Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Contemporary Debates on Equity in STEM Education: Takeaways From a Doctoral Seminar in Equity in STEM Education

Elizabeth R Goldberg 1 * ,
TAYLOR Kirkpatrick DARWIN 2 * ,
Jesus S. Esquibel 1,
Samanthia Noble 1,
Miranda Mullins Allen 1,
Weverton Ataide Pinheiro 1
1 Texas Tech University 2 Texas Tech University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 6, Issue SI, June 2023, pp. 69-89
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 1276 DOWNLOADS: 915 Publication date: 15 Jun 2023
ABSTRACT
As the emerging field of equity in STEM education continues to grow, debates surrounding how to best serve populations with historically restricted access and successful outcomes within the STEM fields is growing as well. In this article, a group of doctoral students who took a course titled Equity in STEM Education and discusses their takeaways regarding the literature discussed in the course. The topics covered in this article will center around Gutiérrez’s (2007) equity framework of power, identity, access, and achievement. Through the lens of the equity framework, the dimension of power will be used to present discourse on the sociopolitical turn in STEM education. Identity will be used to explore debates on race, poverty, gender, and sexuality within STEM equity and education. Access will be used to examine discussions on students’ ability to achieve STEM equity in rural settings and within specific domains such as computer science. Finally, achievement will be used to explore arguments on both sides of the achievement gap research. To conclude, we urge researchers, educators, and policymakers to listen and act upon the work of contemporary scholars in order to achieve an equitable STEM education system.
KEYWORDS
Equity, STEM Education, Social Justice, Critical, Higher Education, Sociopolitical.
CITATION (APA)
Goldberg, E. R., DARWIN, T. K., Esquibel, J. S., Noble, S., Allen, M. M., & Pinheiro, W. A. (2023). Contemporary Debates on Equity in STEM Education: Takeaways From a Doctoral Seminar in Equity in STEM Education. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(SI), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.214SI
REFERENCES
  1. Achieve. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. https://www.nextgenscience.org/
  2. Adams, R., & Farnsworth, M. (2020). Culturally responsive teacher education for rural and Native communities. Multicultural Perspectives, 22(2), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2020.1741367
  3. Ataide Pinheiro, W. (2021). Dismantling the ‘all-boys club’ a narrative of contradictions women experience in PhD mathematics programs: A Freirean approach. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11090
  4. Ataide Pinheiro, W. (2022). At the intersections: Queer high school students’ experiences with the teaching of mathematics for social justice (Order No. 29320623) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/at-intersections-queer-high-school-students/docview/2714474666/se-2
  5. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K–12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
  6. Battey, D. (2013). “Good” mathematics teaching for students of color and those in poverty: The importance of relational interactions within instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9412-z
  7. Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS unplugged—How is it used, and does it work? In H. J. Böckenhauer, D. Komm, & W. Unger (Eds.), Adventures between lower bounds and higher altitudes (Vol. 11011, pp. 497–521). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4_29
  8. Bower, M., Wood, L. N., Lai, J. W. M., Howe, C., Lister, R., Mason, R., Highfield, K., & Veal, J. (2017). Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.4
  9. Brenner, D., Azano, A. P., & Downey, J. (2021). Helping new teachers stay and thrive in rural schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(4), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211065821
  10. Buck, G. A., Francis, D. C., & Wilkins-Yel, K. G. (2020). Research on gender equity in STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 289–299). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381
  11. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824979
  12. Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. (2nd ed.) Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203902752
  13. Caeli, E. N., & Yadav, A. (2020). Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00410-5
  14. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of equity-oriented STEM-rich making among youth from historically marginalized communities. American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 761–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218758668
  15. Chase, M. (2020). Student voice in STEM classroom assessment practice: A pilot intervention. Research & Practice in Assessment, 15(2), 1-14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1293402
  16. Confrey, J. (2010). “Both and”—Equity and mathematics: A response to Martin, Gholson, and Leonard. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v3i2a108
  17. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Identity politics, intersectionality, and violence against women. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
  18. Damarin, S., & Erchick, D. B. (2010). Toward clarifying the meanings of “gender” in mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 310–323. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.4.0310
  19. D’Ambrosio, U. (1999). Ethnomathematics: The art or technique of explaining and knowing; History of mathematics in the periphery: The basin metaphor (Preprint 116). Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.
  20. Darwin, T., Walkington, C., & Pruitt-Britton, T. (2022). Connecting learning in higher education to students’ career and personal interests. In S. Huffman, D. Cunningham, M. Shavers, & R. Adamson (Eds.), Opening pathways for marginalized individuals in higher education (pp. 147–170). IGI Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3819-0
  21. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203497012
  22. Esmonde, I. (2011). Snips and snails and puppy dogs’ tails: Genderism and mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(2), 27–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41319563
  23. Esquibel, J.S., & Darwin, T. (2023). The teacher talent pipelines: A systematic literature review of rural teacher education in the virtual age. In A. Zimmerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on advancing teaching and teacher education in the context of a virtual age (pp. 270–295). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8407-4.ch013
  24. García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.005.
  25. Gholson, M. L. (2016). Clean corners and algebra: A critical examination of the constructed invisibility of Black girls and women in mathematics. The Journal of Negro Education, 85(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.85.3.0290
  26. Goldfarb, W. (1996). The philosophy of mathematics in early positivism. In Giere, R. N. & A. W. Richardson (Eds.), Origins of logical empiricism (Vol. 16, pp. 213–230). University of Minnesota Press.
  27. Google Inc., & Gallup Inc. (2016). Diversity gaps in computer science: Exploring the underrepresentation of girls, Blacks and Hispanics. http://goo.gl/PG34aH
  28. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
  29. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, & C. Schulte (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–38). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350057142.ch-003
  30. Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 145–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_4
  31. Gutiérrez, R. (2007). Context matters: Equity, success, and the future of mathematics education. In T. Lamberg & L. Wiest (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1–18). University of Nevada. http://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2029%202007%20Proceedings.pdf
  32. Gutiérrez, R. (2008). A gap-gazing fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 357–364. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.39.4.0357
  33. Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0037
  34. Han, S. W. (2016). National education systems and gender gaps in STEM occupational expectations. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.03.004
  35. Harris, R. S., & Hodges, C. B. (2018). STEM education in rural schools: Implications of untapped potential. National Youth-At-Risk Journal, 3(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.20429/nyarj.2018.030102
  36. Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 82–91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631586
  37. Heid, M. K. (2010). Where’s the math (in mathematics education research)? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 102–103. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.2.0102
  38. Hestness, E., Jass Ketelhut, D., McGinnis, J. R., & Plane, J. (2018). Professional knowledge building within an elementary teacher professional development experience on computational thinking in science education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 411–435. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1187757
  39. Hill Collins, P., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
  40. Ihrig, L., Lane, E., Mahatmya, D., & Assouline, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745158
  41. Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
  42. Jong, C., Priddie, C., Roberts, T., & Museus, S. D. (2020). Race related factors in STEM: A review of research on educational experiences and outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (Vol. 2, pp. 278–288). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381
  43. Kaden, U., & Martin, K. (2020). COVID-19 school closure experiences in rural Alaska and reimagining the roles of education and teachers. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 15(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2020.15.2.11
  44. Kersey, E., & Voigt, M. (2021). Finding community and overcoming barriers: Experiences of queer and transgender postsecondary students in mathematics and other STEM fields. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33, 733–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00356-5
  45. Kite, V., Park, S., & Wiebe, E. (2021). The code-centric nature of computational thinking education: A review of trends and issues in computational thinking education research. Sage Open, 11(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211016418
  46. Kumashiro, K. (2004). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice. Routledge.
  47. 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/10.3102/0013189X035007003
  48. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 171–197). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824696
  49. le Roux, K., & Swanson, D. (2021) Toward a reflexive mathematics education within local and global relations: thinking from critical scholarship on mathematics education with the sociopolitical, global citizenship education and decoloniality. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2021.1993978
  50. Leyva, L. A. (2021). Black women’s counter-stories of resilience and within-group tensions in the White, patriarchal space of mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52(2), 117–151. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0027
  51. Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009, March). Thinking about computational thinking. In S. Fitzgerald & M. Guzdial (Chairs), Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 260–264). Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/1539024.1508959
  52. Lubienski, S. T. (2003). Celebrating diversity and denying disparities: A critical assessment. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008030
  53. Lubienski, S. T. (2008). Research commentary: On gap gazing in mathematics education: The need for gaps analyses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.39.4.0350
  54. Lubienski, S. T., & Ataide Pinheiro, W. (2020). Gender and mathematics: What can other disciplines tell us? What is our role? Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v13i1a377
  55. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K–12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
  56. Marksbury, N. (2017). Monitoring the pipeline: STEM education in rural US Forum on Public Policy Online, 1(2), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1173822
  57. Martin, D. B., Anderson, C. R., & Shah, N. (2017). Race and mathematics education. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 607–636). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581270
  58. Martin, D. B., Gholson, M. L., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper: Power and privilege in the production of knowledge. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v3i2a95
  59. Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science. 20th anniversary revised edition (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123058
  60. Maulucci, M. S. R. (2012). Social justice research in science education: Methodologies, positioning, and implications for future research. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 583–594). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_40
  61. May, V. M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203141991
  62. Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., & Nickels, M. (2020). Moving toward an equity-based approach for STEM literacy. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 29–38). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381
  63. Moreno-León, J., Román-González, M., & Robles, G. (2018). On computational thinking as a universal skill: A review of the latest research on this ability. In C. Gonzalez, M. Castro, & M. Llamas (Chairs), 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 1684–1689). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363437
  64. Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y. C., Ozden, S. Y., & Pollock, L. (2017). Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3521
  65. Murphy, S. (2022). Leadership practices contributing to STEM education success at three rural Australian schools. The Australian Educational Researcher, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00541-4
  66. Murphy, J. F., Goldring, E. B., Cravens, X. C., Elliott, S. N., & Porter, A. C. (2007). The Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education: Measuring learning-centered leadership. Journal of East China Normal University, 29(1), 1-10. https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/89w57/the-vanderbilt-assessment-of-leadership-in-education-measuring-learning-centered-leadership
  67. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Monitoring educational equity. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25389
  68. 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
  69. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021 (Special Report NSF 21-321). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd
  70. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
  71. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
  72. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13165/chapter/1
  73. Neto, V., & Ataide Pinheiro, W. (2021). Análise comparativa entre Brasil e os Estados Unidos: O problema de gênero em livros didáticos de matemática [Comparative analysis between Brazil and the United States: The problem of gender in mathematics textbooks]. Revista de Investigação e Divulgação em Educação Matemática, 5(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.34019/2594-4673.2021.v5.33216
  74. Oliver, J. S., & Hodges, G. W. (2014). Rural science education: New ideas, redirections, and broadened definitions. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 280–297). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267
  75. Owens, D. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2020). Socio-scientific issues as contexts for the development of STEM literacy. In C. Johnson, M. Mohr-Schroeder, T. Moore, & L. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 210–222). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381
  76. Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Busting open the meritocracy myth: Rethinking equity and student achievement in science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4(2–3), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v4.i2-3.80
  77. Rodriguez, A. J. (2016). For whom do we do equity and social justice work? Recasting the discourse about the other to effect transformative change. In N. M. Joseph, C. Haynes, & F. Cobb (Eds.), Interrogating whiteness and relinquishing power: White faculty’s commitment to racial consciousness in STEM classrooms (pp. 241–252). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1716-9
  78. Rodriguez, A. J., & Morrison, D. (2019). Expanding and enacting transformative meanings of equity, diversity and social justice in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09938-7
  79. Rothstein, R. (2008). Whose problem is poverty? Educational Leadership, 65(7), 8–13. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ790582
  80. Rubel, L. (2016). Speaking up and speaking out about gender in mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 109(6), 434–439. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.109.6.0434
  81. Sands, P., Yadav, A., & Good, J. (2018). Computational thinking in K–12: In-service teacher perceptions of computational thinking. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 151–164). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-93566-9_8
  82. Savage, T. A., & Harley, D. A. (2009). A place at the blackboard: Including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, & queer/questioning issues in the education process. Multicultural Education, 16(4), 2–9. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edsrc_facpub/4
  83. Saw, G., & Agger, C. (2021). Stem pathways of rural and small-town students: Opportunities to learn, aspirations, preparation, and college enrollment. Educational Researcher, 50(9), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211027528
  84. Scantlebury, K., & Baker, D. (2007). Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 271–300). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824696
  85. Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916668957
  86. Stinson, D. (2011). “Race” in mathematics education: Are we a community of cowards? Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 4(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v4i1a139
  87. Tolbert, S., & Bazzul, J. (2017). Toward the sociopolitical in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12, 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9737-5
  88. Torbey, R., Martin, N. D., Warner, J. R., & Fletcher, C. L. (2020, February). Algebra I before high school as a gatekeeper to computer science participation. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 839–844). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366877
  89. Tucker, A., Deek, F., Jones, J., McCowan, D., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2003). A model curriculum for K–12 computer science: Final report of the ACM K-12 task force curriculum. Association for Computing Machinery & Computer Science Teachers Association.
  90. Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872
  91. Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.