral students will need in order to be prepared to employ equitable and effective instruction as future faculty members.
- Examine the institutional infrastructure, policies, and practices needed to encourage and support evidence-based teaching, such as opportunities for professional development, faculty evaluation policies and practices, and reward and advancement systems.
- Provide actionable recommendations for institutions, disciplinary societies, funders, and policy makers on steps that could support implementation of the framework.
What Is Included as “STEM”?
The committee was inclusive in considering the disciplines of STEM, types of post-secondary institutions, variety of instructors, and all students in their work. We used the National Science Board definition of STEM as including the following areas of study: agricultural sciences and natural resources; biological and biomedical sciences; computer and information sciences; engineering; geosciences, atmospheric sciences, and ocean sciences; mathematics and statistics; multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary sciences; physical sciences; psychology; and social sciences (Deitz & Freyman, 2024; Deitz & Henke, 2023). The committee recognizes that this wide array of disciplines has some commonalities and also that each area has unique challenges and strategies. Throughout the report, we refer both to issues that are STEM-wide and to those that are discipline-specific or more prominent in some disciplines. Similarly, we provide examples of successful strategies and approaches that emerge from specific disciplines, many of which can be applied in others.
The Learners
The committee takes a broad view of who counts as an undergraduate STEM student, and includes those taking a single course, seeking a certificate, or working toward a degree. We included students preparing for careers in fields heavily dependent on STEM knowledge and skills (such as nurses, medical doctors and technicians, biotech workers, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers), as well as those who are taking a course to satisfy a distribution requirement or learn about an interesting topic. STEM students are understood to use STEM knowledge and skills in many different ways, including in jobs that are not traditionally defined as STEM careers; this might range from analyzing data in a spreadsheet in an office to analyzing soil composition on a farm or at a national park. Regardless of whether their STEM courses contribute directly to individuals’ careers, the knowledge and skills gained have the potential to prepare all students to be knowledgeable and informed participants in their communities and societies, especially as science and technology play an ever-increasing role in our lives.
For STEM education, the list of marginalized groups is long; as mentioned above, it can include students who are female, non-binary, Black, Latina/o, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, veterans, multi-lingual learners, students from rural areas, students who are parents or caregivers, those with both visible and invisible disabilities, those who are from families with low socio-economic status, and those who are the first in their families to attend college. The committee also recognizes that the unique circumstances
of each student’s life outside of academia inform and influence the achievement of their academic goals. For instance, in pursuing their post-secondary education, students frequently do not take all of their courses at a single institution, so issues of transfer credit and simultaneous enrollment complicate student efforts to achieve degrees (National Academies, 2016). Many students have work and caregiving commitments while enrolled. All of these elements of identity impact student learning experiences. Throughout the report we refer to students who belong to one or more of these groups as underserved, in recognition of the ways that people who hold these identities have typically not been the primary audience of STEM education and traditional STEM instructional practices do not leverage the knowledges, backgrounds, experiences, and interests to help them succeed.
The Teaching Workforce
When the committee considers instructors, they include full-time and part-time roles, permanent and contingent employees, adjunct instructors, visiting professors, graduate teaching assistants, and tenured and tenure-track faculty, among others. We make use of the acronym VITAL to encompass the range of non-permanent roles, as discussed by Levy (2019) and emphasized by Lee et al. (2023): VITAL stands for visiting faculty, instructors, teaching assistants, adjunct faculty, and lecturers. The needs and concerns of VITAL educators—and sometimes, more specifically, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows—are addressed at multiple places in the report, as they are often distinct from the needs and concerns of full-time tenure-track faculty. The committee recognizes that these populations frequently have less autonomy to implement new ideas for multiple reasons, including being out of the power structure of the academic unit, operating from a place of contingent employment, or serving as one instructor in a course with multiple sections where curricular choices and decisions about format and assessment are made by others (e.g., curriculum or program committees).
Types of Institutions Included in the Study
Our current system of higher education is a complex one that includes a wide variety of institution types. For the most part, in this report, we discuss all types of institutions together as colleges and universities. In some portions of the report, we use more specific language to discuss institution types. For example, we use the term community college to refer to institutions that offer associate’s degrees in addition to multiple other types of certificates and credentials, including those in Career and Technical Education fields. Another aspect of institution type is the population of students
served and if the institution is open access or selective in admitting students. While selective colleges and universities receive much of the attention in the press, they make up a small percentage of post-secondary institutions (DeSilver, 2019), Community colleges are generally open-access institutions, and many regional four-year institutions are as well, both are important forces in facilitating education of underserved students. While most colleges and universities in the United States are Predominantly White Institutions, there are multiple types of institutions that serve particular populations, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions. While there are many differences across institution type, the Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching apply to all instructors engaged in teaching undergraduates. The specifics of how the Principles are enacted will differ based on institution type and other factors, such as the discipline of study, the size of the course, and whether it is a course at a foundational level or includes upper-level content.
Defining Equitable and Effective
The committee defines an equitable undergraduate STEM education system as one that provides all students with the support they need to succeed, as measured by achievement of clearly communicated learning objectives. In an equitable learning environment, factors such as race, gender, disability status, and socio-economic status do not impact the rate at which students meet the learning objectives. In addition, an equitable system rewards instructors for effective teaching and provides them with the resources they need to successfully educate all of their students.
An effective undergraduate STEM education system is one in which all students demonstrate learning and most, if not all, students have the opportunities and the resources to meet desired learning objectives. An equitable and effective undergraduate STEM education does not come at the expense of excellence; the focus is on helping all students learn and understand STEM concepts and be able to use them in practical ways.
The term inclusive, which appears in the study charge, is a related concept that the committee considers as a key component of an equitable education. It refers to the opportunity to participate in learning experiences that feel welcoming and cultivate a sense of belonging, and to avoid exclusive or exclusionary environments that limit engagement. These limitations may arise from practical barriers or from expectations that are not student centered.
Information Gathering and Use of Evidence
In developing the report, the committee met eight times, both virtually and in person. They also did significant work between meetings to gather and analyze information and to write and edit drafts. The committee gathered extensive information during the course of the project and specifically considered a wide variety of input on the discussion draft from a diverse array of stakeholders. In particular, the committee gathered input on a discussion draft released for public input in November 2023. More information about the input on the discussion draft and the committee’s response can be found in Appendix A. The material from that discussion draft has been revised, and is included here, including a focus on the Principles for Equitable and Effective Instruction in Chapter 4.
Throughout the study, the committee analyzed a large volume of evidence from many sources. They reviewed material that included published peer-reviewed literature, statistical information, conference proceedings, dissertations, and articles in magazines and newspapers, among other documents. After surveying the expertise brought to the table by the members of the committee, we invited experts to present on their work and discuss key issues with us and also commissioned several experts to author papers on key topics where an in-depth analysis would significantly improve understanding of the evidence.
Specifically, as the committee reviewed the literature on pedagogical approaches, we identified principles for improving equity and facilitating effective teaching. We reflected on the extensive work done in these areas and drew on this and our own expertise to identify a set of tenets that delineate equitable and effective teaching approaches for instructors of undergraduates in STEM. These tenets became the seven Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching (see Box 1-2). While there are many other principles, tenets, and approaches that can and do guide equitable and effective teaching, these capture topics that are foundational to such efforts, and we offer them here as a loose framework that can structure both thought and action.
Similarly, to form the conclusions offered at the end of the chapters in this report, the committee combined qualitative and quantitative evidence from research on pedagogy, professional learning, and system change with members’ expertise in the practice of teaching and experiences in higher education, and direct input from researchers and practitioners. The committee considered the strength of the evidence for each topic to determine where they felt the evidence base was sufficient to provide suggestive evidence or to offer robust support. Relatedly, we also directly discuss the “strength of evidence” pyramid in Chapter 3.
In addition, we have included illustrative examples in the text and in boxes throughout the report. These come from a variety of sources,
including presentations, websites, and the research literature. These examples serve as a valuable tool for thinking about the strategies and approaches that can be used to improve teaching in a variety of modalities, course sizes, institution types, and other contexts.
Developing a Framework and Guidance on Implementation
The charge calls for the committee to develop a framework for equitable and effective teaching that includes attention to (a) approaches to and guidelines for evidence-based, inclusive teaching; (b) equitable and effective teaching practices for different modes of teaching (e.g., in-person, online, blended, and hybrid teaching), and different educational contexts (e.g., two-year colleges, hybrid programs, and research institutions); and (c) the roles that technology plays, or can play in the future, in supporting equitable and effective teaching. The committee approached this task by considering the multiple lines of evidence related to teaching and learning in undergraduate STEM education that have emerged over the past 30–40 years. There is now a robust body of evidence related to learning in the STEM disciplines that the committee leveraged to develop the set of seven Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching (see Box 1-2), which reflect key insights from research and can be used to guide the development of individual courses, courses sequences, and disciplinary programs of study. In a sense, these Principles are intended to serve as a kind of “north star” for departments and institutions as they work to improve undergraduate teaching and learning.
The committee was also asked to identify the infrastructure, policy, and practices needed to encourage and support evidence-based teaching (as embodied by the Principles), and to provide guidance to a variety of actors on how to support implementation of the Principles. The committee recognized that this part of the charge could be interpreted as a series of issues related to individual STEM courses; however, we concluded that achieving equitable and effective STEM learning experiences for students requires a broader frame. The committee concluded that to fully address this charge, the report needed to consider the culture and structures of the academic unit and institutions in which teaching and learning occur as well as the wide variety of disciplines, program structures, and course formats in which undergraduate STEM education happens. This insight provides the structure for this final report and its components. The committee analyzed (a) how to move toward more equitable and effective teaching, (b) how to value and support instructors, and (c) how to measure and advance systemic change in order to transform undergraduate STEM education. This focus on systemic change and the need for cross-system collaboration to achieve continuous improvement led to the inclusion of recommendations
BOX 1-2
Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching
The Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching (described in detail in Chapter 4) articulate key aspects of pedagogy critical to the student-centered approach to learning necessary to achieve equitable and effective learning experiences. The Principles are
- Principle 1: Students need opportunities to actively engage in disciplinary learning.
- Principle 2: Students’ diverse interests, goals, knowledge, and experiences can be leveraged to enhance 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 6: Flexibility and responsiveness to situational and contextual factors supports student learning.
- Principle 7: Intentionality and transparency create more equitable opportunities.
Together these Principles serve as a framework that can structure both thought and action by instructors, institutions, and disciplines.
for action for people in many different roles and positions; these include instructors, academic unit and institutional leaders (e.g., department chairs, deans, provosts), and other stakeholders outside of institutions of higher education (e.g., disciplinary and professional associations and funders).
THE COMMITTEE’S VISION FOR EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE STEM EDUCATION
The committee envisions a system in which all undergraduate STEM students experience equitable and effective learning experiences, feel welcomed, and have the opportunity to succeed in their STEM courses and programs, regardless of their identity or background. Ideally, through equitable and effective STEM education experiences, all students will learn about STEM disciplines and thereby gain the opportunity to better understand the world around them and use this understanding to better their own lives and careers. Engaging with the process of developing new knowledge and designing new tools as part of the learning experience can foster this
understanding. In the committee’s vision, the pathways, course schedules, course syllabi, assessments, and other aspects of designing courses and programs build upon the Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching to create a welcoming and accessible route to STEM learning for all students. We also envision an accessible STEM learning experience that considers the physical, digital, cultural, economic, affective, and sensory needs of students.
Making student-centered learning a central and explicit goal of course design is a necessary component of achieving equitable and effective learning experiences. This approach—which includes making the course goals clear to the students; recognizing the students’ role in their own learning; and giving students agency to engage in the course material in ways that welcome and respect their identities—makes learning the primary driver and articulates clearly the desired learning outcomes of each learning experience. In contrast, an instructor-centered course usually focuses on covering a certain amount of content, and the volume of content is the primary driver of the schedule, course policies, instructional methods, and assessments. Disciplinary expectations and historical precedent often drive pressures to focus on covering content as opposed to re-evaluating the learning goals that would be most beneficial to the students’ education (Oleson & Hora, 2014; Tripp et al., 2024).
While essential, student-centered learning in itself is not enough to ensure equitable and effective learning experiences. The culture and dynamics of the learning environment and interpersonal interactions are also important. The challenge of achieving equitable and effective teaching is also partly a journey of helping the higher education community redefine the roles and goals of teaching and, in so doing, identify the equity-based behaviors currently missing from common current notions of effective teaching.
Key to achieving this vision is that all instructors have the knowledge, skills, and motivation to create welcoming STEM courses that are built on what is known about how students learn and in which all students can succeed. When the committee considers instructors, they include full-time and part-time roles, permanent and contingent employees, adjunct instructors, visiting professors, teaching assistants (graduate students who are instructors or assistants to instruction), and tenured and tenure-track faculty, among others (more information on the scope of the instructional workforce considered can be found in the section of this chapter on the Charge to the Committee).
Importantly, however, the responsibility for applying the Principles does not rest solely or even primarily with instructors. While making undergraduate STEM education more equitable and effective will likely require many instructors to adjust their practices, doing so will require that their
efforts be supported in practical, material, and logistical ways, and that they are encouraged and supported by their colleagues, departments, institutions, and disciplinary organizations and professional societies. The existing challenges require systemic solutions. Structural changes and collective responsibility within and across institutions will be necessary for this vision to be implemented, sustained, and successful. Multiple lines of evidence reveal that we are far from achieving that vision yet also provide guidance for what needs to change for us to make progress and transformative change. Coordination by these diverse stakeholders will contribute to the development of a supportive infrastructure that provides the resources instructors need to develop as educators and to cultivate equitable and effective learning environments for their students. Therefore, this report presents actionable recommendations intended to foster educational transformation on a systemic level across the range of institution types providing undergraduate STEM experiences to students in the United States.
One of the committee’s goals for this report is that the seven Principles together with the recommendations for implementation provide a common basis for conversation and action that can help to catalyze more widespread systemic change. Together, the Principles and recommendations can be used by post-secondary education institutions to engage instructors, academic unit leaders, other administrators, and governing boards in aligning policies and procedures to foster and support equitable and effective teaching. The Principles and recommendations can also inform decision making and action outside of post-secondary institutions, at professional societies, at academic associations, and at funders of STEM education and STEM education research. Collaborative and collective efforts across all stakeholder groups can achieve equitable and effective teaching and learning for all students.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The report includes ten chapters that together explore the context of our system of higher education; explain the Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching; and describe changes that are needed to the system to make undergraduate education equitable and effective to benefit all students. Chapter 2 presents a brief overview of the institutional context for undergraduate STEM learning in the United States. Chapter 3 discusses scholarship in teaching, learning, and equity. Chapter 4 presents the seven Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching. Chapter 5 illustrates use of the Principles with examples that instructors can apply to courses to improve learning and equity across a variety of course types and formats. Chapter 6 investigates the roles of departments and academic units in determining who teaches what. Specifically, it considers course sequences and majors in
undergraduate STEM education, disciplinary and academic culture, and the role of the instructional workforce. The pathways students actually take in their STEM learning, including some of the obstacles they encounter, are the focus of Chapter 7. Chapter 8 explores ongoing professional learning for the instructors who teach STEM to undergraduates as well as the preparation of future faculty. Chapter 9 discusses the role of institutional-level policies and procedures in supporting action toward system change, including the ways that data can inform decision making and the way that thoughtful policies can support equitable and effective teaching. The final chapter briefly recaps aspects of the conclusions shared in earlier chapters and presents insights the committee has drawn from the evidence and their analysis. Additionally, it provides specific recommendations for action to advance equitable and effective practices in the future, as well as identifying areas in need of further research to advance our knowledge base to allow future improvements.
