Formulation of the theory of equity in chemistry instruction

Abstract

This research focused on the development of a theory of equity related to chemistry instruction in higher education. While there has been a growing interest in promoting fairness within chemical education, a unified theory of equity in chemistry instruction has yet to be defined and established. Achieving equity in chemistry instruction requires addressing multiple factors. To explore this, Constructivist Grounded Theory along with reflexive Thematic Analysis were employed. In this case study, 42 chemistry classes were observed at two public universities in Colorado. Additionally, interviews were conducted with twelve undergraduate students, nine chemistry instructors, and nine equity practitioners recruited from five public universities in Colorado. Ten theoretical elements of equity were developed from a process of initial, focused, and theoretical coding of the collected data. These elements of equity, their interconnections, and their grounding in prior scholarship informed the formulation of the Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction. Herein, these concepts are presented alongside raw, verbatim data collected from participants. An equity observation protocol is provided which could be piloted in future studies to explore the transferability of this theory beyond Colorado. The elements of this theory provide both a conceptual contribution and a practical foundation for developing new instruments or guiding methodologies in ongoing research on equity in chemistry instruction.

---

Introduction

Inequitable outcomes have been reported in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at the postsecondary level. MacPhee et al. (2013) reported that women in a STEM program had lower self-efficacy compared to their male peers. Additionally, students with multiple underrepresented identities, including those from low socioeconomic backgrounds or who identify as African American, Latinx, or Native American scored lower on academic performance measures than students with only one underrepresented status. These students with multiple marginalized identities experienced unique and compounded forms of disadvantage. This effect, which was first described by Crenshaw (1994), is known as intersectionality.

Lee (2022) reported that students with disabilities had a limited ability to access STEM postsecondary education programs. It was mentioned that students with intersectional marginalized identities, such as those with disabilities who also identified as women, Hispanic, African American, or Asian were significantly more underrepresented in STEM fields (Lee, 2022). In an analysis of 200 images created by four generative artificial intelligences (AIs), Kaufenberg-Lashua et al. (2024) found a complete absence of people with visible disabilities when the AIs were prompted to create images of chemists; the authors also found gender and racial biases. When analyzing surveys, Kaufenberg-Lashua et al. (2024) found that undergraduate students perceived “chemists” as being White men.

Harris et al. (2020) examined undergraduate persistence in chemistry and investigated achievement gaps across gender, socioeconomic status (SES), first-generation status, and underrepresented minority (URM) status, defining URMs as African American, Latino/Latina, Native American, or Pacific Islander students. Women, low-SES students, first-generation students, and URM students were found to have a higher likelihood of not progressing to the second course in their chemistry curriculum sequence compared to their well-represented peers. The study found that underrepresented students with low scores were more likely to leave STEM than similarly performing peers, while those with high scores were more likely to persist.

Inequity is evident by analyzing the demographics of the chemistry classroom at the postsecondary level. In the 2019 National School Climate Survey, Kosciw et al. (2020) reported that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) students who experienced high levels of in-school victimization during their K-12 education were less likely to have any plan of pursuing postsecondary education. The 2023 National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) report on diversity in STEM highlighted that Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals received a disproportionately low percentage of science and engineering degrees awarded in 2020, relative to the percentage of these groups that made up the overall United States (U.S.) population. Additionally, women were underrepresented when observing the number of people receiving degrees in engineering, computer science, mathematics, and physical and earth science (NCSES, 2023).

Problem and rationale for the study

Addressing persistent inequities in postsecondary STEM education requires an understanding of equity within the specific context of the discipline instruction. In order to explore equity in chemistry instruction, several frameworks and instruments for equity in STEM education were reviewed. The equity observation protocols found in the literature were not designed for use in postsecondary STEM education in the U.S. For example, Morales and Espinosa (2015) and Morales et al., (2016a, b) developed the Observation Protocol for Gender Equity in the Classroom (OPGEC) to study the influences of gender dynamics on teaching and learning. The instrument was used to assess instructional language, materials, interactions, and teacher behaviors in Philippine K-12 classrooms.

Jackson et al. (2021) developed an equity-oriented STEM literacy framework for K-12, based on prior research and a literature review, to guide equitable learning design and evaluation. Cardullo and Burton (2024) applied this framework to analyze STEM picture books and recommend improvements.

Ruel and Tajmal (2023) proposed a framework for equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) within Canadian STEM higher education using the literature along with empirical data collected through mixed methods. Bennett et al. (2024) created an equity initiatives framework solely using literature review. This framework was published as a practice report and focused on the Australian higher education.

The equity frameworks explored fill gaps in the literature and are important to address systemic inequities within STEM education. While these frameworks and instruments contribute meaningfully to the field, each framework has its own limitations including restrictions on their generalizability since they are context-bound and focus on K-12 students, non-U.S. contexts, or on specific areas such as literacy; furthermore, the instruments often lack psychometric studies. Given these limitations, a theory of equity specifically tailored to U.S. postsecondary chemistry instruction is both timely and necessary.

Purpose and significance of the study

Equity in chemistry instruction cannot simply be adapted from generic STEM or K-12 frameworks; it must be re-conceptualized to reflect the disciplinary practices, classroom dynamics, and structural barriers unique to chemistry education. A theory-based approach enables researchers and educators to better understand and address systemic inequities, contributing to more inclusive and equitable STEM education. The lack of frameworks and available instrumentation reported in the literature inspired the goal of this current study which was to develop a theory of equity in postsecondary chemistry instruction using data collected from several Coloradan universities.

By establishing a theory of equity grounded in classroom practice, the elements can serve as a foundation for developing instrumentation to study and assess equity more systematically. The theory not only advances conceptual understanding but also provides a practical framework for evaluating and improving equitable teaching in chemistry instruction.

Research questions

This research study was guided by the following two questions:

Research Question 1: What are the key elements of equitable chemistry instruction for undergraduate students at public universities in Colorado?

Research Question 2: How can the identified elements be used to construct a Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction?

Theoretical framework

To develop a comprehensive understanding of how students and experts experience equity in chemistry instruction, this study draws upon multiple theoretical frameworks, outlined below.

Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) was used as the primary theoretical framework for this study. CGT is a methodology in which theory is inductively developed from data using grounded theory (GT) methods (Charmaz, 2006). An assumption of CGT is that knowledge is socially produced, thus theory produced using this methodology should be interpreted as being constructed by the researchers, rather than being discovered as it would be interpreted through GT (Charmaz, 2006; Thornberg, 2012). This relativist epistemological standpoint of CGT assumes that data are co-constructed by researchers and their participants, thus knowledge produced from CGT research has several standpoints and is valid only alongside context (Morse et al., 2009; Thornberg, 2012). Furthermore, researchers and their participants may hold differing perspectives on the data and the overall study (Morse et al., 2009).

CGT is a methodology which grounds academic inquiries with practical problems and data while using inductive and abductive inference to construct theory (Charmaz, 2020). The iterative and reflexive process of CGT results in a methodology permeated with social justice (Charmaz, 2020). Thus, as in the current study, CGT is often used with a critical perspective and for social justice research. The outcome of a CGT process is “an abstract theoretical understanding of the studied experience” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 4). This resulting theory can be used to “show where, why, and how change can occur” in relation to the studied phenomenon (Charmaz, 2020, p. 174). For example, Lawler et al. (2015) used CGT to theorize the transition to motherhood among women with disabilities, developing “(Re)constructing Myself” from interviews with 22 participants to address a literature gap and inform clinical practice. Park et al. (2025) drew on 12 interviews and 13 observations to propose a CGT-based theory of growth through interprofessional relationships, advancing understanding of professional development in collaborative settings.

In CGT, the researcher is an instrument through which all the data are processed (Charmaz, 2006). Considering this alongside the relativist epistemological standpoint of CGT, it is essential that researchers using CGT practice reflexivity (Morse et al., 2009). According to Charmaz (2006), to take a reflexive approach a researcher must closely examine their own “research experience, decisions, and interpretations” (p. 188). By using CGT methodology, all the decisions about the research methods used, the literature read, and the process followed are influenced by the researcher's state of being, beliefs, privileges, and experiences (Morse et al., 2009). Thus, the remaining theories included in this study's theoretical framework were selected based on the first author's strongly held scholarly perspectives and interpretive stance. The theories used in this research are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Theoretical frameworks used in this study.

CGT serves as the foundational methodology for this study, while critical constructivism was the next most influential social theory guiding methodological decisions. Universal design for learning theory, queer theory, and stereotype threat played smaller direct roles, but are all influential to the first author's worldview, and thus influenced the direction of this research.

Critical constructivism, another theoretical framework which influenced this research study is a social theory which allows researchers to explore the constructed realities of participants while using aspects of critical theory (Steinberg et al., 2014). As proposed by Kincheloe (2005), a theory of critical constructivism consists of four dimensions: (1) all knowledge is constructed and therefore subjective, (2) an individual's place and amount of power held in society influences their construction of knowledge, (3) an individual's construction of reality cannot be separated from their place in society, and (4) critical constructivism is anchored in the assumptions of the Frankfurt School's critical theory (McKernan, 2013). Critical constructivism was considered in the organization of the interviews for this study.

Universal design for learning (UDL) theory, queer theory, and stereotype threat theory also played significant roles in shaping the methodology of this research study. UDL is an equity-centered educational framework that promotes the development of curricula and materials designed to be accessible to all students when effectively implemented (King-Sears, 2014). In alignment with UDL principles, the current study incorporated multiple modes of participant engagement, allowing interviewees the opportunity to elaborate on and clarify the data they had previously provided. Addy et al. (2021) found that non-STEM faculty were more likely than STEM faculty to use inclusive teaching practices such as UDL. Thus, chemistry instructors were also asked if and how they attempt to make their courses equitable.

The collection of demographic data from undergraduate students in their classes was intentionally avoided to minimize the risk that underrepresented students might underperform on assessments when reminded of their underrepresented status, as described by the concept of stereotype threat (Schmader, 2010). Queer theory is a framework which posits that gender and sexuality are fluid and that LGBTQ people are robbed of power within heteronormativity (Wimberly, 2015). As a queer, nonbinary individual, the first author's approach to methodology design, data collection and formal analysis, and broader scholarly perspective were shaped by the principles and lived realities described in queer theory. Queer theory also informed the approach to collecting demographic data. Questions were structured as open-ended response rather than multiple-choice options to ensure participants would not have been “othered” if their identities were not represented in the options.

Methodology

Ethical considerations

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained before data collection (Protocol#137295). Prior to data collection, participants were given a consent form that described their rights and how data would be treated to ensure confidentiality. The consent form was reviewed with each participant. Due to the potential for sensitive topics to arise, it was mentioned that participants were free to skip any questions they felt uncomfortable answering. All interviews were conducted in a private area or on a secure online video call. To protect the identities of the participants while also being respectful of each participants’ desires and background, several considerations were made when creating and assigning pseudonyms. Participants were initially asked to provide their own pseudonym, but all chose to have the researchers create the pseudonyms. The authors intentionally avoided selecting names with existing racial, ethnic, or gender associations to prevent offending participants and to avoid tokenizing names or those biased toward our own backgrounds. Thus, a color was chosen for each pseudonym.

Data collection and handling procedures

Data collection included the following: 42 in-person observations of chemistry classes at two public universities in Colorado, surveys and interviews with nine chemistry instructors, nine equity practitioners, and 12 undergraduate students from one of the five public universities in Colorado, and a reflexivity and memo journal. In the context of this research, an equity practitioner is defined as any student, instructor, or other professional who may have insight on equity in the chemistry classroom because of their experiences, positions, research interests, or recommendation by other equity practitioners. Data were collected in stages with each stage informing the subsequent stage.

In the first stage, observation data were collected, and the first author began making entries into the memo and reflexivity journal. Reflexivity, the process of a researcher critically self-reflecting on their own biases and predispositions, is essential for a CGT project (Charmaz, 2006). This was practiced by making reflexive entries in a journal when making decisions related to the method of the study, creating or editing surveys or interview guides, and when identifying new participants. These entries were revisited and analytical memos were created in the journal when analyzing the data.

The instructors of chemistry lecture courses were contacted via email to be recruited for class observations. Once in the lecture classroom, observations were collected over a 50-minute class period via an observation protocol which was designed to address the needs of this study. The information collected included the date and time of the class meeting, the instructor, tallies of the number of students on task at various times throughout the class meetings, the movement of the instructor in the classroom, and noteworthy verbal flow or other interactions between the instructor and students. The preliminary observation protocol is presented in the SI.

The observation data were used to create the survey and interview guides which were used to collect data from the undergraduate students. The surveys were distributed to potential student participants via their chemistry instructors through an online message. All participants were asked in their survey to define equity and several terms related to it such as equality, justice, and prejudice. Among the participant groups (students, instructors, and equity practitioners), the students were surveyed and interviewed first. This approach allowed the data collected from the students to be utilized in designing the interview guides used with the chemistry instructors and equity practitioners. The first seven student participants were interviewed in-person in a private location, and the last five were interviewed via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Once the final interview guides were created, the chemistry instructors and equity practitioners were recruited via email and interviewed via Zoom. The equity practitioners were identified initially through the observation and student interview data. For example, one student reported approaching the director of a LGBTQ center to help resolve an issue with being misgendered by instructors. This director was emailed with the intent that they would consent to an interview. Chain referral (snowball) sampling was also used; during their interview, equity practitioners were asked to recommend other people that may fit the definition of equity practitioner used in this study.

Each interview was semi-structured with an interview guide (Interview Guide is presented in the SI) and took 30 to 90 minutes. On average, interviews with students and equity practitioners lasted 63 minutes, while interviews with chemistry instructors averaged 66 minutes. In total, 31 hours and 50 minutes of interview data were collected. During their interview, the participants were provided with their responses to the survey questions so they could clarify or change any of their responses. Students were asked about their experiences in chemistry instruction including interactions with instructors and peers, their future goals and perceived barriers to these goals, their expectations of their instructors and chemistry classes in general and in relation to equity, and if they had any discriminatory or prejudiced experiences in chemistry instruction. Chemistry instructors were asked about their experiences, training, chosen pedagogical methods, thoughts on equity, equality, and fairness in the classroom, ideas on how to make chemistry instruction more equitable, and what they would do in a few scenarios involving students. Equity practitioners were asked about their experiences, training, ideas related to the status and progress towards equity for undergraduate students studying chemistry, challenges to equitable changes, and if they had any other suggestions or points of contact in relation to equity.

Data analysis

Each interview was transcribed using the online transcription service, Temi.com. Each transcript was corrected for accuracy while the first author relistened to each interview recording to familiarize themself with the data. Using the qualitative analysis software NVivo, the interviews were analyzed using CGT and reflexive thematic analysis (TA) methods through an iterative process of initial, focused, and theoretical coding. TA is a process of identifying patterns in data and is used across research approaches (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Once initial codes were created for all the data in one interview transcript, these initial codes were organized into themes following reflexive TA approaches described by Braun and Clarke (2006). These themes were based on conceptual patterns through the data which the first author recognized by sifting through the data and grouping initial codes by their content. Since data collection and analysis occurred side-by-side, the initial coding of interviews conducted later in the project was influenced by the focused coding of interviews that occurred at the start of the project. This resulted in comparing transcript data to other transcript data throughout the project, making this an iterative process, and helping to solidify the focused code themes. The focused codes were reviewed for internal and external homogeneity following approaches described by Braun and Clarke (2006) to ensure that the initial codes within each focused code share some common theme while also ensuring that each focused code was distinct.

The final stage of analysis was theoretical coding which involved hypothesizing the relationships among the focused codes to construct the final ten theoretical elements which make up the theory of equity in chemistry instruction. This primarily occurred through memoing, which Charmaz (2006) described as a core method of theoretical analysis in CGT. Here, memoing involved writing about the focused codes and exploring the possible connections that can be drawn between them using diagrams. This iterative process from initial coding to theoretical coding is illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 The non-linear process of coding.

Description of participants’ institution

The participants attended or worked at one of five universities in Colorado. The characteristics of these institutions as described by Carnegie and their Hispanic Serving Institution status are summarized in SI (SI: Table S1). The institutions were chosen based on their location, due to the desire to collect in-person observations. Thus, the institutions that are represented are largely a result of purposive convenient sampling.

Interview participants

There were thirty interview participants, all at least 18 years old. The demographics of each participant were self-reported via open-ended survey response. Thus, the terms and descriptions provided in SI (SI: Tables S2–S4) were used by the participants to describe themselves. Interview participants were recruited from each of the five public, four-year universities in Colorado. The number of participants from each institution is listed in the SI (SI: Table S5). Twelve of the interview participants were students (SI: Table S2). Nine of the interview participants were chemistry instructors (SI: Table S3). Nine of the interview participants were classified as equity practitioners (SI: Table S4). The job titles of these people were edited to make them slightly less precise as an ethical consideration to protect the identities of the participants. These participants were asked how they defined the term “equity practitioner.”

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness refers to the confidence in a study's findings and interpretations (Eisenhart and Howe, 1992). This study incorporated multiple strategies to enhance trustworthiness, including member checking, peer and expert review, prolonged engagement, researcher statements, intercoder agreement, verbatim data use, and triangulation. Additionally, theory triangulation, which involves explaining data using several different theories (Johnson, 1997), was attempted as several theories were incorporated into the theoretical framework of this study. For member check, all interview participants were emailed the transcript of their interview so that they could provide feedback, verification, and some qualitative interpretive validity (Johnson, 1997). Theoretical elements were sent to the chemistry instructors and equity practitioners for review after the theoretical coding process was completed. To achieve peer review, a chemical education doctoral student was consulted throughout data collection and analysis and checked the constructed codes and theoretical elements of the study. Following the methodology described by O’Conner and Joffe (2020), intercoder agreement with one expert chemical educator was explored using 10% of the interview data collected. There was an average of 91% agreement with the expert reviewer when matching initial codes to the raw transcript data (Margiotta, 2022).

Formulation of the Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction

To address Research Questions 2, the formulated Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction was developed by connecting and grouping the identified elements into categories and grounding them in previously published theories. These organization of the findings form the framework for the theory.

Results

In response to the research question 1, “What are the key elements of equitable chemistry instruction for undergraduate students at public universities in Colorado?” ten key elements of equitable chemistry instruction were identified and used to formulate a theory of equity in chemistry instruction. These ten elements are discussed below and are supported by quotes provided by participants and connections to the literature.

Element 1: fostering awareness and education around the challenges students face

By knowing the specific challenges of the students in a chemistry course, instructors, administrators, advisors, and other support staff can make students’ educational experiences more tailored for their success; instructors can make courses more relevant. This element is connected to many other elements of the theory, since taking meaningful steps toward equity requires first developing an awareness of the current situation. Awareness of broad educational challenges such as those faced by first-generation students, low-income students, and students with disabilities can be developed by institutional professional development and by instructor investment in the exploration of the literature. The foundational element of a framework for equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in higher education developed by Ruel and Tajmal (2023) is the explicit recognition that different people react differently when confronted with “othering” experiences. Institution-wide awareness of the challenge of othering experiences “could set a precedence for generating inclusive understandings when embracing EDI [DEI] initiatives” (Ruel and Tajmal, 2023, p. 843).

To avoid making broad assumptions about students, instructors should learn about each individual group of students they teach. This can be done in a variety of ways including surveying students electronically or in class, inviting students to student hours, and talking to students one-on-one. One chemistry instructor, Sapphire, shared that he asked his students to complete a questionnaire at the beginning of each semester. This helps him gather information such as the student's educational and career goals, preferred name and pronouns, and any details the student wants him to know. He said that this allows him to make his class more relevant:

“It allows me to have some understanding of ‘Hey, here's an area where a student is going to need some additional support’ and it helps prepare me in a way that I can hopefully address it if it becomes something that would need my addressing in class.”

In addition to learning about his students’ individual academic needs, this practice allowed Sapphire to make his class more relevant to students’ interests.

One equity practitioner, Hibiscus, described tailoring students’ educational experiences via one-on-one conversations stating the following:

“ Whenever a student was stuck, I would try to see if it was something in the current material that they were stuck with or looking back on, do they just not have something that would've been necessarily leading up to that.”

By learning from students what their specific challenges were, Hibiscus would determine whether the students were simply struggling to pick up the new material or if their struggle stemmed from missing foundational knowledge. Thus, Hibiscus would tailor her course to the students’ educational foundations.

It may feel daunting to consider learning about the needs of several hundred students. One instructor, Mint, described using the empathy of her students to learn about them, stating the following:

“ I've really opened up about myself. So, in my syllabus and within Canvas, I talk about my becoming story and who I am, and I talk to them about my day to day… I want to mirror to them and show them that this isn't easy. And I'm human. And I try to recognize that they're human as well. And I feel like when you open up, at least with my experience, when you have that many students, and when you're opening up to them, then they'll open up to you… And that usually is enough to have some of the students come to my office hours or email me.”

She mentioned sharing her own story with students foster empathy and connection. This approach she finds particularly valuable considering the number of students she feels responsible for getting to know. Mint went on to describe another method to learn about her students, noting the following:

“ I have, this semester, 400 plus students… On my exams, there's an extra credit question… I just asked them, ‘Hey, we're approaching the one-year anniversary of the pandemic. How are things, how are you doing? Is there anything, do you need help with any resources?’ … So, I kinda check in and a lot of times it's a one-sided conversation. But the hope is that through these little things that I do, that they can email me if something happens or if they need, I don't know, a sounding board.”

Becoming more open to learning about the challenges students face may open instructors to a closer look at the emotional wellbeing of their students. With this, it becomes necessary to know where to send students for further support. This connects to Element 7 (Providing the support and resources needed by students) because to connect students to the resources they need, an instructor first needs to get to know students and their institution well enough to make the necessary connections.

Element 2: empathizing and sympathizing with students

This element builds upon Element 1, as empathy or sympathy toward a student first requires an awareness of the student's individual circumstances. Student participants expressed a desire for empathetic or sympathetic considerations from their instructors. One student, Indigo, echoed this desire saying that he valued classes depending on if he felt cared for by his instructor. Another student, Citrine, stated that it made “a huge difference” in her learning when she felt that her instructor cared about her. Citrine summed up her feelings with the following:

“ I want to be treated like I'm not some dumb undergrad. I want to be treated like I could potentially become one of the biggest successes to come from [Institution]. And I want to be treated like, I'm not just taking a basic chemistry class that I don't matter.”

Another student, Lilac, stated that her enjoyment of her classes as well as her interactions with advisors depended on how supported she felt by her instructors and advisors.

By learning about the challenges faced by students, faculty and staff can relate these challenges to themselves, sympathize or empathize with the students, and more effectively help students overcome challenges. Regarding a student falling behind, three of the equity practitioners (Mango, Hibiscus, and Canary) suggested that when an instructor is determining what to do about this slip in performance, they should consider any specifics about the student's background that the instructor had previously learned. These equity practitioners suggested that the ability of an instructor to empathize or sympathize with students’ challenges will improve the students’ abilities to overcome these challenges. Two of the equity practitioners, Denim and Hibiscus, described that a central feature of practicing equity is the act of listening to try to understand others. To be able to empathize or sympathize with a student, one must be able to effectively listen to them. When asked how she would want an instructor to respond to a student in need, one of the equity practitioners, Gold, replied:

“ I personally hope that they would put themselves in the shoes of the person. I mean, we can have a level of empathy for the fact that things happen. And I think a lot of times we forget that students are full human beings. We forget that they have jobs and children and parents and family, and things happen to them.”

Gold explained that “most students don’t email a faculty member unless they really need something,” and because of this, instructors should approach student outreach with trust and a willingness to believe their concerns.

Jackson et al. (2021) incorporated empathy into their equity-oriented STEM literacy framework in a way that complements, but differs from, its use in the current study. Jackson et al. highlights the role of empathy in supporting students’ educational goals, noting its potential to enhance student engagement and persistence in STEM by stating that “developing empathy in students as they explore an inquiry under investigation can serve as a potential bridge for students who have encountered real or perceived barriers in STEM” (p. 7).

Element 3: practicing flexibility with students

Flexibility with students can be practiced in many ways including when determining the scope of a course or expectations of the students, during actual interpersonal interactions with students or challenges in the classroom, or when determining the methods for instruction and assessment used in a course. Bennett et al. (2024) stated in their equity initiatives framework that flexibility needs to be used in all learning designs. This includes employing flexibility in the methods of assessment and delivery used with students, including the use of online resources.

One of the equity practitioners, Denim, built flexibility into her course by allowing students to choose whether they want to do any of their work in a group or individually. She also allowed her students to vote on various due dates and parameters to assignments. Another equity practitioner, Gold, suggested building flexibility and autonomy into courses by giving students options in their assignments such as giving multiple reading options at various reading levels. This not only accounts for the different preparation and ability levels of the students in the course but also results in more resources being available to all students and allows for collaborative work in class. Students who choose different readings for the assignment can group together to discuss the content and learn from each other. In a case study involving adults with visual impairments, Khan et al. (2023) found that students responded positively to flexibility in teaching sessions. The authors emphasized the importance of adaptable instructional strategies and offered practical methods to engage other senses. These included using safe to smell and taste chemicals, providing tactile models, and incorporating storytelling and expressive vocal delivery to enhance auditory engagement. Incorporating these accessible teaching methods is consistent with the principles of UDL and has the potential to benefit all students, not just those with disabilities.

Students can also be offered flexibility by allowing them to choose how they are assessed. This forces students to engage in metacognition to determine their own strengths and determine how they want to be assessed. When considering flexibility in assessing student knowledge, one equity practitioner, Gold, suggested the following:

“ If you have a 20-page paper, does it need to be 20 pages? Could it be five pages? If you have a paper, could it be a presentation? Could they record it? And I mean, really what is the outcome? If the outcome is writing, that's one thing. But if the outcome is knowledge generation and explanation, you can do that in a myriad of ways.”

Gold stressed that this process should begin with the instructor determining the learning outcomes they want their students to achieve.

Finally, flexibility can be practiced in instructor teaching style and interaction with students. The equity practitioners gave several suggestions toward these ends including providing multiple representations of instructional material, using creativity in constructing instructional material and assessments, using a variety of methods for student engagement in class, providing lecture recordings, and providing the ability for students to make up assignments. Mango, one of the equity practitioners, stated that an instructor's willingness to work with students through their individual needs is the most important aspect of their practice of equity. One of the instructors, Sapphire, gave an example of this practice describing meeting with students outside of his typical office hours to accommodate the students’ work schedules. Another instructor, Periwinkle, summarized this concept stating that she practiced equity by “being flexible in [her] expectations of people” and “not expecting everybody to be the same… to succeed in the same way.”

Element 4: including evidence-based equitable practices

More major journals are calling for research on equity in STEM education (Winfield et al., 2020). Maintaining awareness of current research on equitable pedagogical methods and applying this research to the modification of course curriculum and structure is an essential part of including equity in chemistry instruction. This element could be applied by institutions by creating recommended or required professional development on equitable practices. This section focuses on the data gathered from the participants rather than acting as a literature review of the current research on evidence-based equitable practices; it would be beneficial for the chemistry instructor to maintain a working knowledge of current evidence-based equitable practices.

Participants in this study described several ways in which equitable practices were incorporated in their chemistry instruction experiences. On equity practitioner, Mango, described incorporating discussions of inclusion, race, multiculturalism, and stories of inequity into her classroom. For example, with her students Mango traced the origins of some scientific advancements to Nazi scientists and discussed the ethics of working with these scientists or using their advancements. She encourages her students to think critically about the ethical implications of using knowledge obtained through morally questionable means while also exposing her students to some shadowed parts of science history. Two of the equity practitioners, Mango and Moss, described how difficult it can be to incorporate diverse historical representations of scientists in their classrooms due to the historical oppression of marginalized scientists. Mango suggested a solution to this problem of just being honest with the students and describing to them the fact that there have been scientists throughout history who are not remembered due to them being silenced or their work being stolen. Two of the equity practitioners, Turquoise and Denim, suggested inviting either alumni or members of ethnic or gender studies departments to chemistry classrooms to speak to the students when relevant to help the students see themselves reflected in the classroom and to make the course more relevant for them.

Several participants described teaching or learning skills related to navigating college in the chemistry classroom as a way in which courses can be made more equitable for all students. For example, Plum, one of the student participants, described not understanding how to use his institution's online course management system. This assumed knowledge is not directly connected to the content of a chemistry course, but students who lack this knowledge are put at a disadvantage compared to their peers who can readily use these programs. Some other non-chemistry skills that were reported as being taught or learned in chemistry classes by the participants included using and understanding rubrics, information management systems, and word processing suites, as well as practicing metacognition, time management, mindfulness, and study skills. One equity practitioner, Canary, also suggested teaching students who know multiple languages to find resources in their native language when they are struggling to understand content.

Sunasee (2023) examined the integration of three DEI initiatives into an organic chemistry course at a state university in New York. These initiatives aimed to raise undergraduate students’ awareness of DEI issues in STEM education and to foster a more inclusive classroom environment. The strategies implemented included in-class DEI video activities, extra credit DEI assignments, and DEI-themed exam questions. Student surveys revealed that most participants reported a positive impact of these initiatives on their overall learning experience and expressed a greater interest in learning more about DEI in STEM. Detailed descriptions of the assignments and exam questions were included in the SI of the article.

This study of Sunasee illustrates how Element 4 connects to Element 9 (Building a welcoming environment and a sense of belonging), as it provides concrete course-based practices and assessments that may promote a sense of belonging.

Using evidence-based strategies ensures that efforts to support diverse learners are grounded in research and demonstrated to be effective. Instead of depending on intuition or good intentions, this approach encourages intentional efforts to create more equitable and inclusive learning environments.

Element 5: including many perspectives

The university system in which undergraduate students are learning chemistry should have individuals of a wide variety of backgrounds in all positions of influence. This includes the instructors, advisors, coaches, directors, deans, and any other faculty or staff with which there is regular connection to the undergraduate student body. Bennett et al. (2024) identified inclusivity within all aspects of the students’ experiences in higher education as a key enabler of equity. The presence of a diverse range of individuals within the university system can enhance experiences for undergraduate students. All students could have the privilege of finding people like themselves within the university system and learn from the perspectives of people who are different from themselves. One undergraduate student, Plum, summarized the dangers of not considering the representation of marginalized people within the setting of chemistry instruction with the following:

“ Why would I want to get a PhD and whatever, if that field is entirely dominated by people who aren't like me and there isn't an equal opportunity for me.”

Another student participant, Aqua, described that as a Black woman she experienced feeling more motivated when taking classes instructed by other Black women. Expanding on her feelings of motivation in these classes, Aqua said the following:

“So, it's like having representation makes you want to actually learn something from that specific subject. So, I’m taking a computer science class right now. And most of the teachers are White men and the learning assistants and stuff like that. But one of my family members… is in computer science and when I found that out, I got more excited to learn in a way cause I’m like, if she can do it, then I guess I can too, you know?”

Similar results have been reported in other studies. Oliver et al. (2021) found that the recruitment of students of color into STEM may be negatively affected by a lack of representative role models in the classroom. Greaves et al. (2022) reported that both an achievement gap between Black and White students as well as a disengagement by Black students with their STEM courses can be partially explained by a lack of Black representation among both students and faculty.

Instructors themselves can audit their own instructional material for representation. One of the equity practitioners, Gold, suggested the following:

“If I have a set of chemistry slides, a lot of those images are probably chemistry-based, process-based things, but if I have people on my slides, who are those people and what is the representation of those people? And do those people look like me the instructor, White female, or White male, or do they include folks from across the field, from diverse populations of people? If I bring in examples of scientists, are they all White men?”

Overall representation of marginalized identities within the university system is outside of the powers of individual chemistry instructors and is the responsibility of the hiring committees of the university. Within the instructors’ power is the content they share with their students, which they can audit and improve by including people (and images and stories of people) from various backgrounds.

Element 6: creating institutional accountability for equity

Instead of allowing equity to exist as a bottom-up initiative (work towards equitable change coming from the marginalized people experiencing oppression), equity should be built into the structures of institutions from the top–down. This cannot occur without deliberate institutional intentionality and accountability for equitable change. Jackson et al. (2021) identified that providing access and opportunity to high-quality STEM learning experiences for all students was the primary method to disrupt oppression within their equity-oriented STEM literacy framework. It is the responsibility of each institution to ensure that these learning experiences are accessible to every student.

Participants provided several examples of equitable considerations incorporated into their institutions. To address general ignorance about equity at an institution, one equity practitioner, Canary, described creating an equity statement and assisting in the creation of an anti-racism mission statement; both statements were available for use by the university's community through the institution's website. This aligned with one element of an EDI [DEI] in higher education framework since it included the need for institutions to adopt a unified inclusive stance “such that interrelationships that cross-faculty boundaries contribute to the development of EDI-based knowledge and practices in STEM” (Ruel and Tajmal, 2023, p. 844). Canary also mentioned that to better support the Spanish speaking students, her university offered the new students family orientation in Spanish. Another equity practitioner, Tangerine, described disaggregating data to explore how reports on student conduct may be influenced by student identity. This can be done with any large data set collected by the university. With the power of this knowledge, universities can then make policy adjustments to create a more equitable student experience across all students.

One equity practitioner, Canary, voiced a concern about accountability for equity at the departmental level, stating the following:

“I don’t know if folks who would be enforcing [accountability] feel comfortable even being knowledgeable enough to know how to do that, or how to train, or how to support faculty. So, I’m thinking of chairs of departments may not feel confident in their ability to hold faculty accountable.”

Not all faculty, or department chairs, are knowledgeable about equity in instruction; thus, it is important for universities to offer (and require) sufficient equity focused professional development. Aside from educating faculty, higher education institutions should also provide students with opportunities to learn about equity. Providing courses on topics related to equity, which fulfill general education requirements, is another aspect to Ruel and Tajmel's EDI framework (2023). This framework additionally supports Element 6, as it requires individuals in positions of power within higher education institutions to fund EDI initiatives (Ruel and Tajmal, 2023).

Another method of accountability for equity encouraged by Canary is including a desire for applicants to be working to be anti-racist and equity minded in the hiring processes. Finally, Canary stated the following:

“Equity can’t just be a light switch. You can’t just turn it on when it's convenient or it fits into your lesson plan and then say ‘sorry, it doesn’t fit. So, I’m going to go ahead and turn it off right now’… how do we actually change the culture?”

Consideration towards establishing an equitable experience for each student needs to be built into every part of the university system.

Element 7: providing the support and resources needed by students

Providing resources for students in need is linked to the definition of equity given by many of this study's participants. For example, an equity practitioner, Tangerine, described equity as “understanding that people have different privileges in life, and that in order to have equitable outcomes, [one] may distribute resources unequally to have the best results in the end.” An unequal distribution of resources, in which individuals with higher needs receive more resources than those with lower needs, was supported by instructors and student participants as well. One undergraduate student, Teal, defined equity with an example, describing equity as “giving people different treatment with the end result of everyone having equal opportunity for equal treatment (for example, offering more scholarship money to students who come from less wealthy families than more wealthy families to attend the same college).” The support and resources provided to the undergraduate students can include material support such as scholarships as mentioned by Teal or other types of financial aid. In a report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy, Dancy et al. (2023) provided several recommendations for institutions and policy makers to address inequities present in postsecondary education by providing additional financial support for students. These recommendations included the following: providing funding for non-tuition related expenses, decreasing the restrictions to student financial aid eligibility, increasing the funds provided by the federal Pell Grant, and providing financial support to programs aimed to increase completion rates. Bennett et al. (2024) also included access to financial support in their equity initiatives framework alongside access to academic and other resources. In education, resources can also include online study resources such as videos, podcasts, question sets, or lab simulations, as well as one-on-one time provided by instructors, tutorial services, access to health centers, counseling centers, cultural centers, disability centers, or any other student support services funded by the university.

Element 8: practicing reflexivity to think more equitably

Reflexivity is a method of critically reflecting on one's beliefs, biases, and theoretical influences (Thornberg, 2012). Reflexivity can be used by university administration, faculty, and staff for these individuals to become more self-aware, understand how their work may be influenced by their own biases, and strive for more equitable and thoughtful practices. Instructor and equity practitioner participants described several methods of practicing reflexivity in relation to equity. These include questioning any immediate assumption one makes about a student, individually processing and self-reflecting on one's own teaching practice, adjusting the language one uses to better include marginalized students, and otherwise ideologically shifting towards equity or practicing equity in daily life.

Mango, an equity practitioner, described instructors’ self-reflecting on their own practices, identities, and influences with a goal of improving future class-related decisions as a major aspect of incorporating equity into a course. When considering language used with students, an instructor, Amethyst, stated the following:

“I have learned to be careful about the language that I’m using and not use overly academic, term-heavy language. That's not to say that students don’t need to know the important vocabulary for a topic. But, when I’m trying to explain something to them and it's clear that they’re not understanding, I try to think about, okay, how am I wording this?’ Is there something about the way I’m wording it that might [confuse] them.”

This is an example of self-reflection to improve the experiences in class for all of Amethyst's students. Canary, an equity practitioner, engaged in reflexive practice to better understand and empathize with her students, challenging her own assumptions and biases. This approach is supported by Element 2 (Empathizing and Sympathizing with Students). Some daily habits to support equitable practices provided by participants include apologizing when necessary, educating oneself about social justice, advocating for equitable change, and talking to friends and family about equity.

Element 9: building welcoming environments and sense of belonging

The Royal Society of Chemistry (2021) reported that for chemists a sense of belonging supports academic achievement, mental health, innovation, creativity, retention, and performance. Several studies and resources have explored strategies to achieve a sense of belonging (Fink et al., 2020; Edwards et al., 2022). Participants identified these practices as methods to incorporate equity into chemistry instruction. An equity practitioner, Tangerine, pointed out that to create these feelings of welcoming and belonging, both environmental factors around campus as well as in-class environments and activities must be considered. Tangerine suggested including “cultural artifacts” on campus and to consider “who is represented in the artwork on the walls and the pictures, [and] names of buildings.”

In class, a welcoming environment can be constructed through the behaviors and choices of the instructor. For example, Tangerine suggested that instructors engage in the following practices to make a course more welcoming: addressing students with their chosen name and pronouns, providing resources to students, outlining clear expectations, and showing interest in student well-being. Along these same lines, equity practitioner Canary suggested that the instructor be honest with students about some personal struggles or failures so that the students can have an example of normalized struggle and of a successful person who had previously failed. One equity practitioner, Demin, provided some methods she used to create a sense of belonging and a welcoming classroom environment. These included the following: creating class-wide collaborative agreements to establish expectations, considering the educational desires and needs of her students, practicing group breath meditation with her students, and completing a campus rope course with her students.

Element 10: working in and with the surrounding community

This element involves actively supporting and involving the local community in ways that benefit both the community and the institution. Bennett et al. (2024) identified using institutional partnerships and collaborations with other schools, communities, and industries as an enabler of equity within their equity initiatives framework. Denim, an equity practitioner, was particularly involved in community engagement, and worked towards connecting faculty members to community partners as part of her job on campus. One example of community engagement work was in Denim's institution's water science classes, in which the students partnered with the Boys and Girls Club and had undergraduate students teach the children about river health while going on a trip to sample river water. In this example, young children learn science and are exposed to future possibilities, and the undergraduate students benefit from the opportunity to teach others what they have learned in class. Khan et al. (2023) gave testing river water as an example of engaging fieldwork which provides flexibility in learning styles to a course, which is in agreement with Denim's comment. This is both an example of working in the surrounding community and practicing flexibility with students, connecting Element 10 and Element 3 (Practicing flexibility with students). Recounting another case study, Khan et al. (2023) described a project implemented at a South African university to combat the lack of inclusivity and sense of belonging for disadvantaged communities in South Africa. In this project, undergraduate students first learned how to synthesize a dye and then were later graded on their ability to teach Grade 12 students from resource-limited schools how to synthesize that dye. This exemplifies the connection between Element 10 and Element 6 (Creating institutional accountability for equity). By creating this program to support the education of students in the surrounding community, this South African university is taking a small step toward correcting the historic inequality in South African education.

Other strategies for community engagement include gathering and sharing equity data with the community, providing instructors with funding and resources to support community involvement, and integrating community perspectives into the curriculum. An instructor, Turquoise, mentioned advocating for legislative efforts that support his university to his local and national government as another method of community engagement. Engaging with the community in ways which obligate the institution to their surrounding area can help that institution remain accountable to their commitments towards equity. Khan et al. (2023) described the use of the “Two Ways” teaching approach, originally developed by Pincher Nyurrmiyarri in 1976, in a science program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. This teaching approach combines Indigenous Australian and Western academic understandings of knowledge. Khan et al. found that the students in the program had improved participation in science subjects at school and viewed science more favorably. This program is an example of a Western academic institution working with the surrounding Indigenous community by using a teaching approach developed by an Indigenous man to better support the needs of all students. This is also an example of the connection between Element 10 and Element 5 (Including many perspectives) since this program would not have been possible if not for the recognition and inclusion of the work of Nyurrmiyarri.

The interconnections among different elements of equity are illustrated in Fig. 3. In this figure, the size of the circles reflects the number of connections that an element has to other elements. For example, Element 1 has the largest circle because it has the most connections to other elements. These nine connections are represented by a black line linking the circle to the nine other circles. Additional connections among elements are described within their individual sections, with a more detailed discussion available in Margiotta (2022).

Fig. 3 Connections among the elements of equity in chemistry instruction.

Discussion

Formulation of a theory of equity in chemistry instruction

To address Research Question 2: “How can the identified elements be used to construct a Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction?” The Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction was developed through a process of clustering elements of equitable practice into broader categories, then identifying their relationships and theoretical foundations. The ten elements were grouped into four categories: instructor's individual practices; pedagogical practices and responsiveness; environment, belonging, and inclusion; and institutionalization and sustainability.

Each category and elements are interconnected and together they create the theory’ framework. Fig. 4 illustrates the organization of the ten elements into these categories. Descriptions of the elements, their purpose in the equity framework, and their theoretical grounding are discussed below and summarized in Table 1.

Fig. 4 Elements of the theory of equity in chemistry instruction.

Table 1 The theory of equity in chemistry instruction presents the theoretical grounding and categorization of the ten elements of equity in chemistry instruction

Category	Element	Description	Purpose in equity framework	Theoretical grounding
Instructor's individual practices	1. Fostering awareness and education around student challenges	Recognize systemic, interpersonal, and structural barriers that students face.	Foundation for understanding inequities and shifting educator mindsets.	Equity literacy (Gorski, 2013); critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970)
	2. Empathizing and sympathizing with students	Relate to student experiences with compassion.	Affective grounding that supports equitable responses.	Critical pedagogy; (Freire, 1970) Social-emotional learning (Durlak et al., 2011)
	8. Practicing reflexivity to think more equitably	Examine personal biases, assumptions, and positionality.	Encourages educators to cultivate awareness that leads to ethical action.	Transformative learning (Mezirow, 1978); equity literacy (Gorski, 2013)
Pedagogical practices and responsiveness	3. Practicing flexibility with students	Tailor policies, practices, and expectations to student needs.	Applies empathy and reflexivity to instruction.	Universal design for learning (CAST, 2018); culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010)
	4. Including evidence-based equitable practices	Use of evidence-based strategies that support diverse learners.	Ensures flexibility and inclusion are effective, not arbitrary.	Inclusive pedagogy (Salazar et al. 2010); learning sciences (Brown et al., 1989).
	7. Providing the support and resources students need	Allocate academic, financial, and emotional resources equitably.	Translates recognition of need into tangible support.	Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1954); student success models (Tinto, 1993; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997)
Environment, belonging, and inclusion	9. Building welcoming environments and a sense of belonging	Foster relational and cultural safety for all students.	Cultivates student identity, confidence, and engagement.	Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1954); social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979)
	5. Including many perspectives	Integrate diverse voices and worldviews into curriculum and dialogue.	Affirms student identities and disrupts dominant norms.	Multicultural education (Banks, 2006); funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992)
	10. Working in and with the surrounding community	Engage families, communities, and cultural organizations.	Ensures relevance, reciprocity, and respect.	Asset-based community engagement (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993); culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012).
Institutionalization and Sustainability	6. Creating institutional accountability for equity	Embed equity principles into policy, leadership, and evaluation.	Ensures efforts are sustained and systemic.	Institutional change theory (Kezar and Eckel, 2002); transformative leadership (Shields, 2010).

---

Instructor's individual practices

Instructors can promote equity by fostering awareness, empathy, and reflexivity. Fostering awareness and education around the challenges and structural barriers that students face (Element 1) is essential for cultivating equity in education. This awareness serves as a foundation for understanding inequities and encourages educators to critically reflect on and shift their mindsets. Such a perspective is presented in Gorski's (2013) concept of equity literacy, which emphasizes recognizing and responding to the root causes of educational inequities. It also reflects Freire's (1970) critical pedagogy, which encourages educators to carefully consider existing obstacles and foster practices that help empower students. Understanding the barriers students face in society, in relationships, and in school helps teachers see inequalities and think differently about their teaching.

Empathizing and sympathizing with students (Element 2) by connecting to their experiences with compassion, can create a caring and inclusive foundation for equitable teaching. This approach is supported by Freire's (1970) vision of critical pedagogy, which encourages educators to build respectful relationships and recognize the lived realities of their students. This element is also supported by the principles of social and emotional learning (Durlak et al., 2011), in which empathy plays an important role in developing positive relationships, emotional well-being, and supportive classroom environments. Relating to student experiences with compassion offers an affective grounding that supports equitable responses.

Practicing reflexivity (Element 8) by exploring one's own biases and assumptions can be a meaningful step for educators striving to create more equitable learning environments. This practice helps educators better understand how their perspectives influence their teaching and relationships with students. This approach agrees with Mezirow's (1978) idea of transformative learning, which values thoughtful reflection as a way to support personal and professional growth. This element also is supported by Gorski's (2013) idea of equity literacy, which highlights the importance of continually reflecting on oneself to better understand and respond to inequities in education. Together, these practices create a framework in which instructor behaviors, awareness, and values support equitable student outcomes.

Pedagogical practices and responsiveness

Practicing flexibility with students (Element 3) involves adjusting policies, practices, and expectations to support their diverse needs. This approach reflects both empathy and reflexivity, allowing educators to respond more thoughtfully to individual circumstances. This element is consistent with UDL (CAST, 2018), which encourages thoughtful planning to support the diverse ways students learn, and with Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (Gay, 2010), which highlights the importance of honoring students’ cultural backgrounds in instructional decisions. Together, these frameworks support responsive and inclusive teaching.

Including evidence-based equitable practices (Element 4) is supported by the work of Salazar et al., (2010) in the area of inclusive pedagogy, which emphasizes the importance of designing instruction that affirms the value, strengths, and contributions of all students, particularly those from historically underrepresented backgrounds. This element is further supported by the work of Brown et al. (1989) whose work exemplifies core principles of learning sciences theory, particularly the importance of authentic learning experiences. These works underline the importance of aligning instructional design with how students learn best and include the role of prior knowledge, motivation, social interaction, and culturally relevant context.

Providing students with academic, financial, and emotional support (Element 7) ensures equity by turning awareness of need into meaningful action. This element is grounded in Maslow's (1954) Hierarchy of Needs, which highlights the importance of meeting basic needs for learning to occur. This element is reinforced by the student success models formulated in the work of Tinto (1993) and Seymour and Hewitt (1997), which emphasize that institutional support plays a key role in student persistence, especially for students that are facing systemic barriers. Tinto's model argues that a student leaving college is not just a result of individual failure but a consequence of mismatch or weak integration between the student and the institution. Institutions must foster both academic and social engagement to promote success and retention.

This category emphasizes adjusting instruction and support to meet diverse student needs.

Environment, belonging, and inclusion

Including multiple perspectives (Element 5) builds on Multicultural Education (Banks, 2006) and the Funds of Knowledge framework (Moll et al., 1992), encouraging educators to draw from students’ cultural and community knowledge as valuable sources of insight that inform both teaching and learning. Welcoming diverse voices and worldviews into the curriculum and classroom conversations creates opportunities for students to feel recognized, respected, and affirmed in the learning process.

Building welcoming environments and fostering a sense of belonging (Element 9) relates to Maslow's (1954) Hierarchy of Needs, which identifies belonging as a basic human need. Creating supportive environments helps students feel accepted, which improves their well-being, engagement, and academic success. Similarly, Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) explains that people's sense of self comes not only from who they are as individuals but also from the groups they identify and belong to.

Working in and with the surrounding community (Element 10) centers on building trust and sustained collaboration of actively engaged families, community members, and cultural organizations to foster authentic partnerships. By honoring the knowledge and contributions of local communities, this engagement fosters shared responsibility, relevance, and mutual growth. Element 10 is grounded in Asset-Based Community Engagement (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993) and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (Paris, 2012); it points out learning with communities rather than just learning about them. This category focuses on creating safe, affirming, and culturally responsive learning spaces. Together, these elements cultivate an environment where all students feel included, affirmed, and connected.

Institutionalization and sustainability

Creating institutional accountability for equity (Element 6) is supported by the Institutional Change Theory (Kezar and Eckel, 2002) and Transformative Leadership (Shields, 2010). Promoting equity begins with intentionally weaving equity principles into policies, leadership practices, and evaluation processes. This approach supports long-term, sustainable change, and it invites leaders to thoughtfully reflect on structures and practices that can foster more inclusive and equitable learning environments.

The Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction suggests that equity in teaching happens when teachers use awareness, understanding, and reflection along with flexible, research-based, and inclusive teaching. These practices help students feel they belong and are supported, which promotes their success. Long-term equity also depends on the commitment of institutions and partnerships with the community to work together and make equity part of the culture and structure of higher education. The findings for Research Question 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 1 that presents the framework for the Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction.

Limitations

To mitigate the potential influence of the authors’ biases on the study's findings, strategies such as peer review, expert review, and member checking techniques were utilized. The influence of contemporary history on methodology poses a threat to the trustworthiness of a given research study (Isaac and Michael, 1995). Data collected from study participants may be influenced by the current events which they are experiencing (Isaac and Michael, 1995). The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 coincided with the data collection phase of this study, necessitating methodological adjustments such as the cessation of observations and the transfer of interviews from an in-person format to an online format. The potential implications of these changes were discussed by Margiotta and Brown (2023).

Interviews and survey data were collected from participants who were employed at or enrolled in one of the five public, four-year universities in Colorado. Observation data were collected from two universities, and approximately 80% of the interview data were also gathered from students or employes of these same two institutions. Thus, the data may be biased towards the experiences of two universities, Institution A and Institution C (SI: Table S1). Overall, there was a lack of representation of transgender women and a limited representation of people with disabilities, Native American people, immigrants, and transgender people. Only one chemistry instructor participant was a male, and all instructors were White. Additionally, participants who signed the consent form mentioned the interest of the study in equity may be biased in their belief that equity is a worthwhile topic to be studied.

Conclusions

Equity in chemistry instruction is essential to foster an inclusive and supportive learning environment for all students (White, 2025). The Theory of Equity in Chemical Instruction consisting of ten elements of equity was developed by using data collected from five universities in Colorado. The theory of equity for undergraduate students studying chemistry provided by this CGT case study is unique in the field of chemistry education. Equity in chemistry instruction cannot be realized through isolated efforts. The elements presented in this theory are interconnected, each reinforcing and supporting the others. Together, they create a framework in which individual practices inform and build upon one another, offering instructors, researchers, and administrators a guide for reflecting on and evaluating equity within chemistry courses and programs.

Implications for teaching

The elements of the theory can be used in a variety of ways to inform teaching interventions and improve learning environments for undergraduate students studying chemistry. The elements which were categorized in “instructor's individual practices” and “pedagogical practices and responsiveness” can be incorporated into the teaching practices of individual instructors to make courses more equitable. These elements were fostering awareness and education around the challenges students face, empathizing and sympathizing with students, practicing reflexivity to think more equitably, including evidence-based equitable practices, providing the support and resources students need, and practicing flexibility with students. For example, “Practicing flexibility” requires sensitivity to individual student needs, while “Including evidence-based equitable practices” provides the research-informed tools to respond effectively. Extending deadlines may be flexible, but embedding UDL principles into course design is both flexible and evidence based. When used together, these strategies help teachers respond to students' needs in a way that is planned and fair instead of just reacting in the moment.

The theory of equity in chemistry instruction could also drive professional development and reflective practices. Instructors could use the elements of the theory as a reflective framework examining their own practices through an equity perspective. Some potential behavioral indicators we associated with these elements include the following: gathering student input, attending professional development focused on equity, providing deadline flexibility, using alternative assignment options, applying UDL, reflecting on student feedback, referring students to support resources, and adjusting the course for students’ needs. Additional potential behavioral indicators are provided in the SI (SI: Table S6).

This theory could transform educational practices by guiding inclusive curriculum and classroom as reflected in interventions as peer-led team learning (PLTL) that creates student-to-student relationships and collaborative environments that support participation, asset-based supplemental courses (Sevian et al., 2023) and culturally relevant instruction (Spencer et al., 2021). The elements of equity categorized into “Environment, Belonging, and Inclusion” and “Institutionalization and Sustainability” could be enforced and used by departments and university structures overall.

Implications for research

Developing the Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction has significant implications for advancing research on inclusive teaching and learning in this discipline. A theory-based approach provides a framework through which researchers can better understand, investigate, and ultimately address systemic inequities within chemistry instruction. In this study, the Theory of Equity in Chemistry Instruction was intentionally grounded in classroom practice, ensuring its relevance to real instructional contexts. The elements of this theory represent both a conceptual contribution and a practical foundation for developing research tools that promote and assess equity in chemistry instruction. Observation protocols, interview guides, and surveys can be developed using this theoretical framework, allowing for systematic investigation of equitable teaching practices. These instruments can then be tested for validity and reliability, further strengthening the field's ability to assess and support equitable instruction.

An initial equity observation protocol developed from the constructed theory is included in the SI (SI: Table S6). This tool can be piloted and refined in future research. Additionally, subsequent studies could explore the transferability of the identified equity elements to contexts beyond Colorado universities, contributing to a broader understanding of equity in diverse chemistry learning environments.

Ethical considerations

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained before data collection (Protocol#137295) of University of Northern Colorado.

Author contributions

The authors contributed to the following roles during manuscript preparation. Conceptualization: AM, CB; data curation: AM; formal analysis: AM, CB; investigation: AM; methodology: AM, CB; project administration: AM; supervision: CB; writing original draft: AM and CB.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Data availability

The data are not publicly available as publicly releasing the data could potentially compromise the privacy of the research participants.

The supplementary information (SI) includes the Preliminary Observation Protocol, Interview Guide, institutional classifications, and demographic summaries of student, chemistry instructor, and equity practitioner participants (Tables 1–5), as well as the Equity Observation Protocol. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5rp00254k.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the equity experts, chemistry instructors, and participating students from five Colorado-based higher education institutions, whose insights deeply informed this work. We also extend our appreciation to Dr Richard Hyslop for his thoughtful editorial feedback.

References

1. Addy T. M., Reeves P. M., Dube D. and Mitchell K. A., (2021), What really matters for instructors implementing equitable and inclusive teaching approaches, To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 40(1) DOI:10.3998/tia.182.
2. Banks J., (2006), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives, 6th edn, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3. Bennett A., Naylor R., Hanley J. and Burgess C., (2024), Access and equity in Australian higher education: the equity initiatives framework version 2.0. A practice report, Stud. Succ., 15(2), 67–74 DOI:10.5204/ssj.3559.
4. Braun V. and Clarke V., (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol., 3(2), 77–101.
5. Brown A. L., Collins A. and Duguid P., (1989), Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educ. Res., 18(1), 32–42 DOI:10.3102/0013189X018001032.
6. Cardullo V. and Burton M., (2024), Breaking barriers: utilizing a STEM equity framework for analyzing primary picture books, Early Child. Educ. J., 53, 1681–1692 DOI:10.1007/s10643-024-01708-7.
7. CAST, (2018), Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2, https://udlguidelines.cast.org.
8. Charmaz K., (2006), Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, London: SAGE Publications.
9. Charmaz K., (2020), “With constructivist grounded theory, you can’t hide”: Social justice research and critical inquiry in the public sphere, Qual. Inq., 26(2), 165–176 DOI:10.1177/1077800419879.
10. Crenshaw K., (1994), Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracism politics, in Jagger A. M. (ed.), Living with contradictions 1st edn., Routledge, pp. 39–52.
11. Dancy K., Garcia-Kendrick G. and Cheng D., (2023), Rising above the threshold: How expansions in financial aid can increase the equitable delivery of postsecondary value for more students, Institute for Higher Education Policy, https://www.ihep.org/publication/risingabovethethreshold/.
12. Durlak J. A., Weissberg R. P., Dymnicki A. B., Taylor R. D. and Schellinger K. B., (2011), The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions, Child Dev., 82(1), 405–432 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
13. Edwards J. D., Barthelem R. S. and Frey R. F., (2022), Relationship between course-level social belonging (Sense of belonging and belonging uncertainty) and academic performance in general chemistry 1, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 71–82.
14. Eisenhart M. and Howe K., (1992), Validity in educational research, in LeCompte M., Millroy W. and Preissle J. (ed.), The handbook of qualitative research in education, Academic Press, pp. 643–680.
15. Fink A., Frey R. F. and Solomon E. D., (2020), Belonging in General Chemistry Predicts First-Year Undergraduates’ Performance and Attrition, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(4), 1042–1062.
16. Freire P., (1970), Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
17. Gay G., (2010), Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
18. Gorski P. C., (2013), Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19. Greaves R., Kelestyn B., Blackburn R. A. R. and Kitson R. R. A., (2022), The Black student experience: Comparing STEM undergraduate student experiences at higher education institutions of varying student demographic, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 56–70 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00402.
20. Harris R. B., Mack M. R., Bryant J., Theobald E. J. and Freeman S., (2020), Reducing achievement gaps in undergraduate general chemistry could lift underrepresented students into a “hyperpersistent zone”, Sci. Adv., 6(24), 1–8.
21. Isaac S. and Michael W. B., (1995), Handbook in research and evaluation for education and the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn, San Diego, CA: EdITS.
22. Jackson C., Mohr-Schroeder M. J., Bush S. B., Maiorca C., Roberts T., Yost C. and Fowler A., (2021), Equity-oriented conceptual framework for K-12 STEM literacy, Int. Educ., 8(38) DOI:10.1186/s40594-021-00294-z.
23. Johnson R. B., (1997), Examining the validity structure of qualitative research, Education, 118, 282–292.
24. Kaufenberg-Lashua M. M., West J. K., Kelly J. J. and Stepanova V. A., (2024), What does AI think a chemist looks like? An analysis of diversity in generative AI, J. Chem. Educ., 101(11), 4704–4713.
25. Kezar A. and Eckel P. D., (2002), The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education: Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts? J. High. Educ., 73(4), 435–460, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1558422.
26. Khan M. A. H., Harrison T. G., Wajrak M., Grimshaw M., Schofield K. G., Trew A. J., Johal K., Morgan J., Shallcross K. L., Sewry J. D., Davies-Coleman M. T. and Shallcross D. E., (2023), Flipping the thinking on equality, diversity, and inclusion. Why EDI is essential for the development and progression of the chemical sciences: a case study approach, J. Chem. Educ., 100(11), 4279–4286 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00364.
27. Kincheloe J. L., (2005), Critical constructivism primer, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
28. King-Sears P., (2014), Introduction to Learning Disability Quarterly special series on universal design for learning: Part one of two, LDQ, 37(2), 68–70 DOI:10.1177/0731948714528337.
29. Kosciw J. G., Clark C. M., Truong N. L. and Zongrone A. D., (2020), The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation's schools, New York: GLSEN.
30. Kretzmann J. P. and McKnight J. L., (1993), Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets, ACTA Publications.
31. Lawler D., Begley C. and Lalor J., (2015), (Re)constructing myself: the process of transition to motherhood for women with a disability, J. Advan. Nurs., 71(7), 1672–1683 DOI:10.1111/jan.12635.
32. Lee A., (2022), A forgotten underrepresented group: Students with disabilities’ entrance into STEM fields, Int. J. Disab., Dev. Educ., 69(4), 1295–1312 DOI:10.1080/1034912x.2020.1767762.
33. MacPhee D., Farro S. and Canetto S. S., (2013), Academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, Ethnic, and Social Class Patterns: Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance, ASAP, 13(1), 347–369 DOI:10.1111/asap.12033.
34. Margiotta A., (2022), Evidence-Based Equity in Chemical Education, PhD dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, https://digscholarship.unco.edu/dissertations/859/.
35. Margiotta A. and Brown C., (2023), Adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic: Mid-study changes to a case study on equity in chemistry instruction [Case 1], Sage Research Methods Cases, Sage DOI:10.4135/9781529667936.
36. Maslow A. H., (1954), Motivation and personality, Harper and Row.
37. McKernan J. A., (2013), The origins of critical theory in education: Fabian socialism as social reconstructionism in nineteenth-century Britain, Br. J. Educ. Stud., 61(4), 417–433 DOI:10.1080/00071005.2013.824947.
38. Mezirow J., (1978), Perspective transformation, Adult Educ. Q., 28(2), 100–110 DOI:10.1177/074171367802800202.
39. Moll L. C., Amanti C., Neff D. and Gonzalez N., (1992), Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms, TIP, 31(2), 132–141 DOI:10.1080/00405849209543534.
40. Morales M. E., Avilla R. A. and Espinosa A. A., (2016a), Does gender inequality influence interest in pursuing a career in science or mathematics teaching? IIER, 26(1), 65–81.
41. Morales M. E., Avilla R. A. and Espinosa A. A., (2016b), Exploring gender disparities in science and mathematics classrooms in the basic education, IJRSE, 5(3), 39–58 DOI:10.5861/ijrse.2015.1263.
42. Morales M. E. and Espinosa A. A., (2015), Development and validation of observation protocol for gender equity in classroom: Towards achieving gender equality in education, Res. J. Soc. Sci., 8(2), 1–12.
43. Morse J. M., Stern P. N., Corbin J., Bowers B., Charmaz K. and Clarke A. E., (2009), Developing grounded theory: The second generation, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
44. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), (2023), Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd.
45. O’Conner C. and Joffe H., (2020), Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines, Int. J. Qual. Methods, 19, 1–13.
46. Oliver D., Fairlie R., Millhauser G. and Roland R., (2021), Minority student and teaching assistant interactions in STEM, Econ. Educ. Rev., 83 DOI:10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102125.
47. Paris D., (2012), Culturally sustaining pedagogy: a needed change in stance, terminology, and practice, Educ. Res., 41(3), 93–97 DOI:10.3102/0013189X12441244.
48. Park L. J., Machin A. I. and Straughair C., (2025), Experiencing growth through interprofessional working relationships: a grounded theory study, J. Interprof. Care, 39(3), 469–478 DOI:10.1080/13561820.2025.2482683.
49. Royal Society of Chemistry, (2021), A sense of belonging in the chemical sciences, https://www.rsc.org/policy-and-campaigning/science-culture/belonging-in-the-chemical-sciences.
50. Ruel S. and Tajmal T., (2023), At the intersection of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and business management in Canadian higher education: an intentional equity, diversity, and inclusion framework, GWO, 31(3), 821–850 DOI:10.1111/gwao.13035.
51. Salazar M. D. C., Norton A. S. and Tuitt F. A., (2010), Weaving promising practices for inclusive excellence into the higher education classroom, To Improve the Academy: A J. Educ. Dev., 28(1), 208–226.
52. Schmader T., (2010), Stereotype threat deconstructed, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 19(1), 14–18 DOI:10.1177/0963721409359292.
53. Sevian H., King-Meadows T. D., Caushi K., Kakhoidze T. and Karch J. M., (2023), Addressing Equity Asymmetries in General Chemistry Outcomes Through an Asset-Based Supplemental Course, JACS Au, 3(10):2715–2735 DOI:10.1021/jacsau.3c00192. PMID: 37885568; PMCID: PMC10598836.
54. Seymour E. and Hewitt N. M., (1997), Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
55. Shields C. M., (2010), Transformative leadership: working for equity in diverse contexts, Educ. Admin. Q., 46(4), 558–589 DOI:10.1177/0013161X10375609.
56. Spencer J. L., Maxwell D. N., Erickson K. R. S., Wall D., Nicholas-Figueroa L., Pratt K. A. and Shultz G. V., (2021), Cultural relevance in chemistry education: Snow chemistry and the Iñupiaq community, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 363–372 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00480.
57. Steinberg S. R., (2014), Critical constructivism, in Coghlan D. and Brydon-Miller M. (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of action research, SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 204–206.
58. Sunasee R., (2023), Incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion awareness and knowledge in a first-semester organic chemistry classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 100(11), 4335–4342 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00528.
59. Tajfel H. and Turner J., (1979), An integrative theory of intergroup conflict, in Williams J. A. and Worchel S. (ed.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 33–47.
60. Thornberg R., (2012), Informed grounded theory, Scand. J. Educ. Res., 56(3), 243–259 DOI:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686.
61. Tinto V., (1993), Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2nd edn, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62. White K. N., (2025), Discipline brief: Equity in chemistry, Every Learner Everywhere, https://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/wp-content/uploads/Getting-Started-with-Equity-A-Discipline-Brief-for-Equity-in-Chemistry-Updated-2025.pdf.
63. Wimberly G. L. (ed.), (2015), LGBTQ issues in education: Advancing a research agenda, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
64. Winfield L. L., Wilson-Kennedy Z. S., Payton-Stewart F., Nielson J., Kimble-Hall A. C. and Arriaga E. A., (2020), Journal of Chemical Education call for papers: Special issue on diversity, equity, inclusion, and respect in chemistry education research and practice, J. Chem. Educ., 97(11), 3915–3918 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01300.

---