teaching is student centered: an approach that makes the course goals clear to the students, recognizes the students’ role in their own learning, and gives students agency to engage in the course materials in ways that respect their identities. This approach makes learning the primary driver. In contrast, instructor-centered courses often focus primarily on covering a certain amount of content, with the volume of content being the primary driver of the schedule and the assessments.

Thus, the Principles advance a focus on supporting students as they develop knowledge and skills of the STEM disciplines. They call for goals and expectations to be intentionally chosen and transparently communicated to students. They recognize that fostering a sense of belonging, attending to social interactions, connecting to students’ interest, and being responsive to student needs play important roles in their learning of STEM concepts and skills. It is important to note that these Principles are not presented in a priority order; as can be seen in Figure 4-1 below, we conceive of them all contributing to the central goal of equitable and effective teaching and learning. We have numbered them only for convenience in keeping track of the concepts. Also of note is that there is no requirement to immediately implement all of the Principles together at first; some instructors may find it more feasible to focus on a couple as an initial entry point and gradually incorporate additional Principles over time.

The seven Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching are¹

___________________

¹ In this and subsequent chapters we often refer back to the Principles presented in this chapter to illustrate how they are relevant to the topics of later chapters. To avoid repeating the long names of each Principle we utilize some shorthand. Table 4-1, below, gives shorthand naming conventions.

Chapter 5 will take up the interconnections between the Principles as they are used to guide design of courses.

The committee also wishes to reiterate a point made throughout the previous chapters: that the responsibility for change that leads to equitable and effective learning experiences is collectively held by instructors and others at all levels of the higher education system. While the seven Principles are focused primarily on the course level, especially those where instructors can improve the student learning experience, it is important to note that they are not presented as the sole responsibility of instructors to individually adopt and implement. Instead, they are presented as standards and goals that instructors, with the support of academic units and institutions, can achieve through course (re)design, changes to instructional practices, and alterations in policies, approaches, and expectations at the systemic level. Structural changes and collective responsibility will be necessary for the committee’s vision to be implemented, sustained, and successful. Later chapters of this report will address the systemic issues and the actors responsible for making and sustaining change.

Principle 1: Students Need Opportunities to Actively Engage in Disciplinary Learning

Student learning improves when students are given opportunities to actively engage with the material they are learning, to use disciplinary knowledge and skills in the context of projects and problems, and to reflect on their own knowledge (Borda et al., 2020; Stanberry & Payne, 2018). These kinds of student-centered instructional approaches, often referred to as active learning, engage students in developing and deepening their understanding of disciplinary ideas and practices while they receive guidance from skilled instructors (Benabentos et al., 2021; Capone, 2022; Kressler & Kressler, 2020).

Active learning approaches are more effective than traditional approaches for developing robust conceptual understanding, facilitating transfer of learning across contexts, and promoting long-term retention of knowledge and skill than approaches that rely primarily on lecture or memorization (Armbuster et al., 2009; Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010; Ebert-May et al., 1997; Hogan & Sathy, 2022; Lyle et al., 2020). Active learning centers students’ learning activity, shifting the role of the instructor from simply providing knowledge to skillfully guiding and facilitating students’ learning in their role as an expert in the discipline (King, 1993; Morrison, 2014). When students are able to engage in problems and tasks with similarities to those carried out by disciplinary professionals, they develop proficiency with specific skills and practices along with increased agency and greater identification with STEM, a factor shown to increase

retention and performance (Marbach-Ad et al., 2019; Starr et al., 2020; Thiry, 2019a). Classroom activities and assignments can provide opportunities to engage with concepts of the discipline and provide opportunities for reflection. These approaches can help students learn what it means to think and reason like a scientist, technologist, engineer, or mathematician.

Intellectual engagement in learning can occur in a variety of ways and in many different kinds of learning experiences. There are many active learning approaches that are feasible to implement during a single class. Active learning can be an effective tool in large, foundational STEM courses as well as in smaller classes. In large, high-structure courses that combine pre-class preparatory assignments with in-class active learning activities, students earn higher grades, have lower failure rates, and report an increased sense of community compared to students enrolled in courses that use lecture only (Eddy & Hogan, 2014; Freeman et al., 2014). In addition, active learning in large classes increases the probability of equitable outcomes between majoritized and minoritized students (Eddy & Hogan, 2014; Haak et al., 2011; Theobald et al., 2020). In order for active learning to be equitable and effective it needs to be carefully designed to ensure that all students have the opportunity to participate and be successful (Dewsbury, 2020; White et al., 2020; see Chapter 5 for further discussion of activities in the classroom and a more in-depth discussion of instructional practices).

In designing active learning opportunities for students that reflect disciplinary ideas and practices, it is important to consider the difficulty of the materials with which students will engage. In order to effectively support learning the material needs to present a challenge for all students, while also being attainable by most² (Krim et al., 2019; Nilson, 2015). This requires careful attention to students’ prior knowledge and some awareness of the make-up of students in the classroom (see Principle 2: Leveraging diverse interests, goals, knowledge, and experiences and Principle 5: Multiple forms of data).³

There are also longer-term opportunities, such as extended laboratory or field investigations, research experiences, and internships. For example, course-based undergraduate research experiences, project-based learning, independent research, and applied design can all provide students with opportunities to deepen their disciplinary knowledge and skills (Krim et al.,

___________________

² More information about scaffolding is available at https://pce.sandiego.edu/scaffoldingin-education-examples/#:~:text=Scaffolding%20and%20differentiation%20are%20used,keep%20pace%20with%20their%20peers

³ In this and subsequent chapters we often refer back to the Principles presented in this chapter to illustrate how they are relevant to the topics of later chapters. To avoid repeating the long names of each Principle we utilize some shorthand. Table 4-1, below, gives shorthand naming conventions.

2019; Kuh, 2016; National Academies, 2018; Ward et al., 2024; Wolniak & Engberg, 2019). Instructors, academic units, and institutions can create authentic and community-engaged learning experiences by integrating formal classroom work with practical experiences in ways that both benefit the community directly and enhance the student learning experience. Opportunities to practice and apply disciplinary skills and knowledge in real-world contexts can come about through service learning, internships, and apprenticeships (National Academies, 2017a; Queiruga-Dios et al., 2021; Salam et al., 2019; Schmidt et al., 2020; Tijsma et al., 2020). Furthermore, the real-world experience gained through internships can help students apply what they have learned in the classroom to professional environments, mirroring the kind of work or approaches to problems seen in the workforce (Rodriguez et al., 2019b; Schweitzer et al., 2016).

Building in opportunities for students to reflect on and revise their thinking is an important component of student-centered learning. Reflection is a component of metacognition that refers to the ability to monitor and regulate one’s own cognitive processes and to consciously regulate behavior, and revision is the process of taking action as a result of the reflection (National Academies, 2018). How we understand our own thought processes is particularly vital for learning novel information (McDowell, 2019; Santangelo et al., 2021a). Students who have greater metacognitive capacity are better learners overall (Stanton et al., 2021). Research has shown that students rarely use metacognitive strategies when studying on their own, but they can develop these skills when metacognitive strategies are embedded into instruction (Karpicke et al., 2009; Kober, 2015; Weinstein et al., 2000). These approaches can also contribute to the development of a sense of competency by helping students to recognize, monitor, and strategize about their learning progress. One study found that students who took chemistry laboratory courses designed to prompt metacognitive activity showed significant gains on the Metacognitive Activities Inventory, which measures students’ monitoring of their own thinking during problem solving (Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). Chapter 5 considers strategies for promoting reflection and metacognition.

Principle 2: Students’ Diverse Interests, Goals, Knowledge, and Experiences Can Be Leveraged to Enhance Learning

The knowledge, skills, and beliefs students bring to their learning influence how they remember, reason, solve problems, and acquire new knowledge (Kober, 2015; Mayer & Alexander, 2011; Renninger & Hidi, 2019; Stanberry & Payne, 2018). Instructional strategies and materials that are designed to recognize, value, and connect to students’ interests, goals, knowledge, and life experiences can motivate and engage students in ways

that improve their understanding of STEM content, principles, skills, and practices. Such approaches can help students see how STEM is relevant to their daily lives and how STEM can be useful in a variety of careers.

Our understanding of how people learn—based on lessons from research in cognitive psychology and learning sciences—has been summarized in previous National Academies reports (National Academies, 2018; National Research Council, 2000). This research shows that instruction is most effective when it explicitly builds on prior knowledge (Andrews et al., 2022; Lou & Jaeggi, 2020; Stanberry & Payne, 2018; Ziori & Dienes, 2008). In fact, developing expertise in a discipline involves making connections to, reflecting on, and revising existing knowledge in ways that support more sophisticated reasoning and problem solving (Auerbach et al., 2018; Maltese et al., 2015; Peffer & Ramezani, 2019).

Connecting to Students’ Knowledge and Interests

Students enter their undergraduate learning experiences with large amounts of existing knowledge, a variety of school experiences, and diverse interest in many topics and activities. Intentionally connecting STEM content to students’ interests and providing opportunities for them to connect their familial and community experiences to STEM can increase motivation and engagement, and promote persistence (Kember et al., 2008; Senior et al., 2018). Recognizing the diverse assets that students bring to the learning environment, leveraging them, and helping students see the connections between their everyday lives and STEM concepts and practices promotes more equitable outcomes (Bayles & Morrell, 2018; Booker & Cambell-Whatley, 2018).

Instructors can engage students’ interest in STEM concepts, ideas, and practices through in-class activities designed to elicit students’ existing knowledge, make connections to current issues, and provide students with choice and autonomy. For example, instructors can assign reflective writings in which students are asked to discuss ways that course material could be useful to their hobbies, interests, or goals to help the students see the value of their learning for their personal and professional goals. These “utility-value” interventions have been shown to increase interest, engagement, and performance (Canning & Harackiewicz, 2015; Canning et al., 2018; Harackiewicz et al., 2016; Hulleman et al., 2010). Some research suggests that assignments that show students how STEM can help to advance communal goals and help others (rather than focusing only on personal goals) can increase students’ motivation (Fuesting et al., 2017). Another approach is to incorporate case studies or other real-world examples and give students the opportunity to co-construct reading assignments or research questions (Considine et al., 2017; Mordacq et al., 2017; Scott Coker, 2017; Stenalt &

Lassesen, 2021). To connect their STEM learning to their own backgrounds and experiences, students could be encouraged to study topics that are of personal or cultural relevance (Barnes & Brownell, 2017; Black et al., 2022; Dasgupta, 2023). Making science and engineering research more socially relevant has the potential to engage more diverse learners (Dasgupta, 2023).

Recognizing Cultural Wealth and Funds of Knowledge

While prior knowledge is often used to describe what students know from previous formal education, the concept of funds of knowledge (e.g., Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2017) broadens this idea to recognize the knowledge acquired from informal learning experiences in families, homes, and communities (González et al., 2005; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1992). Culturally responsive and culturally relevant teaching acknowledges and values the cultural diversity that students bring to the classroom (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2014; Heringer, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2006, 2014). With these approaches, instructors help students see themselves in STEM topics explored in the classroom (Castillo-Montoya & Ives, 2020; Gay, 2002; Johnson & Elliott, 2020; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Instructors highlight what students already know and help them recognize how that knowledge is relevant to and beneficial for their participation in STEM (Johnson & Elliott, 2020; Mack, 2021; O’Leary et al., 2020; Ortiz-Rodríguez et al., 2021). Instructors could do this by incorporating justice-oriented curricula or humanizing content or by highlighting the accomplishments of STEM professionals from diverse backgrounds, either historical or living (Meuler et al., 2023; Stout et al., 2011; Yao et al., 2023). When students see themselves and their groups in course material, they are more likely to feel a sense of belonging in STEM and increase their STEM self-efficacy (White et al., 2020; see Principle 4: Identity and a sense of belonging).

To avoid misusing culturally responsive and culturally relevant teaching pedagogy, it is important for instructors to attend to issues related to power, development of students’ critical consciousness, a pedagogy of relationality, and an ethic of care. Recognizing the diversity of experiences students bring to the learning environment, leveraging it, and making connections between students’ everyday lives and STEM concepts and practices promotes more equitable outcomes (Bayles & Morrell, 2018; Booker & Campbell-Whatley, 2018).

Universal Design for Learning

The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework provides another way of thinking about leveraging student experiences; the motivation for its

development was to increase access for students with disabilities (Behling & Tobin, 2018; CAST, 2024; Pérez & Johnston, 2023). UDL employs multiple means of engagement, representation, action, and expression. Fundamental tenets of the UDL framework include recognizing student autonomy; making learning accessible; showing information in multiple ways; and allowing students to demonstrate their learning in various ways (Davies et al., 2013; Izzo & Bauer, 2015; Kumar & Wideman, 2014; Laist et al., 2022; Orndorf et al., 2022; Pérez & Johnston, 2023).

Principle 3: STEM Learning Involves Affective and Social Dimensions

Learning is complex and involves not only cognition, but also affective and social dimensions (Dweck, 1986; Eccles et al., 1998; NRC, 2000; Picard et al., 2004).

Affective Dimensions of Learning

The affective dimension of learning refers to the attitudes, motivation, curiosity, beliefs, and expectations of students (Bureau et al., 2022; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Mayer & Alexander, 2011; Nasir et al., 2020; Pajares, 1996; Ryan, 2019). These factors are critical to learning because they influence student attention, persistence, and performance (Ames & Archer, 1988; Schunk, 1989; Zimmerman, 2000). Instructors can attend to the affective dimension of learning by recognizing the importance of motivation to learning; providing choice or autonomy in learning; creating learning experiences that students value; and supporting students’ sense of control and autonomy (Bureau et al., 2022; Howard et al., 2021). When people are learning material that provides a positive emotional connection, they are willing to work harder to learn the content and skills, especially when those content and skills seem useful and connected to their motivations and future goals (Lim & Richardson, 2021; National Academies, 2018). Emotions like anxiety can undermine learning, deplete cognitive resources, and activate parts of the brain associated with fear and escape rather than with cognitive processes essential for learning (Beilock et al., 2010; Hilliard et al., 2020; Schmader & Johns, 2003). When students do not feel comfortable and safe, their attentional and cognitive processes are less available for engaging with academic content (El Baze et al., 2018; England et al., 2019; Hood et al., 2021). Therefore, it is important for instructors to keep in mind that equitable and effective teaching requires consideration of both the students’ cognitive and affective states (Trujillo & Tanner, 2014; Vermunt, 1996; Vogel & Schwabe, 2016).

people (such as STEM professionals; National Academies, 2018). There is strong evidence that collaborative activities done in an environment where students feel safe and appreciated can enhance the effectiveness of student-centered learning over traditional instruction (Dennehy & Dasgupta, 2017; Johnson et al., 1998, 2007; Lunn et al., 2021; Rodriguez & Blaney, 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2019a). Opportunities for social interaction can help students reflect on their current understanding, identify areas where they may have misunderstandings, construct shared meaning based on their own experiences, and develop a sense of belonging to the STEM community (Belanger et al., 2020; Li & Singh, 2023; Rodriguez & Blaney, 2021).

Students working together on well-designed learning activities can develop a community of learners that provides cognitive, affective, and social support for the efforts of its individual members (Dasgupta, 2013; Kober, 2015). By working in social groups, students share the responsibility for thinking and doing. They can help each other solve problems by building on each other’s knowledge, asking questions, and suggesting ideas that an individual working alone might not have considered (Brown & Campione, 1994). When members of a group are able to safely be explicit about what they mean, challenge each other’s thoughts and beliefs, and negotiate conflicts that arise, they can spur each other to engage in metacognition, and this can enhance learning (Stanton et al., 2021). In collaborative two-stage exams, for instance, students complete the task individually then immediately complete the same work again in small groups, where students received feedback from their peers. Analysis showed that students recognize this process as a valuable learning experience and demonstrated greater improvement on subsequent individual testing compared to when only tested as individuals (Gilley & Clarkston, 2014; Nicol & Selvaretnam, 2021; Wieman et al., 2014). Chapter 5 discusses designing effective group work.

Principle 4: Identity and Sense of Belonging Shape STEM Teaching and Learning

Within the undergraduate STEM education system, each individual (e.g., students, instructors, administrators, support staff) has a multi-dimensional identity that influences the way they see the world, are treated, and interact with others. Some aspects of identity, such as skin color or a person’s reliance on a guide dog, may be readily apparent. Other identities may be less visible, such as mental health condition; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic/agender, plus other related identities (LGBTQIA+; veteran or caregiver status; and familial socio-economic status (e.g., Busch et al., 2023). Many other aspects of identity can also influence how students and instructors engage with STEM

learning, including, for example, familial experience with STEM or with higher education.

When students are able to leverage features of their identities in STEM learning spaces, they are able to develop agency and ownership of their educational journey (Betz et al., 2021; Espinosa, 2011; Newell & Ulrich, 2022). Further, when their identities are recognized and validated by their instructors, students may develop deeper understanding of STEM concepts as well as build stronger critical thinking skills (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Upadhyay et al., 2020). For decades, literature on minoritized students’ experiences in STEM has examined the ways that students feel marginalized (see, e.g., Berhane et al., 2020; Friedensen et al., 2021; Hatmaker, 2013; Hughes, 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2022). A smaller number of studies (e.g., Morton & Parsons, 2018; Ross et al., 2017; Simpson & Bouhafa, 2020; Wofford & Gutzwa, 2022) have pointed to ways researchers and educators can see students’ identities as assets and more intentionally support nondominant (e.g., non-White, nonmale) identities. In a review of over 30 studies looking at student-faculty collaboration in the classroom, Cook-Sather et al. (2023) note that STEM practices often exclude certain voices and limit development of a STEM identity by those students.

Cues About Which Students Are Valued

Two well-studied and related phenomena that can adversely impact student affect are stereotype threat and social identity threat, in which students are reduced to or seen through the lens of negative stereotypes associated with one or more of their social group memberships (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele et al., 2002). The cognitive and affective experiences of social identity threat can affect anyone, but it has its largest impacts on students from groups historically excluded and negatively stereotyped in educational settings. For example, Latina/o students can underperform on math and spatial ability tasks when reminded of negative ethnic stereotypes (Gonzales et al., 2002); similarly, lower-income students may underperform when stereotypes about their socio-economic background are highlighted (e.g., Croizet & Claire, 1998; Croizet & Millet, 2012).

As students participate in learning environments, they pick up on cues as to whether they are seen as valued and potentially successful participants in the STEM disciplines. Cues that suggest that certain students are less capable, possess less inherent or natural ability, are less motivated, or are less worthy of inclusion in an educational environment than their peers are termed identity-threatening cues, because they threaten students’ sense of value and respect based on their social-identity-group membership (Murphy & Taylor, 2012; Murphy et al., 2007; Steele et al., 2002). These cues undermine students’ development of identities as successful STEM learners and

their sense of belonging in STEM. Conversely, identity-safe cues are equitable and effective teaching practices that signal to people that they are valued and respected based on their social identities. Negative cues about ability that trigger bias and stereotypes often arise in STEM classrooms, and those negative messages can be damaging to developing a positive STEM identity (Harrison & Tanner, 2018; Turochy et al., 2023). In turn, negative STEM identities can discourage students from further study in STEM subjects. In the presence of negative cues, historically excluded and marginalized students (e.g., racial and ethnic minority students, women studying STEM or other fields in which they are numerically underrepresented, students with high levels of financial stress, LGBTQIA+ students) not only experience the learning environment more negatively from an affective perspective—showing lower levels of belonging, trust, and self-efficacy—they also demonstrate lowered motivation, engagement, learning, and performance (e.g., Canning et al., 2019, 2022; Muenks et al., 2020).

There are many studies that show that interventions that address social identity can help underserved students (Bell et al., 2003; Logel et al., 2009; Walton et al., 2015). Studies show that when identity-threatening cues are removed from the environment and replaced with identity-safe cues, these students perform as well as—and in some cases, better than—students from majority groups (McLean et al., 2022; Murphy & Taylor, 2012; Pietri et al., 2019; Spencer et al., 2016; Steele et al., 2002).

Enhancing Sense of Belonging

There is evidence that students’ sense of belonging increases when they experience academic and interpersonal validation (Burt et al., 2023; Holland Zahner & Harper, 2022; Rendon, 1994). Students with a higher sense of belonging in STEM are more likely to report having friends in their major, and to socialize with peers and faculty in the field (National Academies, 2017b; Whitehead, 2018). These kinds of interactions can foster a feeling of being an integral part of a community (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Solanki et al., 2019). When instructors build connections with their students in ways that recognize and validate students as whole people, they increase engagement and learning (Costello et al., 2022; Fries-Britt & White-Lewis, 2020; Thacker et al., 2022). Creating student-instructor partnerships for development of course curricula is another approach (Cook-Sather et al., 2023). Instructors can work to avoid reinforcing cues that suggest to students that not everyone can succeed in STEM by, for example, cultivating a positive STEM learning environment in which they encourage contributions from students. One study of students learning English as a second language showed that interventions promoting belonging improved outcomes (LaCosse et al., 2020).

affective and social dimensions that impact student learning experiences. The role of learning goals in course design and teaching is discussed at length in Chapter 5. The role of data at the institutional level is discussed in Chapter 9.

Assessment of Student Learning

Within courses, students and instructors can use data to measure and guide learning. Assessments of learning provide instructors with feedback about what students know, how well they are learning, and where they are having difficulties. Through the frequent use of multiple formats and approaches for assignments, quizzes, tests, and projects, instructors and students generate data that can be used to improve teaching and learning. Disaggregating according to different components of an assignment or assessment can help to identify where students might be excelling versus where they could use more support. When combined with the instructor’s observations of the students and the learning environment, decisions about adjustments to course timing or approach can be made to better help students meet defined learning goals. This includes both considering results for individual students and looking at patterns across all students in a course to determine who is and is not being well served.

Effective assessment involves more than just tracking students’ grades on exams. Formative and summative assessments are two different types of assessments that give different views of student progress. Formative assessment can be done informally during course sessions to provide the instructors with information on what topics need more attention or more formally to help students determine which topics they need to explore more deeply in order to achieve understanding and meet course learning goals (Kim et al., 2019). Formative assessments focus more on eliciting student thinking and gathering information that allows the instructor to adapt to student needs (Grangeat et al., 2021). They also improve student metacognitive awareness of their own learning (Clark, 2012; Hudesman et al., 2013; Wafubwa & Csikos, 2022). They can help determine if a student is making progress toward their learning goals and therefore give information that allows for improvements in the learning environment. In a student-centered course, formative assessments are not quizzes that simply require memorizing material. Rather, these assessments provide students with opportunities to reflect on, revise, and improve their thinking and help instructors identify areas where students might be struggling. Many of the learning activities described in Principle 1: Active engagement are themselves a form of assessment that provides instructors with richer information about students’ understanding than they could obtain from traditional assessments and

these learning activities themselves support student understanding more than receiving lecture-based instruction.

One of the most important roles for assessment is the provision of timely and informative feedback to students during instruction and learning so that their practice of a skill and its subsequent acquisition will be effective and efficient (NRC, 2001). The addition of frequent and varied opportunities for formative assessment increases students’ learning and transfer, and they learn to value opportunities to revise (Lyle et al., 2020; Prince et al., 2020). Some research has shown that using mixed assessment methods can increase performance by underserved students (Cotner & Ballen, 2017; Salehi et al., 2019b). More generally, an overall positive association between formative assessment and student learning has been found and it can generate meaningful feedback about learning to guide choices about next steps in learning and instruction (Andrews et al., 2022; Bennett, 2011; Black & Wiliam, 2009; Graham et al., 2015; Kingston & Nash, 2011).

Summative assessments can include structured projects as well as traditional midterms or final exams. They evaluate students’ performance against a standard or benchmark at different times during the course (e.g., at the end of a unit, or at the end of a semester). These assessments indicate how students have progressed in their learning and can be used to determine students’ grades (Brownlie et al., 2024). In addition, summative assessments can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of course design and determine which aspects need to be revised in future iterations of the course as well as informing decisions about course sequences and larger issues in a program of major.

Formative and summative assessment can be done in varying ways that support active learning and equitable education experiences; formative assessments with timely feedback from the instructor can help improve student learning (Irons & Elkington, 2021; Morris et al., 2021), while summative assessments that are designed based on the previously shared learning goals for the course can also contribute to equitable and effective learning experiences (Goss, 2022; Osler & Mansaray, 2014). However, the current system, with its focus on grades, does not always allow for such experiences. Research has shown that grades are not always good measures of learning and are based on varying standards; because of this, they can lead to students focusing on grades rather than their own learning (Cain et al., 2022; Lim, 2024; Schwab et al., 2018). Alternately, courses designed in accordance with the science of learning (e.g., the research reviewed in this report) would include summative and formative assessments that are informative to students and integrated through the student learning experience.

to individuals’ lived experiences, and how those experiences have unique relationships to power and inequity, can foster more inclusive learning environments. Studies of STEM education have explored the role of student identity and taken into account the importance of intersectionality where students have more than one marginalized identity (Crenshaw, 1989; Metcalf et al., 2018; Nix & Perez-Felkner, 2019).

When flexibility is designed into courses, instructors can be responsive to events that may impact students’ learning. These may be events that are relevant to course content and provide an opportunity to enhance learning; for example, when an event like a major earthquake or volcanic eruption occurs, an Earth science instructor can allow for class time for students to explore data about the event, to ask questions, and to learn more about the impacts of the event on communities and cultures. On the other hand, these events may be upsetting and can impede learning and need to be acknowledged; for example, political or social turmoil or events when members of a particular identity group are targeted may impact students’ ability to be present and engaged in a course. Often, a simple acknowledgment of the circumstances can help; at other times, greater flexibility may be needed.

Flexibility can be offered on multiple levels, including potential constraints students have around course scheduling, setting due dates for assignments, and designing assessments. Allowing for options in assignments, which allows students to iterate and improve as their understanding develops, can also make a course more accessible and enhance student learning. Some research suggests that attention to the time periods when classes are offered can increase retention rates and reduce the time to graduation by allowing students to enroll in an increased number of credit hours even as it better accommodates students’ extracurricular activities, work, or family obligations (Mintz, 2024). Alternative forms of course grading, like specifications grading, inherently create more student choice and flexibility compared to common grading approaches (Katzman et al., 2021; McKnelly et al., 2021; Villalobos et al., 2024). Not only do students have clear guidance on what to do to achieve a grade, they also have the ability to make informed choices about how and when to complete their assignments.

In a National Academies study on the role of Minority Serving Institutions in promoting success in STEM, institutional responsiveness was identified as a key strategy (National Academies, 2018). Institutional responsiveness included meeting students where they are; that is recognizing STEM students’ need for flexibility as well as all students’ needs for academic, financial, and social support (National Academies, 2018). A lack of flexibility is frequently seen in the overall suite of courses offered by an academic unit; how the courses are sequenced and structured, the timing with which courses are offered, and whether all students have access to necessary texts and other resources for full participation in courses all

impact the ability of students to make progress toward a credential (Bahr et al., 2017, 2023a,b).

Instructors can sometimes be limited in their ability to be responsive and flexible. The academic unit (e.g., department) may control some of these limits through their policies or practices (this is discussed further in Chapter 6). Here, we mention the types of issues that units might consider in their efforts to increase responsiveness and flexibility. In order to decrease barriers to participation, academic units can consider removing certain requirements for prerequisite courses and provide alternative methods for students to demonstrate or acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. They might also consider the cost of textbooks and other course materials. Varied formats that are responsive to student needs allow students to choose the options that will work best for them. Courses that meet virtually can be essential for students who are not able to come to campus due to distance, commuting logistics, caregiving responsibilities, illness, or disability.

Flexibility and situational responsiveness are also crucial for administrators to consider when setting or reviewing expectations for instructors. Recent times have been extremely challenging for students and instructors alike and demands on instructors can be unrealistic and unsustainable. Providing instructors with autonomy to implement equitable and effective approaches in the ways that fit their courses and disciplines is important. Providing professional learning and development about teaching and ensuring support for administrative tasks can go a long way in cultivating an environment conducive to implementation of equitable and effective teaching. This is taken up in more detail in Chapter 8.

Principle 7: Intentionality and Transparency Create More Equitable Opportunities

Intentionality in designing courses, both in terms of careful selection of learning goals and careful design of the course structures and policies, can improve student learning experiences. Transparency in communicating to students about the reasons for these design choices and about priorities, expectations, and norms can help to surmount barriers that arise due to differences in background knowledge about the structures, policies, and expectations of higher education (Sellers & Villanueva, 2021; Villanueva et al., 2018; White & Lowenthal, 2011).

Creating an atmosphere of trust and sustaining it throughout the teaching experience has been shown to help learning (Archer-Kuhn & MacKinnon, 2020; Hartikainen et al., 2022). Winkelmes’ (2019) work on the Transparency in Learning and Teaching framework espouses not just an ethos of explaining to students the “why” behind assignments but ensuring that this spirit of openness is present in all pedagogies. For example, an

instructor can use the syllabus to make the goals of the class explicit, and they can intentionally state how to be successful in meeting those goals. When the course goals are transparently explained in class and students can see the way that course assignments and projects were intentionally chosen to connect to those learning goals it enhances the opportunities for equitable and effective learning experiences. Topics that might be covered in class and on a syllabus include due dates and times and the process and policies around extensions, an explanation of grading policies, and when students can expect feedback from the instructor. The language can be chosen so that it is easily understood by students and covers a variety of topics including course content, accessibility policies, grading policies, and pedagogical approaches (Gin et al., 2021). When students are to be assessed, instructors can share in advance the criteria they will use to evaluate student work and participation through grading rubrics or other methods.

When instructors are intentional about ensuring that the learning goals in a course are clearly communicated and all elements of the course are intentionally aligned to help students achieve these goals, it is easier to measure if the goals have been reached and students are more likely to be successful (Jensen et al., 2017; Neiles & Arnett, 2021; Reynolds & Kearns, 2017). Giving students information about course and program requirements, expectations, and opportunities provides them agency and empowers them to make decisions about pursuing further study in STEM. Explicitly informing students of policies and priorities can mitigate the negative effects of the “hidden curriculum” that frequently excludes first-generation students and those who are not well connected to campus communities and help students achieve their learning goals (Koutsouris et al., 2021; Rossouw & Frick, 2023; Winter & Cotton, 2012). Course plans and expectations are easier to describe and explain to students when courses are developed around the goals using strategies such as backward design—a process in which instructors start with the end result in mind and ask what they want students to know and be able to do at the end of the course (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This type of course design is described in further detail in Chapter 5. It stands in contrast to a content-focused approach, which takes as a starting point a body of knowledge (typically, a textbook). Learning goals can include goals around content, concepts, and practices that students should understand, but can also include skills and affective goals such as increased belonging or self-efficacy. Within courses, open and clear communication about learning goals at the course and assignment level helps students understand the goals and identify the pathway to achieve them (Palmer et al., 2014; Winkelmes et al., 2019). By foregrounding learning goals, and building content and assessments around them, backward design allows instructors to be more intentional in their teaching (Jensen et al., 2017; Neiles & Arnett, 2021; Reynolds & Kearns, 2017).

Principle 5: Multiple forms of data, can contribute to practices that support students’ equitable participation, including intentional inclusion of students from all backgrounds and transparency in major and graduation requirements as well as course offerings, structures, and scheduling.

THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPLES

Taken together, the Principles provide a lens for examining practices and policies at multiple levels—e.g., in the classroom, the academic unit, and the institution—to identify and enact the changes that need to be made in order to more toward more equitable and effective STEM teaching. They offer a common language and vision that can guide revisions to practice and policy such as re-imagining teaching evaluations, developing guidelines for professional teaching practice, or redesign of course content and course sequencing. Table 4-1 presents some examples of instructional practices that can fit under the Principles laid out in this chapter. The examples shared in the table are illustrative and not comprehensive. Similarly, many practices used in teaching can be classified as falling under more than one Principle and multiple Principles could be used in combination in a given teaching strategy.

While the Principles are envisioned as applying across institution types and different course structures and modalities (such as virtual courses), the specifics of how these Principles appear in practice will vary in different contexts. The following chapters explore how the Principles can inform changes at the classroom, academic unit, and institutional levels.

SUMMARY

This chapter presents a set of Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching that can be applied across institution types and different course structures and modalities as instructors design equitable and effective learning experiences for students. The Principles are discussed here primarily as seven separate concepts in order to elevate attention to each of them. In the classroom and in other learning settings, instructors use overlapping ideas and approaches from each of these Principles in the design and teaching of their courses. The Principles as a group describe what equitable and effective teaching looks like. Enacting them is the central focus of the journey to equitable and effective learning experiences. Later chapters of this report illustrate in more detail how instructors can use the Principles and how academic unit and institutional leaders can support those instructors. The evidence cited in this chapter is not meant to be exhaustive; rather, it has been selected to illustrate the importance and strength of support and to show that a large body of work underlies these Principles and can be drawn

NOTE: In this and subsequent chapters we often refer back to the Principles presented in this chapter to illustrate how they are relevant to the topics of later chapters. To avoid repeating the long names of each Principle we utilize some shorthand. The shorthand naming conventions are listed below the full Principle names in the left column of the table. The right-hand column of this table presents sample practices that could be used in an undergraduate STEM course.

upon by scholars and practitioners. The evidence for Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is quite strong: these Principles have been well studied in a variety of learning settings for people of diverse ages. The evidence for Principles 6 and 7 is less robust. That said, flexibility, responsiveness, intentionality, transparency, and related topics have been central to conversations about higher education for years, and these concepts underlie many efforts to improve undergraduate STEM education. Increased awareness to these issues and additional research on their use in teaching could help improve student learning experiences.

Conclusion 4.1: A set of Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching for undergraduate STEM education derived from the evidence on learning and teaching can inform the design and enactment of more equitable and effective pedagogical approaches. Using these Principles to improve undergraduate teaching and learning in STEM will require a commitment from STEM academic units and higher education institutions as well as from individual instructors. 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 support student learning
• Principle 7: Intentionality and transparency create more equitable opportunities