Present in Class yet Absent in Science: The Individual and Societal Impact of Inequitable Science Instruction and Challenge to Improve Science Instruction
Saved in:
| Title: | Present in Class yet Absent in Science: The Individual and Societal Impact of Inequitable Science Instruction and Challenge to Improve Science Instruction |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jones, Tamecia R. (ORCID |
| Source: | Science Education. Sep 2022 106(5):1032-1053. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 22 |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Science Instruction, Equal Education, Minority Group Students, Urban Areas, Rural Areas, Disproportionate Representation, Educational Quality, Access to Education, Racism, Social Bias |
| DOI: | 10.1002/sce.21728 |
| ISSN: | 0036-8326 1098-237X |
| Abstract: | Current science instruction does not educate K-12 students equitably and creates short- and long-term impacts on individual students and society. While students may be present in class, they may not have access to quality science learning experiences. The goals of this paper are to show how science instruction may not be reaching its aim of equitable access and to offer recommendations for creating a new baseline standard for equitable science instruction. Though not exhaustive, this paper identifies groups of students who are marginalized in current-day science instruction--the racially minoritized, those with physical and cognitive differences, and those in urban or rural communities. First, this paper challenges the neutrality of science by highlighting systemic yet negative outcomes that disproportionately impact minoritized populations in everyday life because of the narrow network of people who define and solve problems. Second, this paper identifies examples where science instruction is not of its highest quality for the highlighted groups. Third, we present a synthesis of research-informed solutions proposed to improve both the quality of science instruction and its equitable access for the highlighted groups, creating a new baseline standard for equitable science instruction. An elevated baseline would address the existing disparities in who has access to quality science instruction and consequently reduce the gatekeeper effect of who defines and solves societal problems that perpetuate intergenerational inequities. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2022 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1345255 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFtZ3qGb8wUlJNhzI-oTLWuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDj0X5gJWcvDE6EbigIBEICBm9VbJWej570CCwEEvOc8X2KzdGU4M865xwHzx801Mn6JfX27tgGhPV0pKuu5bPUhdQhiu5ZGdKAy8RWNprin1mopKQajghO1msbMa_-RcXeXwjEwTx4FmrBqRBH4VGXcnPNgelA0miNiDlZzjLshyM91bRaz5WWWv8GWRmeBfcwvF1i6C7Iz-5opzAPyKinll7CcKrG-nccHD91r Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0158601378;sed01sep.22;2022Aug22.03:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0158601378-1">Present in class yet absent in science: The individual and societal impact of inequitable science instruction and challenge to improve science instruction </title> <p>Current science instruction does not educate K‐12 students equitably and creates short‐ and long‐term impacts on individual students and society. While students may be present in class, they may not have access to quality science learning experiences. The goals of this paper are to show how science instruction may not be reaching its aim of equitable access and to offer recommendations for creating a new baseline standard for equitable science instruction. Though not exhaustive, this paper identifies groups of students who are marginalized in current‐day science instruction—the racially minoritized, those with physical and cognitive differences, and those in urban or rural communities. First, this paper challenges the neutrality of science by highlighting systemic yet negative outcomes that disproportionately impact minoritized populations in everyday life because of the narrow network of people who define and solve problems. Second, this paper identifies examples where science instruction is not of its highest quality for the highlighted groups. Third, we present a synthesis of research‐informed solutions proposed to improve both the quality of science instruction and its equitable access for the highlighted groups, creating a new baseline standard for equitable science instruction. An elevated baseline would address the existing disparities in who has access to quality science instruction and consequently reduce the gatekeeper effect of who defines and solves societal problems that perpetuate intergenerational inequities.</p> <p>Keywords: equity; science education</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158601378-3">Background</hd> <p>Current science instruction does not equitably educate K‐12 students and creates short‐ and long‐term impacts on individual students and society (Curran &amp; Kitchin, 2018). In a country where education is public, those not paying attention could and perhaps would assume that all K‐12 students receive quality science instruction (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, &amp; Medicine, 2021). Yet, upon investigation, it can be discovered that students who are disabled or systemically displaced by geography, poverty, race, gender, religion, language, or culture do not receive the same science instruction (quantity or quality) as students who are more privileged (Blank, 2013). How would one know if their or their child's science instruction was high quality? They likely would not, until it was too late. It is too late when one learns their children went to an elementary school too close to a petrochemical plant or underestimate the extent of potential harm due to proximity, or they mix the wrong cleaning products as an adult or neglect to purchase the carbon monoxide detector when they buy a new house or got burned by a car radiator because they did not understand closed systems. They were present in science class and their children are presently in science class now, but presence in class does not equal engagement or access to quality science instruction. The impact of poor quality science instruction has generational and societal impacts. Systemic low‐quality science instruction in minoritized and marginalized communities set up intergenerational barriers to science literacy, unless there is an instructional intervention. Some will argue that being left out of science education might only impact those individuals' careers and lives (Gouvea, 2021). We argue science education that leaves people out affects generations and entire societies. Inadequate and inequitable science instruction does not allow the greatest actualized diversity of problem‐scoping, ideas, solutions, and values. Improper and unevenly distributed science instruction results in gaps that create both visible and invisible outcomes. We are, through science instruction, excluding students in classrooms in how we do or do not teach them. Exposure does not equal education, access is not synonymous with availability, and equity in "neutral" subjects rarely assumes justice motivations.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-4">Goal of paper</hd> <p>Socially just teaching dictates that all learners have equal access to material resources and equitable opportunities to learn disciplinary content and practices. Therefore, despite the presence of quality education within a school context, students may not have the opportunity to access/participate in those courses. We must create a new baseline standard for equitable science instruction to remove the existing disparities in who has access to quality science instruction and consequently the intergenerational inequities that we see in society at large by widening the network of people who define and solve problems. The goals of this paper are to reflect on the impact of inequitable science instruction on students and society, highlight populations who are physically present in science classrooms, but still absent in authentic science engagement, identify instructional practices that reduce the quality of science understanding and subsequent opportunities, and present research‐informed solutions for lifting the baseline for equitable science instruction. The list of marginalized groups we present is not exhaustive as we highlight selected marginalized groups without negating the experiences of others.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-5">Positionality statement</hd> <p>Before we go further, it is important to understand the positionality of the authors. Tamecia Jones is a Black cisgender woman, raised in a rural community by parents who experienced segregation and integration and taught science in traditional and informal contexts in the urban Northeast. She had one Black science teacher in the 11th grade and was the first Black science teacher for her middle and high school students. Before teaching, she was trained as an engineer. She experienced the disparities of representation in undergraduate engineering programs firsthand and while working on the engineering teams solving health problems. Shondricka Burrell identifies as an African‐American female descendant of survivors of enslavement. Raised in geographically urban areas and attending public schools, she graduated from a science‐based high school and obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees in geology. She did not have any science teachers of color throughout her K‐12 and undergraduate programs, and one professor of color in a graduate program. Her experience motivates a commitment to educational equity and access.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-6">Terminology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158601378-7">Quality science instruction</hd> <p>Quality science instruction is characterized by cognitively engaging inquiry‐based learning experiences. These are learning experiences where students design investigations, test the efficacy of proposed designs, collect and analyze data, interpret results, make observations, formulate evidence‐based explanations for phenomena, critically evaluate alternatives, and communicate findings (National Research Council [NRC], 2012; Cartier et al., 2013). These learning experiences take place in discussion‐based classrooms where students coconstruct knowledge. However, the type of science learning that is most prevalent in schools with minoritized students tends to emphasize memorizing facts assessed by exams with little opportunity for students to demonstrate learning through an application (Rivera Maulucci, 2010; Upadhyay, 2021). Moreso, in such school contexts, students lack the opportunity to engage in meaningful connections with science content that demonstrate the relevance of science to their lived experience (Basu &amp; Barton, 2007).</p> <p>Quality science instruction is more than learning about phenomena and processes, but is how to critique and evaluate knowledge claims, use evidence to construct scientific explanations, access language to make reasoned arguments (NRC, 2012), and to leverage science to solve pressing and deeply entrenched societal problems. These skills will help students become "robust trustees" (Dewey, 1923, p. 12) using science for informed advocacy for their communities. In as much, quality science instruction is cognitively engaging, supportive of interest development, contextualized in the lived experience of the student, focused on the learning of science content and scientific practice, and its application. Therefore, we propose that quality science instruction effectively supports student interest development, is relevant to the lived experience of the learner, and is intentionally designed for authentic and agentic student participation in scientific practices.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-8">Science instruction that promotes student interest development</hd> <p>Participating in scientific practice, scientific knowledge construction, and applying that knowledge to everyday life, positions students as "engaged and capable learners (NRC, 2012, p. 249)," promotes student interest in the discipline, and motivated study of the content. In fact, interest is a contributing factor to science learning outcomes. Interest is a cognitive and motivational variable that strongly influences science learning and identity (Renninger &amp; Hidi, 2016). Students who are interested in science experience attentiveness to the content, focused effort in learning, positive affect during engagement, and persistence in completing assignments even when faced with challenge or difficulty (Renninger &amp; Hidi, 2016). Science interest contributes to the perceived value of the academic task, intrinsic motivation, self‐efficacy, academic achievement, and pursuit of STEM careers (Crowley et al., 2015; Maltese &amp; Harsh, 2015; Renninger &amp; Hidi, 2016; Sansone et al., 2015) and can be fostered when learners perceive clear implications of science study to their intended futures, perceive science content as useful and transferrable, identify meaningful connections between science content and their prior knowledge or lived experience, and have agency in the learning process (Basu &amp; Barton, 2007). Therefore, quality science instruction would include learning experiences that support student interest.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-9">Science instruction frames science as relevant</hd> <p>Interest development is influenced by the perceived relevance of the content. Dewey (1923) defines science as "grounded knowledge" (p. 380). Further, science instruction is effective when it is contextualized in the lived experience of the student.</p> <p>...careful inspection of methods which are permanently successful in formal education, whether in arithmetic or learning to read, or studying geography, or learning physics or a foreign language, will reveal that they depend for their efficiency upon the fact that they go back to the type of the situation which causes reflection out of school in ordinary life. They give the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking, or the intentional noting of connections; learning naturally results. (Dewey, 1923, p. 181)</p> <p>In other words, Dewey argues that quality instruction actively engages students in cognitively engaging knowledge construction and making connections between the learned content and everyday life.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-10">Emphasis on science content and the scientific practices</hd> <p>Quality science education as set forth by the NRC (2012) called for classroom science instruction that aligned with actual scientific practice in professional settings. Whether students would pursue advanced study in the sciences or science careers, the expectation was for students to not be passive learners of science but rather, by developing skills and understanding of how knowledge is created, to become "more critical consumers of scientific information" (NRC, 2012, p. 41). In other words, quality science instruction would engage students in three principal categories of scientific endeavor—"investigating, evaluating, and developing explanations and solutions" (NRC, 2012, p. 45) and their associated practices "asking questions and defining problems; developing and using models; planning and carrying our investigations; analyzing and interpreting data; using mathematics and computational thinking; constructing explanations and designing solutions; engaging in argument from evidence; and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information" (NRC, 2012, p. 3). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were developed as a response to the NRC (2012) recommendations to develop quality science education.</p> <p>The NGSS were motivated by the aim of developing a coherent inquiry‐based curriculum for K‐12 science education (NGSS Lead States, 2013). With three components—disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices (SEPs), and cross‐cutting concepts (CCs)—this science reform effort, in alignment with NRC 2012) recommendations, provides a template for quality science instruction for US‐based schools. Specifically, NGSS addresses how to implement the eight SEPs (NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 2012). While there are questions about whether NGSS allows for an epistemic agency for students of science to actively construct knowledge, is comprehensive in its inclusion of the nature of science across each grade band (McComas &amp; Nouri, 2016), and is adequately informed by issues of equity in access to quality science education in schools with diverse populations that may follow a more scripted curriculum, the standards put forth are intended as a template for inquiry‐based science learning experiences where students engage in the scientific practices while learning disciplinary science concepts from Grade K to 12.</p> <p>NGSS embeds scientific practices in the disciplinary content areas—Physical, Life, Earth and Space Sciences, and Engineering (NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 2012). In place of loosely connected facts, students identify patterns and conceptualize science ideas in the form of models, systems, and cycles that cut across the disciplinary content areas. These CCs increase the cognitive demand of academic tasks (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and are intended to progressively "deepen [student] understanding of the core ideas in these fields" (NRC, 2012, p. 9), as they revisit these conceptual frames, add to their understanding, and revise their thinking in each successive grade level.</p> <p>Quality science instruction, therefore, is characterized by cognitively engaging knowledge construction based on both the learning of disciplinary science ideas and scientific practice, and learning experiences that support student interest development and demonstrate the relevance of content. It is critical for all students, particularly the most marginalized, as both the conceptual knowledge and the scientific skills can inform decision making on the individual level, evaluate and critique policies on the community level, and disrupt patterns of injustice and inequity on the societal level. In other words, quality science instruction is transformative. Access to quality science instruction is not solely socially responsible but also a step toward equity and justice.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-11">Equity in science education</hd> <p>Adams (2020) defines equity in science education as the nonexistence of "statistical or descriptive barriers or differentials in achievement along demographic characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and ability" (p. 457). At the classroom level, this means that all students have equitable access to a quality science learning experience with no discernable differences in access based on demographic factors. To achieve true equity in science instruction, Adams (2020) argues that science teaching and learning should be engaging and interesting to all demographic groups including the most marginalized. In other words, equity is more than exposure or access, numeric representation in the vain of having a seat at a table or fulfilling an economic imperative. Equity‐centered science instruction would be informed by the learning needs and interests of the students, contextualizing science learning in their lived reality and informed by not only their pressing concerns but preparing them with the content and process knowledge to solve them. Philip and Azevedo (2017) argue that equity doesn't "simply diversify the actors in certain privileged segments of an otherwise enduringly inequitable and unjust society (p. 526)," but rather would "fundamentally reshape inequitable hierarchies of power in STEM and in society (p. 527). Equity is justice‐focused in that quality science instruction is the baseline and meaningfully includes local and cultural knowledge. In this paper, we operationalize equity as an approach to teaching science through cognitively engaging learning experiences aligned with eliminating discernable differences in access, learning, and involvement in the sciences.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-12">Racially minoritized and geographically marginalized groups</hd> <p>Decades after the historic <emph>Mendez v Westminster</emph> (1946) decision and <emph>Brown v Board of Education</emph> (1954), inequities persist in education in general and science instruction for racially minoritized and marginalized groups specifically. In this paper, <emph>marginalized groups</emph> will refer to people who are excluded from privilege, resources, and/or opportunity based on an aspect of their identity. <emph>Racially minoritized</emph> groups refer to people excluded from societal benefits based on their racial identity; people who are racially minoritized are marginalized on the basis of their race. These terms are not used interchangeably though those who are racially minoritized are by definition, marginalized. With respect to science education, inequities persist for students who are marginalized based on race, geographic location, and physical and cognitive disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-13">EXISTING DISPARITIES IN WHO HAS ACCESS TO QUALITY SCIENCE INSTRUCTION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158601378-14">Who does not have access to quality science instruction</hd> <p>Much research has been done on the experiences of girls and women in STEM. Likewise, acknowledgement and research into the experiences of emerging multilingual are continually growing. In addition, we acknowledge the marginalization of Native American/Indigenous/Alaskan Native and First Nations in the sciences and current efforts to develop inclusive pedagogies, implement culturally relevant curricula, and use local and indigenous knowledge in science instruction (Aikenhead, 1997; Alexiades et al., 2021; Reano &amp; Ridgway, 2015). Implications for science instruction for these students have more advanced research and wider dissemination. We chose to highlight students with cognitive and physical disabilities and minoritized (URMs, rural, and urban) students. We then present a brief window into the impact of intersectionality on experiences in science class.</p> <p>Students who have diagnoses of cognitive or physical disabilities have historically been excluded from science instruction by the lack of integration into mainstream general science education courses, lack of priority in required minutes of instruction, or via instructional methods. During the 2019–2021 school year, 14% (7.3 million) of public K‐12 students have individualized education programs and received special education services under the IDEA (National Council for Education Statistics, 2020), yet 98% of city, suburban, town, and rural public schools reported having at least one student with an identified disability. That means that almost every public school has the responsibility of educating someone with an identified disability while also educating students with undiagnosed or undisclosed disabilities. Historically, students with disabilities were not even mainstreamed until the early 1990s. Science instruction is less a priority when compared to literacy and mathematics as evidenced by the hierarchy of standardized testing. Even after mainstreaming, students' physical, socioemotional, or learning disabilities (LDs) may have accommodations, but instruction does not always facilitate their success. The research focused on science instruction for students with physical and cognitive disabilities is limited. As an example, the only article appearing over the past 5 years in the journal <emph>Science Education</emph> that mentions inclusion for students with disabilities was a book review (Daley, 2019). Research on how science teachers are trained to support disabilities shows that teachers may not feel prepared through the one course (if that) they may take in their science education preparation programs (Boda, 2019), and disability is often not considered on par with language, class, race, or gender as a difference. Intentional or not, many teachers still view disabilities as deficits of individual students rather than as a social model where the fault lies within the environment (Baurhoo, 2017).</p> <p>Equity in science instruction will be the intentional design of science learning experiences that foster student interest, persistence, and learning of science content. Many effective science learning experiences take place in discussion‐based classrooms where students coconstruct knowledge. However, the type of science learning that is most prevalent in schools with minoritized students form the majority emphasizes the memorization of facts assessed by exams with little opportunity for students to demonstrate learning through application, nor where students engage in meaningful connections with science content that demonstrate its relevance to their lived experience (Basu &amp; Barton, 2007). It could be that standardized testing and reductionist curriculum contribute to the lack of access to quality science instruction in schools where minoritized students are the majority (Lomax et al., 1995).</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-15">What is it to be left out of classroom science instruction</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158601378-16">Physical and cognitive disabilities</hd> <p>The fact that science instruction is heavily print‐based poses obstacles for many learners, including those who have difficulties as readers, but particularly those with visual and hearing impairments. Deaf/hard of hearing students are more likely to have reading challenges because reading is dependent upon language and vocabulary.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-17">Blind</hd> <p>Sixty thousand blind or low vision (BLV) students are inconsistently included in activities in science class. Teachers self‐report that visually impaired students (VTIs) are included more in physics and astronomy, less in chemical reactions or dissection, and rarely included in microscopic and dissecting activities (Koehler &amp; Wild, 2019). Science classes can be unsafe since over 40% of teachers trained for VTIs observed that science teachers rarely expressed concern about potential danger from laboratory experiments (Koehler &amp; Wild, 2019). When science teachers are concerned about safety, sometimes the solution is to not allow students to touch anything while labs are being conducted, resulting in a hands‐off experience instead of a hands‐on learning experience. The alternative approach to this method is "directed laboratory assistant," where the BLV student is paired with a sighted student. Neither of these approaches motivates BLV students to pursue STEM careers. In fact, inadequate exposure or experience with hands‐on experiments could delay or arrest the development of student's self‐confidence in their ability to function as a scientist independently (Beck‐Winchatz &amp; Riccobono, 2008; Supalo et al., 2014). In addition, less than half of BLV high school students reported feeling part of a team during high school science activities (Supalo et al., 2014). When students are not confident, they can move independently as a scientist or do not feel a part of the team, they are not empowered as learners.</p> <p>Science expansion has generated excitement and interest, but still lacks inclusion infrastructure. Recent movements such as the Maker Movement and computer science that espouse equity and inclusion fall short. Students interested in participating in the Maker movement face inaccessible/undocumented instructions, lack of multisensory modules, and less tangible design of maker boards in Maker kits (Seo, 2019). Students learning coding face accessibility challenges in the development environments (online websites such as Code.org or other block‐based environments such as Scratch, SNAP!, or Blockly), the visual metaphors or artifacts become obstacles, and College Board AP CSP exam may not necessarily accommodate BLV students (Stefik et al., 2019).</p> <p>Assistive devices and technologies have been developed since the early 1980s, but they may or may not be widespread and easily accessible in public schools due to cost, despite their manufacturer considering them low‐cost. Even when the tools are available or there is funding, sometimes software is incompatible with existing technology or data collection tools, requiring consistent updates, additional scripts, or compatibility solutions. When we think about resources, people who are blind are more likely to have access to braille rulers and periodic tables and modified lab equipment, but they may need talking thermometers and balances and electronic lab equipment. Accommodations (equipment, personnel, resources) may be viewed as too expensive or not worth the return on investment because the number of students may be small. In schools, more expensive materials could potentially be purchased with federal quota funds if students meet federal guidelines and are registered with the American Painting House for the Blind (Koehler &amp; Wild, 2019).</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-18">Deaf and hard‐of‐hearing (DHH)</hd> <p>Fifty‐seven percent of DHH students are educated in general education settings, 24% in special schools for the deaf, and 23% in DHH self‐contained classrooms, while others are homeschooled or have access to resource rooms. DHH students are less likely to be exposed to informal science education. If born to hearing parents (90%) who do not learn to sign (~75%), students entering school may have delayed language acquisition, reading difficulties, or misconceptions only to be placed in classrooms with teachers who may not be trained to teach them (Raven &amp; Whitman, 2019). This means DHH students may lack a language shared at home <emph>and</emph> at school. Often DHH students are less successful in school science than math (Vosganoff et al., 2013). They are also less successful than students with language backgrounds other than English because language and literacy impact science learning in ways often taken for granted. There are limited numbers of resources that have vocabulary in English and American Sign Language (ASL) that have science‐specific words, particularly those related to SEPs, and only eight publicly available have been identified (P. Enderle et al., 2020). Within those resources, the low number of consensus signs (those that suggest a common understanding of the sign and a community of users) and some compound signs (signs that combine multiple individual signs) can foster misconceptions in students. Even within sign language, different cultures may have different sign language. For example, Black ASL differs from ASL (Renken et al., 2021). Instructional methods could favor spoken language, manually coded sign language, and bilingual approaches that emphasize ASL (J. D. Enderle et al., 2004). This model of bilingual education forces students to balance ASL, a visual/spatial modality, and English, a print modality and auditory language. This means that there is a need for linguistic resources.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-19">Cognitive disabilities</hd> <p>Thirty‐three percent of public school students have identified LDs, and 11% have been diagnosed with the autism spectrum (National Council for Education Statistics, 2020). Students with LDs may face challenges understanding language (written or verbal), retaining information (short or long term), working with numeric data in scientific investigations, attention or behavior issues, identity and self‐efficacy, or written expression.</p> <p>All of these physical and cognitive disabilities have deep connections to literacy and the demands literacy creates for learning science. It is highly likely that increased challenges in upper elementary school begin and grow after fourth grade, where teachers stop teaching how to read while simultaneously expecting students to learn from what they read (cited in Scott &amp; Hansen, 2020 but originally in Chall, 1983). This challenge with literacy has a domino effect. When these students score lower on high‐stakes testing, they are less likely to be eligible or invited to informal programs, and if extracurricular opportunities do not have appropriate accommodations, these students may have reduced experiences in cooperative learning, mentoring, externships, and research. They are again, deleted.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-20">Minoritized</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158601378-21">Underrepresented racially minoritized (URM) students</hd> <p> URM students, or URMs borrowing a term from McGee (2020), do not have the privilege of visual or cultural representation in the sciences. Often science is framed as a space of innovation where individual accomplishment is prioritized, and outcomes monetized. These values and priorities do not align with a view of science for the collective good, equity, and social justice. This has the consequence of URM students being excluded from the sciences and/or not developing a sense that their perspectives, values, and motivations have a place in the sciences (Morton et al., 2022). This lack of sense of belonging is further compounded by access to quality science learning experiences.</p> <p>Inequity in access to quality learning experiences is evidenced by the existence of honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses in predominantly Black schools where mostly White students enroll in the classes (Triplett &amp; Ford, 2019). This circumstance reinforces a narrative of who learns science, who creates science, and who deserves to participate in science—and who does not belong. In this case, equitable access is not equivalent to equity in instructional quality. Through AP courses, students can develop specific knowledge in the areas of "educational institutions, bureaucratic operations, technical labor, and academic task‐specific knowledge" (Hallett &amp; Venegas, 2011, p. 473) that contribute to postsecondary persistence and success. Hallett and Venegas (2011) found that even in low‐income urban schools where there is equity in access, the offered AP courses available are rigorously enough taught to prepare students to pass the AP exam. Students in these instances are given As and Bs in the AP course, but fail the AP exam that would confer college credit (Hallett &amp; Venegas, 2011). Consequently, the college applications from students with college credit for their AP courses are less competitive for college admission. Further, when admitted to college, those students are less prepared for rigorous academic engagement than their peers (Hallett &amp; Venegas, 2011). Thus, equity in access is not equivalent to equity in quality.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-22">Rural and urban students</hd> <p>Marginalization is not solely based on race and ability but also on geographic location. Geography is a factor in the distribution of resources as well as access to participation in science education that is contextualized in their lived experience and can be leveraged as a resource to make critical decisions about water quality and land use (Basu &amp; Barton, 2007; Eppley, 2016). Therefore, where learners live corresponds to the quality of science instruction they receive. Spatial inequity must be considered a category of a disadvantage as much as low SES, gender, and race (Roberts &amp; Green, 2013) as it creates material and social barriers to participation in democratic life (Eppley, 2016). Each location faces idiosyncrasies in its advantages and disadvantages. For the 11.4 million rural students (Avery, 2013), their geography may be associated with having less qualified teachers and reduced access to out‐of‐school science activities, special education resources, and course offerings (Zuniga et al., 2005). Rural students may also have access to less technology and laboratory facilities. It appears that the distribution of quality science learning experiences resembles the shape of a round doughnut with schools in urban and rural areas under‐resourced and schools in suburban areas well‐resourced. Urban and rural schools share a lack of curricular resources and educators that may be certified to teach in specific disciplinary areas (biology, chemistry, and physics). Learners who live in urban areas may live closer to public‐facing institutions such as museums, aquariums, or makerspaces, but proximity does not necessarily equal participation. School contexts for urban and rural students are not as disparate as may be considered.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-23">LONG‐TERM IMPACT ON SOCIETY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158601378-24">Societal implications</hd> <p>Science has historically proudly purported its neutrality (Harding, 2016; Keller &amp; Longino, 1996) and society has affirmed and celebrated such neutrality. However, such neutrality is deployed in the service of power. Coupled with assumptions of objectivity and the commitment to meritocracy, science has engendered trust in generating reliable knowledge. In reality, STEM fields reflect the symptoms of other social ills such as inequity and oppressive structures (McGee, 2020). To default back to this neutrality is a "dereliction of responsibility" (Dawson et al., 2018, p. 483). It is evident in who successfully emerges in the field, not independent of motivation and resilience, but in spite of structures that require resilience. The science professions in the United States do not reflect the national demographic: 88% of science and engineering professionals are identified as White or Asian (McGee, 2020, p. 21), whereas non‐Asian people of color are underrepresented in the sciences. We already know that STEM professions are predominantly White, male‐dominated, and that Euro‐centered perspectives determine the values, the spotlight, and the priorities in America (McGee, 2020). The same can be said of STEM Education. The perspectives and contributions of underrepresented demographic groups are not included in the asking of questions and generating of solutions to complex problems affecting the broader population. This translates into the nation or society running the risk that the solutions simply will not be efficacious, and worse, that they will have deleterious effects on the marginalized. When only certain people identify the problems and only certain people attempt to solve the problems, all problems do not get solved and sometimes more problems are generated. Is there any wonder why some problems still exist? Is there not any trend in the problems subsequently generated by the solutions of homogenous teams? The result is a centering of such dominance on the definition of scientific problems and the resulting "solutions."</p> <p>As science is embedded in every aspect of our society so does the reach of science inequities. Inequity in science education means that people who generate innovative ideas and self‐declare or address society‐proclaimed problems tend to provide solutions that cause problems for others. One reason for that policy, problems, and proposed solutions did not reflect our whole society in terms of perspectives, voices, and concerns. Were the decision‐making tables, labs, and project teams actually demographically diverse, we would be less likely to have:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Self‐driving cars hit people of color in darkness (Wilson et al., 2019).</item> <p></p> <item> A higher injury or fatality rate for women in car accidents because anthropomorphic test device and seatbelts are normed to adult male bodies (Linder et al., 2018; Mordaka &amp; Gentle, 2003).</item> <p></p> <item> Automatic faucets do not work for people of color (Gronneberg, 2020; Oremus, 2021; Plenke, 2015).</item> <p></p> <item> AI facial recognition algorithms have an inherent bias in proctoring software (Mangan, 2021).</item> <p></p> <item> A medical–pharmaceutical establishment that uses cells of the late Henrietta Lacks to treat many cancers, map genes, and support in vitro research (Baker, 2011; Skloot, 2017).</item> <p></p> <item> Disparities in access and treatment continue and trigger the memory of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study where participants were not offered penicillin (Nix, 2020) for 25 years after its discovery, creating historic distrust between people of color and the medical institution.</item> <p></p> <item> Oil pipelines expedite energy sources, but threaten Indigenous water and food sovereignty (Jonasson et al., 2019).</item> <p></p> <item> Reproductive health instruments and procedures are painful because they were done without anesthesia (Washington, 2006).</item> <p></p> <item> Inequity is in the race‐based cognitive testing accepted by the National Football League to evaluate brain damage from work‐related concussive injuries and determine medical payouts (Hobson, 2021).</item> </ulist> <p>Other outcomes based on science done "blindly" manifest in environmental injustice and health outcomes that disproportionately affect marginalized and minoritized demographic groups. A short review of consequences related to pollution reveals: (a) those living in poverty are more exposed to solid particulate air pollution both in overall exposure and the magnitude of that exposure (Mikati et al., 2018), (b) minoritized demographic groups are disproportionately exposed to air pollution (Tessum et al., 2021), and (c) African Americans are disproportionately impacted by air pollution with above‐average exposures, above‐average magnitude of exposure, and subsequent adverse health impacts due to exposure to environmental toxicants (Fleischman &amp; Franklin, 2017; Tessum et al., 2021; Villarosa, 2020). A short review of consequences related to health reveals: (a) postbirth survival of Black infants increases when the caring physician is Black as opposed to when the caring physician is non‐Black (Greenwood et al., 2020), and (b) Black mothers are more likely to die postpartum than Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and White mothers (Centers for Disease Control, 2020). A short review of consequences related to the military revealed: (a) decades later and generational impact on maternal health outcomes and birth defects and increased cancer in civilian descendants of Orange Agent exposure and veterans (Stellman &amp; Stellman, 2018); and (b) the estimated 400 million US landmines deployed both defensively and offensively in war impact transportation and power infrastructure and trade (Chiovelli et al., 2018), burden health systems with required emergency and long‐term rehabilitation and mental health support, and impact health, education, and wealth outcomes for children long after the military conflict has officially concluded because territories can remain contaminated until they are determined "mine‐free" (Chiovelli et al., 2018; Gunaratnam et al., 2003; Williams, 1995).</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-25">INEQUITIES THAT GET ADDRESSED WHEN DIVERSE PEOPLE DEFINE AND SOLVE PROBLEMS</hd> <p>It is equity‐centered inclusion that would "open the gates to those who potentially have the answers for some of humanity's most pressing concerns (McGee, 2020, p. XII) and evade damaging racially biased outcomes. Varied perspectives and reflections are an asset for teams that are both diverse and inclusive. Such teams do not have the liability of unquestioned assumptions, but rather a multiplicity of lenses and perspectives to develop comprehensive approaches to complex problems. URM individuals have a uniquely developed knowledge base which positions them to engage inquiry from a broader context based on their lived experience. It is a "painfully acquired knowledge" that lends itself to a "different set of questions and encourages innovative and racially conscious approaches" (McGee, 2020, p. 21). One recent example is the work of Buolamwini and Gebru (2018) who identified racial and gender bias in facial‐recognition software, more specifically, the testing of the efficacy of three commercially available packages potentially used in a variety of applications, including virtual lineups in US‐law enforcement agencies found a 0.8% error rate when identifying males with light complexions and a 34.7% error rate when identifying Black females. The software was more efficacious in accurately identifying light‐complexioned males and females and less efficacious in identifying dark‐complexioned males and females, with the highest error rate for darker‐skinned females of more than one in three (Buolamwini &amp; Gebru, 2018). Based on these results, Buolamwini and Gebru (2018) recommend "increasing phenotypic and demographic representation in face datasets," disclosure of "demographic and phenotypic composition of training and benchmark datasets," and disclosure of performance metrics (p. 12). Beyond the results, the work of Buolamwini and Gebru (2018) demonstrates three things: (a)  URM scientists leverage perspectives and a knowledge base that improves the quality of scientific products, (b) the approaches proposed by URM scientists advance fair and racially equitable solutions, and (c) science conducted by members of  URM groups would minimize disparities and contribute to justice. It is also an example of what Gilliard (2019) describes in his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee Task Force on Financial Technology, as researchers detect and uncover potentially harmful technical failures after the product has become commercially available and perhaps even deeply entrenched in society. For a technology that can be used in life‐altering decision making, such as surveillance and facial recognition, tech companies should demonstrate not only the efficacy of the software before deployment, but evidence that it does not perpetuate harm to minoritized and marginalized communities (Gilliard, 2019). In the case of Buolamwini and Gebru (2018), scientists working at MIT and Microsoft, respectively, whose identities lie at the intersection of Black and female, uncovered a technical failure in three commercially available facial recognition software when applied to the identification of Black women. Equitable inclusion would evade harm to minoritized groups and minimize the harmful effects of proposed scientific solutions to vulnerable communities.</p> <p>This was but one example of how a diverse problem identification, definition, solution‐generating, and decision‐making team impact the end product. The authors attempted to find an example of one of the other subgroups whose participation changed the trajectory of technology and reduced negative outcomes for minoritized groups. In fact, many technologies (i.e., texting, videophone) that are now ubiquitous were originally designed for people with disabilities, and sometimes by people with disabilities (Ladner, 2015). The examples found of individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities had more of an exceptionalist lens than an active designer focus beyond the role of a user, and we did not want to promote exceptionalism when we aim for inclusion.</p> <p>The teaming nature of engineering inherently includes brainstorming multiple solutions and researching the needs and goals of various stakeholders, identifying different users, critiques to improve products or prevent harm, and testing. Engineering and design should be integrated into science instruction because the definition of problems and solution generation practices are less linear, more iterative, and view failure differently based on users, constraints, and goals. Of course, there are instances where engineering problems and design scenarios are integrated into science instruction, but this is not consistent across the curricula or grade levels. Science instruction impacts the knowledge and diverse lenses that individuals bring to teams and integrating scientific knowledge with engineering practices often leads to more efficient and comprehensive solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-26">SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS INEQUITY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158601378-27">Re‐envisioning science education with equitable science instruction</hd> <p>Current research around equity‐oriented instruction centers around allowing students to: (a) navigate multiple epistemologies of science as opposed to adapting to one (Bang &amp; Medin, 2010; Bettez et al., 2011); place‐based science learning (Lanouette, 2022; Luce et al., 2017; Schindel Dimick, 2016); the framing of science as actionable (McNeill &amp; Vaughn, 2012); and parental engagement for female science learners in urban settings (Koch et al., 2019). Instructional strategies include: supporting student development in competence in the fundamental scientific practices (NRC, 2012; Peker &amp; Wallace, 2011); development of science learning ecosystems that leverage local (Iruka et al., 2020) and electronic resources; not just increasing access to college preparatory science courses but the quality of those courses (Hallett &amp; Venegas, 2011); developing ecologies of science learning that connect in‐class with out‐of‐class learning in urban and rural schools (Wonch‐HIll et al., 2018); and cognitively engaging science learning in economically disadvantaged rural communities (Ihrig et al., 2018) and urban settings.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-28">Classroom level implications</hd> <p>This next section synthesizes many of the classroom level implications that would improve the baseline for science instruction while attending to the needs of students with disabilities and URMs. We first present general ideas for raising the baseline of instruction, and then present specific implications for instructions for each subgroup. To raise the baseline, we immediately recommend curriculum and resources that reflect the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework (Meyer et al., 2014), and assistive technology (Parette &amp; Peterson‐Karlan, 2007) where it will have the most impact on the most learners, but particularly for students with disabilities. Three core principles of UDL are: multiple means of engagement, multiple means of representation, and diverse action and expression of knowledge (Adu‐Boateng &amp; Goodnough, 2021; Basham &amp; Marino, 2013; Courey et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2014). The use of technology can represent knowledge in multiple ways and support student expression of understanding and increase engagement (Marino et al., 2014; Pacheco‐Guffrey, 2019). Assistive technology helps raise the "floor of opportunity" and reduce the performance gap for students with physical and cognitive disabilities (Parette &amp; Peterson‐Karlan, 2007). The next sections will highlight the groups we identified earlier in the paper who do not experience quality science instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-29">Blind</hd> <p>A survey of research reveals many modifications to instructions or opportunities to resource BLV students with tools that make science learning activities easier. We share some strategies related to visual materials, multimodality support, and group work.</p> <p>Teachers should use large print or Braille materials or modify current printed documents in spacing, font style, contrast, size, shape, and color (Kizilaslan et al., 2020). When students are using computers, they activate accessibility features to magnification tools. Find and use multimodality learning supports for the curricula or textbooks. As the auditory channel is a compensatory modality for BLV students, use talking tools (Supalo &amp; Mallouk, 2007) and sonified learning models for complex systems and phenomena where sounds will be distinctive and learners can interpret "virtual scenarios" (Lahav et al., 2018). For text or online books, audio‐recorded texts or the use of text‐to‐speech screen readers (e.g., Sci‐Voice Talking LabQuest) should be the default. Another strategy is to convert graphical and textual information with software (Beck‐Winchatz &amp; Riccobono, 2008, p. 1856). Since graphics accompany the text in science textbooks, create tactile versions of the diagrams in science textbooks or handouts and use 3D models instead of images as such models may increase understanding of a scientific concept or relationship (Beck‐Winchatz &amp; Riccobono, 2008; Coldewey, 2019; Karbowski, 2020). (The website see3d.org is a resource.) As we integrate computer science skills into the curriculum and many popular programming environments are block‐based, consider accessible programming environments such as Quorum Language (Kane &amp; Bigham, 2014; Stefik et al., 2019).</p> <p>Teachers must find a way to integrate and empower BLV students on teams or in balanced partnerships by conducting hands‐on science experiments. To do this, consider not making another student a BLV student's "hands," but acquiring appropriate functional supplies such as notched syringes and serving trays. Another strategy is to consider codesigning activities with BVI students (Winters et al., 2020) in professional development trainings to integrate a user‐centered approach to pedagogy and test efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-30">Deaf/hard of hearing</hd> <p>Beyond typically encouraged strategies for inclusion and pedagogy, we identify specific opportunities and implications for instruction for these students. Inquiry‐oriented and activity‐based instruction is recommended (Wang, 2011). Teachers should employ strategies that repeat information visually such as pictures, signs, or graphs (Raven &amp; Whitman, 2019), and improve print literacy materials so that students can successfully access and utilize information in print. When teachers are making up signs for use in the classroom, they need to consider the nature of the sign, based on Peirce's theory of signs (Peirce, 1900), so that they do not deepen confusion by conflating the characteristics and purposes of iconic signs, index signs, and symbols.</p> <p>While doing so, teachers must be mindful that if they use visual materials more than they would otherwise, they must reflect on whether their behavior implies that they unconsciously believe in sensory compensation (Marschark et al., 2017), which has not been proven true. Research shows that deaf students' reliance on visual language modalities does not mean that they are visual learners as reliance on vision as opposed to audition does not make one an auditory learner (P. Enderle et al., 2020; Wang, 2011 as cited in Scruggs &amp; Mastropieri, 2007). Given this opportunity, we remind readers that the concept of learning styles was recently invalidated (Pashler et al., 2009; Riener &amp; Willingham, 2010), so dependence on learning styles reveals slow evolution of pedagogy impacting classrooms.</p> <p>As science success is heavily contingent upon literacy, there are recommendations around the acquisition of language. Teachers must remember that they cannot treat informational text such as science text like they do narrative text because there is a specialized content literacy necessary to understand it. Dialogic reading, an interactive instructional strategy where students read with adults, has shown promise for students using ASL in improving comprehension of informational text (Scott &amp; Hansen, 2020). Teachers should aim to streamline vocabulary words as the number of new vocabulary words in science textbooks rivals and surpasses foreign‐language textbooks. Instructors should consider the integration of explicit literacy instruction so that scientific literacy and language acquisition happen concurrently or integrate performance literacy, the capture of information through speech or signing (Wang, 2011, p. 248).</p> <p>When given the option, research shows that interpreted instruction is less effective than direct ASL instruction for many reasons (Kurz &amp; Schick, 2015), but primarily because direct instruction has resulted in higher content knowledge. Research reveals that interpreters are not neutral in that they choose what and when to interpret. This means that 66% of the time, they are diverging from the teacher's lesson by adding, changing, or dropping things from the communication (Wolbers et al., 2012). Classes that incorporate an interpreter should recognize that signing requires students to split eye contact between the interpreter and teacher and increases visual demands. Therefore, though encouraged, teachers leading inquiry‐based classes should be mindful of teacher‐led lecturing, group work, and reading aloud.</p> <p>Scientific writing poses a challenge because of the dependence on language acquisition and comprehension of concepts. Writing increases opportunities for less confident students to participate and presents an opportunity to develop and expand vocabulary while also revealing misconceptions that can be corrected. Instructors should implement write‐to‐learn strategies such as creative pieces, guided free writes, end‐of‐class reflections, and double entries as a way to support the construction of the meaning of science concepts and the development of science processes. Double entries and creative pieces help teachers assess understanding and end‐of‐class reflections guide teachers where they need to go in future instruction (Lang, 2001). Teachers will need to be well‐versed in content and interpretation of DHH student's writing to avoid writing becoming another assessment trap.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-31">Cognitive disabilities</hd> <p>The span of cognitive disabilities is too vast for us to presume that we can present strategies for each type or severity of the disability. Therefore, we present categories for instruction with accompanying strategies, inquiry‐based instruction management, and considerations for activities and group work.</p> <p>Students historically have learned science through two primary methods: textbooks or activities. Textbook‐based approaches stress literary processing and activity‐based approaches create openings for attention and behavioral issues. Some popular, effective strategies used to teach students with disabilities include systematic instruction, self‐directed learning, and comprehensive‐based instruction (Apanasionok et al., 2019; Browder &amp; Spooner, 2011). Systematic instruction has proven to be a successful strategy for teaching students with cognitive and developmental disabilities (Browder &amp; Spooner, 2011). This process involves outlining target skills, planning and structuring instructional methods, implementing, and assessing progress and making modifications. It also involves task analysis, embedded instruction, constant time delay, simultaneous and least‐to‐most prompting, and scripted lessons. Self‐directed learning includes augmented reality applications, a self‐monitoring checklist, and concept mapping. Comprehensive‐based instruction includes techniques such as compare‐contrast strategy and multicomponent text structure intervention.</p> <p>These strategies lean toward behaviorist theories, in contrast to the promotion of constructivist and inquiry‐based teaching (Rizzo &amp; Taylor, 2016). If teachers are attempting to make everything inquiry‐based, some of the strategies are leaving students with disabilities out as they cannot engage the same as other students. Martin‐Hansen outlined four forms of inquiry‐based instruction (open, guided, coupled, and structured), and while open inquiry is not heavily recommended for students with disabilities, a structured inquiry has more positive outcomes (Rizzo &amp; Taylor, 2016).</p> <p>From a course planning perspective, teachers should integrate differentiated curriculum enhancements and modifications (McGinnis, 2013) and peer tutoring. Additional ways for helping students to manage text are to support verbal learning with keyword and mnemonics and text processing with spatial and graphic organizers (Brigham et al., 2011). When doing active learning and hands‐on activities with students, teachers should consider the following strategies: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) rehearse and mini‐conference with students, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) supporting lab write‐ups as students may have literacy and language challenges. As science may have lots of group work, teachers should be extra attentive toward small groups by monitoring them and offering feedback. This is because unless students with similar disabilities are grouped and that group is scaffolded, not monitoring small groups could create tensions between peers, negative attitudes from nondisabled students about learning disabled students, and impact the identity and self‐efficacy of students (Apanasionok et al., 2019).</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-32">Minoritized students</hd> <p>This section attends to systemic ways of changing the experiences of the minoritized populations of URMs, gender, and rural and urban students. It then highlights the impact that intersectionality of identities has on students.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-33">URMs, gender, rural, and urban</hd> <p>Minoritization and marginalization reinforce systemic under‐representation. Chapman and Feldman (2017) describe a feedback loop where under‐representation begets under‐representation. Specifically, racially minoritized and otherwise marginalized demographic groups are typically tracked in science courses that are neither cognitively engaging nor aligned with learning both science content and scientific practice (Basu &amp; Barton, 2007; Chapman &amp; Feldman, 2017). Consequently, members of minoritized and marginalized demographic groups are less likely to pursue and persist in the sciences. This in turn means there are numerically fewer science educators and scientists for visual representation and the envisioning of a potential future self by students. Chapman and Feldman (2017) propose breaking this feedback loop with authentic science experiences that engage students in learning science content and investigative practices through research. Authentic science learning experiences foster the development of a science identity and a more inclusive perspective of who learns and performs science. These learning experiences are also cognitively engaging.</p> <p>Quality science is not the same as passive learning but rather active involvement in knowledge construction. This is cognitively engaging. In the science classroom, cognitively engaging instruction gives students agency, allows an opportunity to engage the task in multiple ways as opposed to a singular prescriptive approach, and demonstrates learning in a variety of ways as opposed to one correct response (Cartier et al., 2013). For example, for experimentation tasks, in lieu of just completing the procedural steps in a detailed protocol, students discuss the question, make decisions about the evidence needed to address the question, and compare and contrast different protocols to determine which one would be best suited for the posed experimental question (Cartier et al., 2013). Following the experiment, students then are supported in identifying patterns in the data, deciding how to interpret and represent the results, and providing evidence‐based explanations for their findings (Cartier et al., 2013; NRC, 2012). Quality science instruction cognitively engages students in the construction of scientific understanding.</p> <p>A common solution for addressing under‐resourced urban and rural schools in the ecosystem model—leveraging community resources to supplement in‐school learning experiences. An equity‐oriented science curriculum would include an ecosystem approach to place‐based science teaching and learning where students exercise agency in investigating science content contextualized in their immediate environments—rural or urban. An ecosystem approach to teaching science can address the lack of resources with respect to disciplinary content specialists and materials in rural and urban classrooms. The ecosystem would leverage home–school‐community partnerships to codesign and implement science learning experiences for students (Iruka et al., 2020). Families can engage in intergenerational learning while motivating students to persist in academic study. Whereas a school may lack science lab materials a local science museum, botanical garden, or tech may be able to share resources. In addition, science learning can stem from examining questions of interest to the local community. Place‐based problem‐posing may have students examine the local impact of invasive species or shifts in weather patterns. Understanding the science behind climate change, for example, is empowering students in using scientific knowledge to develop local and sustainable solutions (McNeill &amp; Vaughn, 2012). Equity is supported for both rural and urban students by making meaningful connections amongst home, school, and community, and as they learn science as relevant to their lived experience.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-34">Intersectionality</hd> <p>Inequity is exacerbated at the intersection of marginalized identities. URM (URM identities) students who also identify as female or with having physical and cognitive disabilities experience additional forms of marginalization. Statistically, students who are both Black and female are more likely to be disciplined in a way that removes them from the school building and from learning with their peers in the classroom, a practice that likely contributes to undesirable learning outcomes (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Goodkind, 2016).</p> <p>URM students with physical and cognitive disabilities are further marginalized in educational settings (A. J. Artiles, 2013; A. Artiles, 2021). Goodkind (2016) found that in Allegheny Country schools, while Black girls are disciplined at higher rates than White girls, and that Black girls with disabilities receive out‐of‐school suspension at higher rates than both White girls with disabilities and Black girls. This thereby undermines student classroom learning and connection to the school. Without being in the classroom, students are not learning with their peers and are not engaging in science learning that would prepare them for academic success and persistence in the sciences.</p> <p>Science instruction can be made more equitable for racially minoritized who have identities at an intersection with another identity that is excluded from societal benefits and privileges. For example, there are instructional approaches that foster academic success in science for female URM students. African‐American and Latinx female students persist in outside‐of‐school science learning experiences/activities when the following factors are present; involvement and emotional and material support from parents, guardians, and/or adult role models, with encouragement from parents as the most significant factor; students are able to engage in inquiry in science topics of personal interest; the science activity is perceived as personally relevant, meaningful, and in alignment with cultural values and family practices; the science embedded in the careers of adult family members is made visible; meaningful connections are made between science and the lived experience of the student; and when the learning environment promotes a growth mindset (Koch et al., 2019). These attributes can be implemented in in‐school learning environments as well, where parents, students, and educators collaborate and contribute to the design and implementation of educational experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-35">SUMMARY</hd> <p>We started this essay by asking how parents know whether they or their child have had quality science instruction. Parents and the general public may have strong confidence that all students are exposed to equitable, high‐quality science. As science professionals and science teachers, we knew that we could not take science instruction for granted. And yet, research reveals the many students who are likely to be marginalized in class, if they even have science class. Although students are present in class, they can be left out of instruction, subsequently left out of scientific understanding, and permanently left out of scientific careers and advocacy. Without malice toward or directing culpability at individual classroom teachers, we revealed vulnerabilities in science instruction. We brought to fore the classroom instructional experiences of students with physical and cognitive disabilities and the marginalized populations of URMS, rural, and urban students. We provided examples of how science perpetuates and exacerbates prejudice, racism, ableism, and neglects long‐term consequences of short‐term political, militaristic, and capitalistic gain due to structural commitments to perpetuating exclusionary educational structures. We identified opportunities for improving the baseline of science instruction with UDL and pedagogical strategies implemented with respect to each of our highlighted subgroups.</p> <p>We chose this focus to challenge historical assumptions, expectations, and acceptance of science as self‐correcting (Weaver et al., 1961). We do see self‐correction in science as protocols and proposed solutions are modified in response to data in real‐time or technological advances. Science evolves as our collective knowledge expands through investigation. However, when this concept is applied to equity and inclusion in science instruction, it does not represent reality. If science instruction were both neutral and self‐correcting, we would see a representation of the larger society as members of the science community. We would see consistent decision‐making and problem‐solving that reflected scientific understanding and safety. Yet, this is not the case. We have been waiting for the self‐correction and deferring the burden onto the individual instead of the system. There are statistical differences that we label as heretofore accepted and explained solely as under‐representation. In fact, science with respect to who learns and does science is neither neutral nor self‐correcting. Gatekeeping is one of many deleterious factors causing inequities in both science instruction and subsequently in participation, advocacy, and science careers. Science cannot be fully leveraged to effectively address society's most complex issues until scientists with diverse perspectives and expertise are meaningfully included in problem identification and solution development. Therefore, gatekeeping via instruction must be eliminated as a factor. This could effectively be done in science education with the development and implementation of instructional strategies and practices that support equitable learning opportunities for those who are minoritized based on race, marginalized based on rural/urban geographic location, excluded based on physical and/or cognitive disabilities, or those whose identities lie at any of these intersections.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-36">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>I (Shondricka Burrell) would like to acknowledge Likezo for inspiring some of this study as a passionate science learner navigating school as a blind student. I would also like to thank Brandi Bogan for sharing her insight and perspective. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF Grant number 2029956—Science Education Campaign for Research, Equity &amp; Teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-37">CONFLICTS OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-38">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analysed during the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0158601378-39">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This is an original Issues and Trends manuscript with original images. The work does not describe active research that required patient consent or permission to reproduce material in its development. There was no applicable data used or that required permission to make available. This manuscript has not been submitted for publication elsewhere.</p> <ref id="AN0158601378-40"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, J. D. (2020). Designing frameworks for authentic equity in science teaching and learning: Informal learning environments and teacher education for STEM. Asia‐Pacific. Science Education, 6 (2), 456 – 479.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adu‐Boateng, S., &amp; Goodnough, K. (2021). Examining a science teacher's instructional practices in the adoption of inclusive pedagogy: A qualitative case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2021.1915605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Towards a First Nations cross‐cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81 (2), 217 – 238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alexiades, A. V., Haeffner, M. A., Reano, D., Janis, M., Black, J., Sonoda, K., Howard, M., Fiander, C., &amp; Buck, M. (2021). Traditional ecological knowledge and inclusive pedagogy increase retention and success outcomes of STEM students. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 102 (4), 1 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Apanasionok, M. M., Hastings, R. P., Grindle, C. F., Watkins, R. C., &amp; Paris, A. (2019). Teaching science skills and knowledge to students with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56 (7), 847 – 880. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Artiles, A. (2021). How disability intersects with race (No. 119). School's In. https://ed.stanford.edu/news/how-disability-intersects-race-language-and-social-class</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Artiles, A. J. (2013). Untangling the racialization of disabilities: An intersectionality critique across disability models. Du Bois Review, 10 (2), 329 – 347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Avery, L. M. (2013). Rural science education: Valuing local knowledge. Theory Into Practice, 52 (1), 28 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, S. (2011). Life after death: An activity to investigate the scientific, legal, &amp; racial issues of the Henrietta lacks story. The American Biology Teacher, 73 (6), 337 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2011.73.6.6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bang, M., &amp; Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94 (6), 1008 – 1026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Basham, J. D., &amp; Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45 (4), 8 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Basu, S. J., &amp; Barton, A. C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44 (3), 466 – 489.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baurhoo, N. G. (2017). An autoethnographic exploration of disability discourses: Transforming science education and research for students with learning disabilities. Educational Research for Social Change, 6 (2), 115 – 132. https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2017/v6i2a8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beck‐Winchatz, B., &amp; Riccobono, M. A. (2008). Advancing participation of blind students in science, technology, engineering, and math. Advances in Space Research, 42 (11), 1855 – 1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2007.05.080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bettez, S. C., Aguilar‐Valdez, J. R., Carlone, H. B., &amp; Cooper, J. E. (2011). On negotiating White science: A call for cultural relevance and critical reflexivity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6 (4), 941 – 950.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blank, R. K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap? Science Education, 97 (6), 830 – 847. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boda, P. A. (2019). The conceptual and disciplinary segregation of disability: A phenomenography of science education graduate student learning. Research in Science Education, 51, 1725 – 1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9828-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., &amp; Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice, 26 (4), 223 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00343.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Browder, D. M., &amp; Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Opinion. (1954, May 17). Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, Record Group 267. National Archives. https://<ulink href="http://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education?%5fga=2.92173011.817249524.1651186163-995320507.1651186163">www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education?%5fga=2.92173011.817249524.1651186163-995320507.1651186163</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buolamwini, J., &amp; Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, PMLR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cartier, J. L., Smith, M. S., Stein, M. K., &amp; Ross, D. K. (2013). 5 Practices for orchestrating productive task‐based discussions in science. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Centers for Disease Control. (2020). Pregnancy mortality surveillance system. https://<ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.html">www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman, A., &amp; Feldman, A. (2017). Cultivation of science identity through authentic science in an urban high school classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12 (2), 469 – 491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiovelli, G., Michalopoulos, S., &amp; Papaioannou, E. (2018). Landmines and spatial development. National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coldewey, D. (2019, October 31). This tactile display lets visually impaired users feel on‐screen 3D shapes. Tech Crunch. https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/31/this-tactile-display-lets-visually-impaired-users-feel-on-screen-3d-shapes/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., &amp; LePage, P. (2012). Improved lesson planning with Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36 (1), 7 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw, K., Ocen, P., &amp; Nanda, J. (2015). Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced, and underprotected. Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies, Columbia University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crowley, K., Barron, B. Knjutson, K., &amp; Martin, C. K. (2015). Interest and the development of pathways to science. In K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, &amp; S. Hidi (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning (pp. 297 – 313). American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, F. C., &amp; Kitchin, J. (2018). Why are the early elementary race/ethnicity test score gaps in science larger than those in reading or mathematics? National evidence on the importance of language and immigration context in explaining the gap‐in‐gaps. Science Education, 103 (3), 477 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21491</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daley, S. G. (2019). Review of "Towards inclusion of all learners through science teacher education. Science Education, 103 (5), 1306 – 1308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawson, A., Jordens, C. F. C., Macneill, P., &amp; Zion, D. (2018). Bioethics and the myth of neutrality. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 15 (4), 483 – 486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9885-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1923). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enderle, J. D., Liebler, C. M., Haapala, S. A., Hart, J. L., Thonakkaraparayil, N. T., Romonsky, L. L., Rodriguez, F., &amp; Trumbower, R. D. (2004). The University of Connecticut biomedical engineering mentoring program for high school students. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation, 40, 484 – 490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enderle, P., Cohen, S., &amp; Scott, J. (2020). Communicating about science and engineering practices and the nature of science: An exploration of American Sign Language resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57 (6), 968 – 995. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eppley, K. (2016). Rural science education as social justice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12 (1), 45 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9751-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleischman, L., &amp; Franklin, M. (2017). Fumes across the fence‐line: The health impacts of air pollution from oil and gas facilities on African American communities. National Association for Advancement of Colored People and Clean Air Task Force. <ulink href="http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp011z40kw51m">http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp011z40kw51m</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lomax, R. G., West, M. M., Harmon, M. C., Viator, K. A., &amp; Madaus, G. F. (1995). The impact of mandated standardized testing on minority students. Journal of Negro Education, 171 – 185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilliard, C. (2019, November 21). Banking on your data: The role of big data in financial services. (Prepared testimony and statement for the record of Christopher Gilliard, PhD hearing before the House Financial Services Committee Task Force on Financial Technology). https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110251/witnesses/HHRG-116-BA00-Wstate-GillardC-20191121.pdf">www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110251/witnesses/HHRG-116-BA00-Wstate-GillardC-20191121.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodkind, S. (2016). Inequities affecting Black girls in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. Foundation and Heinz Endowments.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gouvea, J. S. (2021). Antiracism and the problems with "achievement gaps" in stem education. CBE Life Sciences Education, 20 (1), fe2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenwood, B. N., Hardeman, R. R., Huang, L., &amp; Sojourner, A. (2020). Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (35), 21194 – 21200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gronneberg, B. (2020). "What does tech have to do with it?": Everything. The case for diversity of thoughts. Fargo INC! https://<ulink href="http://www.fargoinc.com/what-does-tech-have-to-do-with-it-everything-the-case-for-diversity-of-thoughts/">www.fargoinc.com/what-does-tech-have-to-do-with-it-everything-the-case-for-diversity-of-thoughts/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunaratnam, H., Gunaratnam, S., &amp; Somasundaram, D. (2003). The psychosocial effects of landmines in Jaffna. Medicine, Conflict, and Survival, 19 (3), 223 – 234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallett, R. E., &amp; Venegas, K. M. (2011). Is increased access enough? Advanced placement courses, quality, and success in low‐income urban schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34 (3), 468 – 487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, S. G. (2016). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research (p. 2016). The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobson, W. (2021, October 20). NFL, former players agree to remove 'race‐norming' from concussion settlement evaluations. The Washington Post. https://<ulink href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/20/nfl-players-race-norming-concussions/">www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/20/nfl-players-race-norming-concussions/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ihrig, L. M., Lane, E., Mahatmya, D., &amp; Assouline, S. G. (2018). STEM excellence and leadership program: Increasing the level of STEM challenge and engagement for high‐achieving students in economically disadvantaged rural communities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41 (1), 24 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iruka, I. U., DeKraai, M., Walther, J., Sheridan, S. M., &amp; Abdel‐Monem, T. (2020). Examining how rural ecological contexts influence children's early learning opportunities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 52, 15 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jonasson, M. E., Spiegel, S. J., Thomas, S., Yassi, A., Wittman, H., Takaro, T., Afshari, R., Markwick, M., &amp; Spiegel, J. M. (2019). Oil pipelines and food sovereignty: Threat to health equity for indigenous communities. Journal of Public Health Policy, 40 (4), 504 – 517. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-019-00186-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, S. K., &amp; Bigham, J. P. (2014, March 5–8). Tracking @stemxcomet: Teaching programming to blind students via 3D printing, crisis management, and Twitter. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE '14), Atlanta, GA, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karbowski, C. F. (2020). See3d: 3D printing for people who are blind. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 23 (1), 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller, E. F., &amp; Longino, H. E. (1996). Feminism and science. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kizilaslan, A., Zorluoglu, S. L., &amp; Sozbilir, M. (2020). Improve learning with hands‐on classroom activities: Science instruction for students with visual impairments. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36 (3), 371 – 392. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1732110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koch, M., Lundh, P., &amp; Harris, C. J. (2019). Investigating STEM support and persistence among urban teenage African American and Latina girls across settings. Urban Education, 54 (2), 243 – 273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koehler, K. E., &amp; Wild, T. A. (2019). Students with visual impairments' access and participation in the science curriculum: Views of teachers of students with visual impairments. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 22 (1), 8 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurz, K. B., &amp; Schick, B. (2015). Deaf children's science content learning in direct instruction versus interpreted instruction. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 18 (1), 23 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladner, R. E. (2015). Design for user empowerment. interactions, 22 (2), 24 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723869</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lahav, O., Hagab, N., El Kader, S. A., Levy, S. T., &amp; Talis, V. (2018). Listen to the models: Sonified learning models for people who are blind. Computers &amp; Education, 127, 141 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lang, H. G. (2001). Construction of meaning in the authentic science writing of deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6 (4), 258 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/6.4.258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanouette, K. (2022). Emotion, place, and practice: Exploring the interplay in children's engagement in ecologists' sampling practices. Science Education, 106, 610 – 644. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linder, A., Holmqvist, K., &amp; Svensson, M. Y. (2018). Average male and female virtual dummy model (BioRID and EvaRID) simulations with two seat concepts in the Euro NCAP low severity rear impact test configuration. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 114, 62 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luce, M. R., Goldman, S., &amp; Vea, T. (2017). Designing for family science explorations anytime, anywhere. Science Education, 101 (2), 251 – 277. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maltese, A. V., &amp; Harsh, J. A. (2015). Students' pathways of entry into STEM. In K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, &amp; S. Hidi (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning (pp. 203 – 224). American Educational Research Association. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1s474j0.18">http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1s474j0.18</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangan, K. (2021). The surveilled student: New ways of monitoring health and academic performance won't just disappear when the pandemic subsides. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 67 (12) . Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/the-surveilled-student">www.chronicle.com/article/the-surveilled-student</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez, E., Basham, J. D., &amp; Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 37 (2), 87 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713503963</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marschark, M., Paivio, A., Spencer, L. J., Durkin, A., Borgna, G., Convertino, C., &amp; Machmer, E. (2017). Don't assume deaf students are visual learners. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 29 (1), 153 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9494-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McComas, W. F., &amp; Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the next generation science standards: Analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27 (5), 555 – 576.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGee, E. O. (2020). Black, brown, bruised: How racialized STEM education stifles innovation. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGinnis, J. R. (2013). Teaching science to learners with special needs. Theory Into Practice, 52 (1), 43 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743776</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeill, K. L., &amp; Vaughn, M. H. (2012). Urban High school students' critical science agency: Conceptual understandings and environmental actions around climate change. Research in Science Education, 42 (2), 373 – 399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9202-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendez v. Westminster (1946). The District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Central Division, March 2, 1945. School District, No. 4292‐M. Petition p. 2. Series Civil Rights Files, 1938–1995, RG 21. https://<ulink href="http://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/petition-mendez">www.docsteach.org/documents/document/petition-mendez</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., &amp; Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mikati, I., Benson, A. F., Luben, T. J., Sacks, J. D., &amp; Richmond‐Bryant, J. (2018). Disparities in distribution of particulate matter emission sources by race and poverty status. American Journal of Public Health, 108 (4), 480 – 485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mordaka, J., &amp; Gentle, R. (2003). The biomechanics of gender difference and whiplash injury: Designing safer car seats for women. Acta Polytechnica, 43 (3), 47 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton, T. R., Miles, M. L., Roby, R. S., &amp; Ortiz, N. A. (2022). "All we wanna do is be free": Advocating for black liberation in and through k‐12 science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33 (2), 131 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2021.2008096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, &amp; Medicine. (2021). Science and engineering in preschool through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and the strengths of educators. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council for Education Statistics. (2020, November 4). Students with disabilities. Institute for Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K‐12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. <ulink href="http://www.nextgenscience.org/">http://www.nextgenscience.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nix, E. (2020, December 15). Tuskegee experiment: The infamous syphilis study. A &amp; E Television Networks, LLC. Retrieved November 25, 2021, from https://<ulink href="http://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study">www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oremus, W. (2021, September 17). A Detroit community college professor is fighting Silicon Valley's surveillance machine. People are listening. Washington Post. https://<ulink href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/16/chris-gilliard-sees-digital-redlining-in-surveillance-tech/">www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/16/chris-gilliard-sees-digital-redlining-in-surveillance-tech/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pacheco‐Guffrey, H. (2019). Tech talk: UDL strategies with technology. Science and Children, 57 (2), 36 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parette, H. P., &amp; Peterson‐Karlan, G. R. (2007). Facilitating student achievement with assistive technology. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42 (4), 387 – 397.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., &amp; Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105 – 119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peirce, C. S. (1900). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Buchler (Ed.), The philosophy of Peirce: Selected writings (pp. 98 – 119). Routledge and Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peker, D., &amp; Wallace, C. S. (2011). Characterizing high school students' written explanations in biology laboratories. Research in Science Education, 41 (2), 169 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philip, T. M., &amp; Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain. Science Education, 101 (4), 526 – 532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plenke, M. (2015). The reason this racist soap dispenser doesn't work on black skin. https://<ulink href="http://www.mic.com/articles/124899/the-reason-this-racist-soap-dispenser-doesn-t-work-on-black-skin">www.mic.com/articles/124899/the-reason-this-racist-soap-dispenser-doesn-t-work-on-black-skin</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven, S., &amp; Whitman, G. M. (2019). Science in silence: How educators of the deaf and hard‐of‐hearing teach science. Research in Science Education, 49 (4), 1001 – 1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9847-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reano, D., &amp; Ridgway, K. D. (2015). Connecting geology and Native American culture on the reservation of Acoma Pueblo, New Mexico, USA. GSA Today, 25 (8), 26 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAT-G235GW.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renken, M., Scott, J., Enderle, P., &amp; Cohen, S. (2021). "It's not a deaf thing, it's not a black thing; it's a deaf black thing": A study of the intersection of adolescents' deaf, race, and stem identities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16, 1105 – 1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10023-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renninger, K., &amp; Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riener, C., &amp; Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change, 42, 32 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivera Maulucci, M. S. (2010). Resisting the marginalization of science in an urban school: Coactivating social, cultural, material, and strategic resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (7), 840 – 860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizzo, K. L., &amp; Taylor, J. C. (2016). Effects of inquiry‐based instruction on science achievement for students with disabilities: An analysis of literature. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 19, 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, P., &amp; Green, B. (2013). Researching rural places: On social justice and rural education. Qualitative Inquiry, 19 (10), 765 – 774. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413503795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sansone, C., Thoman, D., &amp; Fraughton, T. (2015). The relation between interest and self‐regulation in mathematics and science. In K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, &amp; S. Hidi (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning (pp. 111 – 131). American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schindel Dimick, A. (2016). Exploring the potential and complexity of a critical pedagogy of place in urban science education. Science Education, 100 (5), 814 – 836. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J. A., &amp; Hansen, S. G. (2020). Comprehending science writing: The promise of dialogic reading for supporting upper elementary deaf students. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 41 (2), 100 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scruggs, T. E., &amp; Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science Learning in Special Education: The Case for Constructed Versus Instructed Learning. Exceptionality, 15 (2), 57– 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830701294144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seo, J. (2019). Is the Maker Movement inclusive of anyone?: Three accessibility considerations to invite blind makers to the making world. TechTrends, 63 (5), 514 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00377-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skloot, R. (2017). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. Crown Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefik, A., Ladner, R. E., Allee, W., &amp; Mealin, S. (2019). Computer science principles for teachers of blind and visually impaired students. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stellman, J. M., &amp; Stellman, S. D. (2018). Agent Orange during the Vietnam War: The lingering issue of its civilian and military health impact (Vol. 108, pp. 726 – 728). American Public Health Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supalo, C. A., Isaacson, M. D., &amp; Lombardi, M. V. (2014). Making hands‐on science learning accessible for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Chemical Education, 91 (2), 195 – 199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supalo, C. A., &amp; Mallouk, T. E. (2007). Talking tools to assist students who are blind in laboratory courses. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 12 (1), 27 – 32. https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.01.0003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tessum, C. W., Paolella, D. A., Chambliss, S. E., Apte, J. S., Hill, J. D., &amp; Marshall, J. D. (2021). PM2. 5 polluters disproportionately and systemically affect people of color in the United States. Science Advances, 7 (18), eabf4491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Triplett, N. P., &amp; Ford, J. E. (2019). E(race)ing inequities: The state of racial equity in North Carolina public school. Center for Racial Equity in Education (CREED).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Upadhyay, B. (2021). Multicultural science education in high poverty urban high school contexts. In M. M. Atwater (Ed.), International handbook of research on multicultural science education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37743-4_56-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villarosa, L. (2020, July 28). Pollution is killing Black Americans. This community fought back. The New York Times Magazine .</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vosganoff, D., Paatsch, L. E., &amp; Toe, D. M. (2013). The mathematical and science skills of students who are deaf or hard of hearing educated in inclusive settings. Deafness &amp; Education International, 13 (2), 70 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1179/1557069x11y.0000000004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Y. (2011). Inquiry‐based science instruction and performance literacy for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 156 (3), 239 – 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Washington, H. A. (2006). Medical apartheid: the dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from colonial times to the present. Harlem Moon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weaver, W., Snow, C. P., Hesburg, T. M., &amp; Baker, W. O. (1961). The Moral Un‐Neutrality of Science. Science, 133 (3448), 255 – 262.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. (1995). Landmines and measures to eliminate them. International Review of the Red Cross (1961–1997), 35 (307), 375 – 390.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, B., Hoffman, J., &amp; Morgenstern, J. (2019). Predictive inequity in object detection.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winters, R. M., Harden, E. L., &amp; Moore, E. B. (2020, October 26–28). Co‐designing accessible science education simulations with blind and visually‐impaired teens. In ASSETS '20: The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, virtual event, Greece. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3418025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolbers, K. A., Dimling, L. M., Lawson, H. R., &amp; Golos, D. B. (2012). Parallel and divergent interpreting in an elementary school classroom. American Annals of the Deaf, 157 (1), 48 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.1609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wonch‐HIll, P., McQuillan, J., Hebets, E. A., Spiegel, A. N., &amp; Diamond, J. (2018). Informal science experiences among urban and rural youth: Exploring differences at the intersections of socioeconomic status, gender and ethnicity. Journal of STEM Education Outreach. 1 (1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.15695/jstem/v1i1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuniga, K., Olson, J. K., &amp; Winter, M. (2005). Science education for rural Latino/a students: Course placement and success in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (4), 376 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20064</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tamecia R. Jones and Shondricka Burrell</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1345255 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Present in Class yet Absent in Science: The Individual and Societal Impact of Inequitable Science Instruction and Challenge to Improve Science Instruction – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jones%2C+Tamecia+R%2E%22">Jones, Tamecia R.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4229-3975">0000-0003-4229-3975</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrell%2C+Shondricka%22">Burrell, Shondricka</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6650-9665">0000-0002-6650-9665</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Science+Education%22"><i>Science Education</i></searchLink>. Sep 2022 106(5):1032-1053. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 22 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Areas%22">Urban Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Areas%22">Rural Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disproportionate+Representation%22">Disproportionate Representation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racism%22">Racism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Bias%22">Social Bias</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/sce.21728 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0036-8326<br />1098-237X – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Current science instruction does not educate K-12 students equitably and creates short- and long-term impacts on individual students and society. While students may be present in class, they may not have access to quality science learning experiences. The goals of this paper are to show how science instruction may not be reaching its aim of equitable access and to offer recommendations for creating a new baseline standard for equitable science instruction. Though not exhaustive, this paper identifies groups of students who are marginalized in current-day science instruction--the racially minoritized, those with physical and cognitive differences, and those in urban or rural communities. First, this paper challenges the neutrality of science by highlighting systemic yet negative outcomes that disproportionately impact minoritized populations in everyday life because of the narrow network of people who define and solve problems. Second, this paper identifies examples where science instruction is not of its highest quality for the highlighted groups. Third, we present a synthesis of research-informed solutions proposed to improve both the quality of science instruction and its equitable access for the highlighted groups, creating a new baseline standard for equitable science instruction. An elevated baseline would address the existing disparities in who has access to quality science instruction and consequently reduce the gatekeeper effect of who defines and solves societal problems that perpetuate intergenerational inequities. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1345255 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1345255 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/sce.21728 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 22 StartPage: 1032 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Science Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Equal Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Urban Areas Type: general – SubjectFull: Rural Areas Type: general – SubjectFull: Disproportionate Representation Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Quality Type: general – SubjectFull: Access to Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Racism Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Bias Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Present in Class yet Absent in Science: The Individual and Societal Impact of Inequitable Science Instruction and Challenge to Improve Science Instruction Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jones, Tamecia R. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Burrell, Shondricka IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0036-8326 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1098-237X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 106 – Type: issue Value: 5 Titles: – TitleFull: Science Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
