Minoritized students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, as well as low-income and first-generation college students benefit most from educators’ asset-based and student-centered teaching practices (Ladson-Billings, 2006), but they are the least likely to experience them in undergraduate STEM courses (Kuh, 2008; Laursen et al., 2019; Museus et al. 2011).
The National Science Foundation has funded a study at Western Washington University, University of Texas- Rio Grande Valley, and Whatcom Community College entitled Building educational theory through enacting reforms (BETTER) in STEM (NSF #2111613). BETTER in STEM is a $3 million collaborative research project to embed the use of equitable, inclusive, student-centered, and research-based instructional strategies within undergraduate STEM courses and departments. We recognize that for reform to take place it must be both multidisciplinary and across levels of a system (Borda et al., 2020; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Henderson et al., 2011; Laursen et al., 2019; National Academies, 2021).
The project centers around creating and testing an instructional framework that STEM faculty and departments can use to define and adopt equitable, student-centered STEM teaching and learning. This work has the potential to significantly impact how STEM departments at two- and four-year institutions across the country encourage and support faculty members’ quality teaching in their courses. This work is a direct response to urgent national needs to transform how students, particularly those systemically non-dominant, engage with STEM, experience STEM classrooms, and enter STEM disciplines/fields (National Academies, 2021; McGee, 2021).
For more information about the BETTER in STEM project, please contact the project leadership and research team:
University of Texas- Rio Grande Valley
Saraswathy Nair: saraswathy.nair@utrgv.edu
Tim Huber: timothy.huber@utrgv.edu
Western Washington University
Dan Hanley: hanleyd@wwu.edu
Emily Borda: bordae@wwu.edu
Shannon Warren: warrens3@wwu.edu
Dustin Van Orman: vanormd2@wwu.edu
Josie Melton: meltonj2@wwu.edu
Whatcom Community College
Tran Phung: tphung@whatcom.edu
Pat Burnett: pburnett@whatcom.edu
Several landmark studies have contributed awareness that asset-based, active, and student-centered teaching, learning, and assessment can help students achieve more and persist in STEM higher education (e.g., Andrade & Brookhart, 2020; Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie, 2009; Freeman et al., 2014; Gasiewski et al., 2012; Theobald et al., 2021; Wiliam, 2011). Major findings from this work illuminate that effective education requires students to take a role in their learning as core partners and owners of learning processes and products. Importantly, educators must learn who students are, what they can do, and leverage this understanding to facilitate deeper learning within a classroom community. A further major implication of recent research is that the inequities and oppressive values that pervade educational systems and are endemic within mainstream practices and discourse need to be named and disrupted. This is necessary so minoritized students know they belong in the classroom and discipline, and so all students learn the knowledge and skills they need to thrive within our multicultural society (Baker-Bell, 2020; Cronin et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020; McGee, 2021; Yosso, 2005).
Our theory of change is that improved teaching and learning in undergraduate STEM departments will occur through the implementation of a coordinated set of concurrent top-down and bottom-up strategies to address four categories of change (Henderson et al., 2011). Through recursively applying our theory of change to institutionalize the effective use of equitable and student-centered instructional strategies in STEM departments and undergraduate courses at our three institutions, we will generate new knowledge about the institutional and departmental factors that support or constrain vital and research-based reform for the benefit of all students.
We are developing and refining a shared framework for effective instruction that operationalizes equitable, student-centered instruction in clear, concise, and concrete terms, so it can be used to guide teaching and reward exceptional educators through review, tenure, and promotion processes and in hiring new faculty (Cavanagh, 1996; Henderson et al., 2014; Laursen et al., 2019; NRC, 2015; Wieman, 2017).
We are developing knowledge and skills as STEM faculty around equitable, student-centered indicators that comprise the shared framework for effective instruction through job-embedded professional development that is both intensive and prolonged over time (Borda et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2009).
We meet as instructional change teams to practice implementing equitable, student-centered instruction in our courses, reflect on our efforts to improve our teaching, and commit to making changes (Banilower & Trygstad, 2017; Borda et al., 2020; Garmston and Wellman, 1999; Lipton & Wellman, 2003).
We are engaging faculty leaders and department chairs in leadership development workshops on equitable, student-centered instruction and surveys to uncover departmental barriers/drivers for reform to facilitate department-level change (Braxton et al., 2002; Fairweather, 2005).
There are numerous instructional/observational frameworks for undergraduate STEM courses that operationalize research-based instructional strategies (e.g., Eddy et al, 2017; Kober, 2015; Kuh, 2008; Labov et al, 2009; NRC, 2012; Sawada et al, 2002) as well as inclusive/equitable classroom strategies (e.g., Beane et al., 2019; Sathy & Hogan, 2019; Tanner, 2013). However, none operationalize effective teaching and learning in terms and behaviors that could help instructors develop a deep understanding of strategies and how to use them. Most observational instruments, such as the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (Smith et al, 2013), are behavioral checklists. While checklist-style instruments have high reliability and can generate quick quantitative reports about what instructors and students are doing during a class, they do not provide information about the extent to which the instructional strategies helped students develop their understanding of the targeted learning, nor do they acknowledge equity and inclusion as key components of effective instruction (Laursen et al., 2019). Further, a significant barrier to equitable, student-centered undergraduate STEM is the lack of a shared framework within departments to define, measure, and reward effective teaching (Cavanagh, 1996; Henderson et al., 2014; Wieman, 2017).
We collaboratively and recursively built a framework– initially within a core team of educational researchers and equity experts– that operationalizes equitable, student-centered learning to help STEM faculty identify instructional goals, analyze their instruction, and identify areas for improvement. We will further iterate the framework by eliciting feedback from faculty, a diverse group of educational researchers and equity experts, and students, in addition to using it with students to provide a shared vision for effective STEM instruction and reform. We anticipate numerous barriers to be salient in enacting reforms— including institutional (e.g., department and school cultures), physical (e.g., room arrangement), faculty (e.g., time, reward structures), and student barriers (e.g., beliefs about best practices) (Børte et al., 2020; Biswas et al., 2022; Henderson & Dancy, 2007; Inclusive STEM Teaching project (n.d.); National Academies, 2016; Walter et al., 2021). Therefore, we will employ a design-based research approach in iterative cycles of design, enactment, and analysis (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Sandoval & Bell, 2004; Zheng, 2015) and evaluate efforts through a one-group repeated-measures design (Shadish et al., 2002) with the first cohort of faculty to refine our change strategies for a second cohort. We will draw from annual faculty and department leader surveys and interviews, student surveys each term, and various artifacts generated through observations and materials from classrooms, workshops, and feedback from various stakeholders to support decision-making and analysis of progress throughout the project.
Our shared framework for STEM teaching and learning is organized within four components— Culture/Environment, Curriculum/Content, Discourse and Language, and Assessment for Learning– with vision statements, subcomponents, and indicators that detail instructional strategies in order of increasing complexity and grain size. You can read the BETTER in STEM Equitable, Student-centered Instructional Framework here. Below you can read about threads embedded throughout the framework.
Threads Embedded within the Framework
Asset-based Instruction
When students’ cultural backgrounds are viewed as funds of knowledge that will contribute to their learning and the learning of their peers, instructors facilitate student learning by building assignments in ways that have multiple entry points, leverage strengths students bring to the classroom, bridge students’ lived experiences and points of aspiration, and make space for students’ full humanity within the classroom space.
Structure, Transparency, & Accessibility
When instructors provide structure, rationale, and multiple entry points for which students can engage with learning and assessment collaboratively with instructors and peers, students have opportunities to see the purposes of learning, take ownership of their learning, and engage more meaningfully in activities and collaboration within a learning community.
Belonging and Identity
When instructors facilitate a learning environment where students see themselves as valued within the classroom and discipline/field, students are more likely to feel they have contributions to make to the ongoing conversations happening in the discipline/field. Further, instructors facilitate a space where students’ identities are honored and valued for the richness of knowledge they bring to the classroom and can explore their professional STEM identities in ways that are congruent with their diverse identities.
Metacognitive Self-Regulation
When instructors facilitate students’ development of awareness of their thinking processes as they learn, students have time and structure to examine their thinking, analyze how they are engaging with the instructional strategies, and reflect on ways that they could more productively participate in the learning activities.
Naming and Disrupting Inequities
When instructors explicitly interrupt longstanding sociopolitical, cultural, and linguistic forms of oppression (e.g., white supremacy, -isms/phobias, values like either/or thinking) that are laden throughout society and in daily interactions, they facilitate a classroom community that is inclusive of diverse ways of being, knowing, communicating, and learning. In doing so, students are better-prepared students to address pertinent local and global issues.
Journal Articles
Under Review
Van Orman, D. S. J., Hanley, D., Melton, J., Gray, A., Wilson, M., & Moses, G. (Under review). Examining student-centered, equitable STEM undergraduate instruction across three U.S. institutions.
In Preparation
Hanley, D., Neider, X., Thibou, S., Van Orman. D. S. J., Warren, S., & Cavazos, A. (In preparation). A framework for equitable, student-centered undergraduate STEM instruction.
Van Orman, D. S. J., Hanley, D., Melton, J., & Moses, G. (In preparation). The impacts of bottom-up and top-down strategies in enacting student-centered, equitable STEM undergraduate instruction.
Van Orman, D. S. J., Moses, G., & Hanley, D. (In preparation). Measuring students’ experiences and instructors’ uses of equitable, student-centered STEM undergraduate instruction.
Melton, J., Van Orman, D. S. J., Hanley, D., Westermann, S., Gray, A., & Wilson, M. (In preparation). Examining post-lesson conversations of STEM undergraduate faculty instructional change teams: What makes them (un)productive?
Blogs
Hanley, D., Phung, T., & Nair, S. (2024, October 16). Change Strategies and Tools to Support STEM Faculty’s Enactment of Equitable, Student-Centered Instruction. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), National Science Foundation (NSF) Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) Initiative. https://aaas-iuse.org/change-strategies-and-tools-to-support-stem-facultys-enactment-of-equitable-student-centered-instruction/
Conferences
Van Orman, D. S. J., Hanley, D., Melton, J., Moses, G., Westermann, S., Manry, A., Marquez, A., Stucky, M., & Baughn, S. (2026, April 8-12). Investigating students’ experiences and instructional change in undergraduate STEM instruction and assessment: A mixed-methods study. In D. S. J. Van Orman & E. Panadero (Chairs), Illuminating instruction and assessment to support student success in higher education: International perspectives [Symposium]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.
Van Orman, D. S. J., Melton, J. Hanley, D., Gray, A. Moses, G., Wilson, M., Manry, A., & Westermann, S. (2025, April 23-27). STEM Students’ Perceptions of Instructional Practices Used Most, and Benefiting Learning and Belonging [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. Paper | Presentation Slides
Hanley, D., Van Orman, D. S. J., Nair, S., & Phung, T. (2025, April 23-27). Change Strategies and Tools to Support STEM Faculty’s Enactment of Equitable, Student-Centered Instruction [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. Presentation Slides
Melton, J., Van Orman, D. S. J., Hanley, D., Westermann, S., Gray, A., & Wilson, M. (2025, March 23-26). Examining post-lesson conversations of STEM undergraduate faculty instructional change teams: What makes them (un)productive? [Paper presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, National Harbor, MD. Paper
Hanley, D., Nair, S., & Burnett, P. (2024, November 7-9). Change Strategies Supporting Equitable, Student-Centered Instruction in Undergraduate STEM Courses and Departments. American Association of Colleges & Universities’ Conference on Transforming STEM Higher Education, Washington, D.C. Presentation Slides
Melton, J., Van Orman, D. S. J., Hanley, D., Grey, A., & Wilson, M. (2024, November 7-9). Supporting Productive Peer Teaching Debrief Conversations in Undergraduate STEM Education [Paper Presentation]. American Association of Colleges & Universities’ Conference on Transforming STEM Higher Education, Washington, D.C.
Van Orman, D. S. J., Melton, J., Hanley, D., Gray, A., Wilson, M., & Moses, G. (2024, August 8-10). Instructional Strategies that Undergraduate Students Say Benefit Learning and Belonging in STEM [Poster presentation]. American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. Poster
Van Orman, D. S. J., Hanley, D., Melton, J., Gray, A., & Wilson, M. (2024, March 17-20). Examining equitable, student-centered STEM undergraduate instruction across three U.S. institutions [Paper presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. Paper | Presentation Slides
Hanley, D., Nair, S., Huber, T., & Burnett, P. (2023, November 2-4). A Framework for equitable, student-centered undergraduate STEM instruction [Paper presentation] American Association of Colleges & Universities’ Conference on Transforming STEM Higher Education, Washington, D.C.
Phung, T., Hanley, D., Van Orman, D. S. J., Warren, S., Eriksen, J., & Greendale, S. (2023, July 15). Using a Student-centered, Equitable Instructional Framework to Improve Instruction. Tandem Conference of the Organization for Physics at Two-Year Colleges. https://optycs.aapt.org/Tandem/2023-abstracts/Detail.cfm?id=14236
Hanley, D., Nair, S., Glen, L., & Huber, T. (2023, June 12-13). A framework for equitable, student-centered instruction in undergraduate STEM [Poster presentation]. Transforming Institutions Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Hanley, D., Warren, S., Van Orman, D. S. J., Neider, X., Cavazos, A., & Thibou, S. (2023, April 18-21). A framework for equitable, student-centered undergraduate STEM instruction [Paper presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Paper | Presentation Slides
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), p.16-25. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X11428813
Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 350-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163-206. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654315582066
Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.
Banilower, E. R., & Trygstad, P. J. (2017). Final Report: Change at the Core. Horizon Research Inc.
Beane, R., McNeal, K., and MacDonald, R. H. (2019). Probing the National Geoscience Faculty Survey for reported use of practices that support inclusive learning environments in undergraduate courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(4), p. 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1621714
Biswas, S., Benabentos, R., Brewe, E., Potvin, G., Edward, J., Kravec, M., & Kramer, L. (2022). Institutionalizing evidence-based STEM reform through faculty professional development and support structures. International journal of STEM education, 9(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00353-z
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Borda, E., Schumacher, E., Hanley, D., Geary, E., Warren, S., Ipsen, C., & Stredicke, L. (2020). Initial implementation of active learning strategies in large, lecture STEM courses: Lessons learned from a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary STEM faculty development program. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0203-2
Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2020). Barriers to student active learning in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746
Braxton, J., Lucky, W., & Holland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through Boyer’s four domains. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (vol. 29, no. 2). Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
Cavanagh, R. R. (1996). Formative and summative evaluation in the faculty peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01185798
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls' interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
Cronin, M. R., Alonzo, S. H., Adamczak, S. K., Baker, D. N., Beltran, R. S., Borker, A. L., Gatins, R., Goetz, L. C., Hack, N., Harenčár, J. G., Howard, E. A., Kustra, M. C., Maguiña, R., Martinez-Estevez, L., Mehta, R. S., Parker, I. M., Reid, K., Roberts, M. B., Shirazi, S. B., Tatom-Naecker, T-A, M., Voss, K. M., Willis-Norton, E., Vadakan, B., Valenzuela-Toro, A. M., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2021). Anti-racist interventions to transform ecology, evolution and conservation biology departments. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(9), 1213-1223. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01522-z
Eddy, S., Converse, M., & Wenderoth, M. (2017). PORTAAL: A classroom observation tool assessing evidence-based teaching practices for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0095
Fairweather, J. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11772290
Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), p. 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in higher education, 53(2), 229-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9247-y
Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003731
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible Learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M.H. (2009). Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020107. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020107
Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8). 952-984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439
Henderson, C., Turpin, C., Dancy, M., and Chapman, T. (2014). Assessment of teaching effectiveness: Lack of alignment between instructors, institutions, and research recommendations. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 10(1), 010106. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010106
Inclusive STEM Teaching project (n.d). https://www.inclusivestemteaching.org/
Kober, N. (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18687
Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Labov, J., Singer, S., George, M., Schweirgruber, H., & Hilton, M. (2009). Effective Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Part 1: Examining the Evidence. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-06-0038
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X035007003
Laursen, S., Andrews, T., Stains, M., Finelli, C. J., Borrego, M., McConnell, D., Johnson, E., Foote, K., Ruedi, B., & Malcom, S. (2019). Levers for change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/levers-for-change-WEB100_2019.pdf
Lee, M. J., Collins, J. D., Harwood, S. A., Mendenhall, R., & Huntt, M. B. (2020). “If you aren’t White, Asian or Indian, you aren’t an engineer”: Racial microaggressions in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00241-4
Lipton, L. & Wellman, B. (2003). Mentoring Matters: A practical guide to learning-focused relationships (2nd Ed.). MiraVia.
McGee, E. O. (2021). Black, brown, bruised: How racialized STEM education stifles innovation. Harvard Education Press.
Museus, S., Palmer, R., Davis, R., & Maramba, D. (Eds.) (2011). Racial and ethnic minority student success in STEM education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6). John Wiley & Sons.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students' Diverse Pathways. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21739
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021). Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26152
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2021). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2021. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd
National Research Council (NRC) (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. The National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13362
National Research Council (NRC) (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. The National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18687
Sandoval, W. & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), p. 199-201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_1
Sathy, V., & Hagan, K. (2019, July 22). Want to reach all of your students? Here’s how to make your teaching more inclusive. Advice Guide. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-make-your-teaching-more-inclusive/
Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x
Shadish, W. R., Cook, D. C., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Schuster, J.H., & Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smith, M., Jones, F., Gilbert, S., & Wieman, C. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618-627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., Dechenne-Peters, S. E., Eagan, M. K. Jr., Esson, J. M., Knight, J. K., Laski, F. A., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Lee, C. J., Lo, S. M., McDonnell, L. M., McKay, T. A., Michelotti, N., Musgrove, A., Palmer, M. S., Plank, K. M., Rodela, T. M., Sanders, E. R., Schimpf, N. G., Schulte, P. M., Smith, M. K., Stetzer, M., van Valkenburgh, B., Vinson, B., Weir, L. K., Wendel, L. B., & Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in north American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
Tanner, K. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Laboy Cintrón, D.. Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L. II, Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., Lowe, A., Newman, S., Okolo, V., Oltoyd, S., Peecook, B. R., Pickett, S. B., Slager, D. L., Caviedes-Solis, I. W., Stanchak, K. E., Sundaravardan, V., Valdebenito, C., Williams, C. R., Zinsli, K., & Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
Walter, E. M., Beach, A. L., Henderson, C., Williams, C. T., & Ceballos-Madrigal, I. (2021). Understanding conditions for teaching innovation in postsecondary education: Development and validation of the Survey of Climate for Instructional Improvement (SCII). International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(2), 166-199. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.46
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.
Weiman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative. Harvard University Press.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in educational evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Yosso, T. J. (2016). Whose culture has capital?: A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. In A. D. Dixson, C. K. Rousseau Anderson, & J. K. Donnor (Eds.), Critical race theory in education (pp. 113-136). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315709796
Zheng, L. (2015). A systematic literature review of design-based research from 2004 to 2013. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 399-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0036-z