University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Exploration of STEM Teachers’ Knowledge, Motivation, and the Organizational Influences of
Culturally Inclusive Teaching Practices
by
Sean Fitts

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2021

Copyright 2021 Sean Fitts

ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Amanda, for all of her support from start to
finish taking care of everything while I worked over the past three years. Also, I dedicate this
work to Cali, our Australian Cattle Dog, who sat at my feet late at night, keeping me company
and motivating me to continue working through some of the more challenging moments.
I would also like to dedicate this to my mother, Joyce, and my father, Albert, who both
passed away before this endeavor but provided me with the foundation for life and the grit to
persevere through difficult times. I thought about you often while I worked.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to especially thank Dr. Helena Seli, my dissertation chair, who provided
immediate feedback and support throughout the process. Also, I would like to thank my
dissertation committee members, Dr. Jennifer Phillips and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox, for all of their
support and recommendations. You all inspired me to keep thinking and progressing through the
program.
Many thanks to my colleagues for their support and encouragement throughout this
process. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Catherine Atwell for her time and help.
Additionally, I am grateful to Dr. Priscilla Sands and Dr. Laura Hotchkiss for their inspiration.
During the past three years, I was challenged with time and focus, but you all made it possible to
keep working while I lived a double life. I could not have done this without your help!

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Introduction to Problem of Practice ................................................................................................ 1
Organizational Context and Mission .............................................................................................. 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .......................................................................................... 3
Organizational Performance Status................................................................................................. 4
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ........................................................................ 6
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................................. 7
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................................. 8
Understanding STEM’s Foreseeable Future ....................................................................... 9
Social and Environment Impediments to STEM Success................................................. 11
Internal Factors Impacting Underrepresented Students in STEM .................................... 12
External Factors Impacting Underrepresented Students in STEM ................................... 15
Barriers to College Readiness for Underrepresented Minorities in STEM ...................... 15
Culturally Inclusive Teaching Practices ........................................................................... 18
STEM Teachers’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .................................. 20
Knowledge Influences ...................................................................................................... 20
Motivation Influences ....................................................................................................... 26
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................. 31
Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 35
Methodological Framework .......................................................................................................... 39
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ....................................................................... 40
Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 40
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ......................................................................... 42
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 43
Documents and Artifacts................................................................................................... 45
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 47

v
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................................... 47
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................................ 48
Results and Findings for Research Question 1: STEM Teachers’ Knowledge and ..................... 49
Motivation for Implementing CIT ................................................................................................ 49
Knowledge Results and Findings...................................................................................... 50
Motivation Results and Findings ...................................................................................... 66
Results and Findings for Research Question 2: Impact of Organizational Influences on ............ 81
STEM Teachers’ Knowledge and Motivation for CIT ................................................................. 81
Organizational Results and Findings ................................................................................ 82
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 94
Results and Findings for Research Question 3: Recommendations for Organizational Practice to
Support Implementation of CIT .................................................................................................... 96
Knowledge Recommendations ......................................................................................... 96
Motivation Recommendations ........................................................................................ 100
Organization-Related Recommendations ....................................................................... 103
Limitations and Delimitations..................................................................................................... 107
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 108
References ................................................................................................................................... 110
Appendix A: Sampling Criteria for Interview and Survey ......................................................... 136
Appendix B: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 138
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 141
Appendix D: Documents Analysis Protocol ............................................................................... 145
Appendix E: Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 146
Appendix F: Validity and Reliability .......................................................................................... 147
Appendix G: Ethics ..................................................................................................................... 149
Appendix H: Implementation and Evaluation Plan .................................................................... 151
Appendix I: Level 1 and Level 2 Sample Evaluation Instrument ............................................... 166
Appendix J: Level 1, 2, and 3 Sample Evaluation Instrument .................................................... 167

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals ......................................... 7
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis ....................................... 26
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Analysis ................................................. 31
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments for Analysis .............................................. 35
Table 5: Interview Participants ..................................................................................................... 49
Table 6: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .......................................... 97
Table 7: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 101
Table 8: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ..................................... 104
Table 9: List of Documents for Analysis .................................................................................... 145
Table 10: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ..................... 153
Table 11: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 154
Table 12: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 155
Table 13: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ..................................... 159
Table 14: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 160

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 38
Figure 2: Frequency of Responses to Survey Regarding Equality in Teaching Practices ............ 55
Figure 3: Rate Scale Responses to Cultural Inclusion in Lessons ................................................ 68
Figure 4: Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Teach Culture’s Contribution to Subject .............. 69
Figure 5: Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Design Classroom Reflecting Cultures ................. 70
Figure 6: Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Design Classroom Reflecting Cultures ................. 71
Figure 7: STEM Teachers’ Enjoyment of Learning about Diversity, Equity, and Inc ................. 74
Figure 8: Personal Importance of Students’ Cultural Background to STEM Teachers ................ 75
Figure 9: Connection of Cultural Background in STEM .............................................................. 77
Figure 10: Considering Culture While Lesson Planning .............................................................. 78
Figure 11: Organization Providing Effective DEI Professional Development ............................. 89
Figure 12: Level 4 Sample Training Report ............................................................................... 162
Figure 13: Sample Percent of CIT Implementation and Teaching Practices .............................. 163
Figure 14: Sample CIT Training Program Learning................................................................... 163
Figure 15: Sample Level 1 Perceived Program Relevance and Satisfaction .............................. 164

viii
Abstract
There is a significant need to increase the qualified Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
(STEM) workforce in the United States. Despite the need and efforts to close the gap between
underrepresented minorities and the majority population in STEM, the disproportionality
remains. Southern California School for Girls (SCSG, pseudonym), an all-girls school in
Southern California with a growing diverse population, offered a unique opportunity to study
factors that influence STEM teachers’ capacity to implement culturally inclusive teaching (CIT)
as a way to promote underrepresented minority students’ in STEM. This mixed-methods study
explored the STEM teachers’ knowledge and motivation as well as the organizational influences
related to CIT. A census survey of all 28 STEM teachers, followed by nine interviews and a
document analysis, showed that although efforts have been made to increase inclusivity and
equity in STEM at SCSG, the STEM teachers need to develop more extensive knowledge of
terminology, concepts, and practices associated with CIT. As a result of the findings, the
organization is recommended to provide one-on-one coaching and peer support in equitable and
inclusive teaching practices and provide time and resources to the STEM teachers to meet
specific performance goals set by the organization.

1
Introduction to Problem of Practice
The importance of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education is
undeniable when examining the future opportunities for underrepresented minority students in
the United States (Museus et al., 2011; Redmond-Sanogo et al., 2016). The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics predicts that STEM occupations will grow 28.2% in the next decade, and this growth is
substantially higher than the 6.5% increase predicted for all other occupational categories (Fayer
et al., 2017). With more than one million new STEM jobs expected over the next decade, the
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST, 2012) called for
increasing the production of STEM-related degrees. Filling the projected need for STEM
opportunities with qualified U.S. workers would boost the United States Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) and is critical to our future economy (Donovan et al., 2014). The United States is also in
competition with other countries for STEM-related innovations (Stearns et al., 2012). Given this
evidence, and the expected growth in racial/ethnic minorities population over the next decade
(United States Census Bureau, 2018), focusing our efforts on enabling the underrepresented
population is critical for our economic stability.
Unfortunately, there is a substantial gap between women and ethnic minorities, and
White males pursuing STEM careers (Hurtado et al., 2009; National Science Foundation, 2019).
Hurtado et al. (2009) showed that African Americans and Hispanics are underrepresented in all
categories of STEM fields. Landivar (2013), using U.S. Census data, determined that 70.8% of
the STEM workforce is White compared to 6.5% Hispanic and 6.4% African American. Estrada
et al. (2016) reported that only 14.7% of STEM bachelor degrees, 12.6% of STEM master
degrees, and 8.3% of STEM doctorate degrees were obtained by underrepresented minority
students in 2010. Importantly, earning a degree in STEM requires a successful science and math

2
experience throughout early, middle, and high school (Kim & Sinatra, 2018). STEM teachers
play a critical role in the development of students’ attitude toward their own ability in STEM
related subjects (Gunderson et al., 2012; Tiedemann, 2000). Research data (King Miller, 2015)
demonstrated that one of the ways in which the gap in STEM can be addressed is through
culturally inclusive teaching practices. Understanding culturally inclusive teaching practices that
influence underrepresented minority students’ development of positive STEM identity is an
essential component to preventing disparities in the STEM pipeline.
For the purpose of this study, underrepresented minority (URM) students in STEM are
racially and ethnically defined as African American/Black, Latinx/Hispanic, and Indigenous
American. Because Asian Americans and Whites are well-represented in STEM, they are not
considered as part of the URM STEM population (Estrada et al., 2016). Additionally, BIPOC or
Black, Indigenous, and people of color, is an emerging acronym at the time of this study and
includes URMs; therefore, BIPOC will be used in place of URM where appropriate.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Southern California School for Girls (SCSG, pseudonym) is an independent urban
day school located in the western United States. There are 75 fulltime faculty of which 62 hold
advanced degrees. With only eight faculty holding degrees in education, most faculty are content
experts; however, with an average of 14 years of teaching, teachers at SCSG have a substantial
amount of experience. Of the 75 faculty members, 18 (24%) self-identify as BIPOC. SCSG
currently serves a diverse group of 500 girls in grades seven through twelve who represent
approximately 100 different zip codes throughout southern California. With the inclusion of
2020-21 admissions data, 49% of the SCSG student body self-reported to be racially identified as
non-White.

3
Known for its academic excellence, the school’s mission aims to prepare young women
to be active global citizens. In 2018, SCSG received a significant donor gift to construct a
Division for Innovation and Design (DID, pseudonym) that offers students the opportunity to
participate in a wide variety of new STEM related experiences. The construction of the DID was
completed in the summer of 2018 and tripled the space for STEM electives opportunities. New
experiences include electives that focus on creativity, innovation, and collaboration such as
media production, design and build, and entrepreneurship. Concurrently, in 2018, SCSG’s
leadership identified that students of color are underrepresented in STEM with only 12.5% of the
URM student population (13 out 104 students) participating in STEM electives and advanced
STEM courses. The expanded academic opportunities in STEM-related subjects as a result of the
DID construction, combined with the school’s commitment to increase diversity and inclusivity,
provided favorable conditions for URMs to develop self-confidence and interest in STEM.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of underrepresentation of minorities in STEM in the United States is
important to solve for a number of reasons. The future U.S. economy will depend on a STEM-
trained labor force due to increased needs (NSF, 2019), and the projected population changes
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2018) will put pressure on the United States to fill STEM positions
with URMs (Fayer et al., 2017). Rivers (2017) found that female URMs make up approximately
4% of the STEM workforce compared to White men (49%) and White Woman (18%). This
disproportionality is at the heart of the issue. Several studies, which date back decades, have
shown that students’ positive attitude toward science predicts their likelihood to pursue careers
related to the field (Cannon & Simpson, 1985; Tai et al., 2006). Given the historic precedent and
relationship that exists between attitude and pursuit, one can expect that the pattern will continue.

4
To build a successful STEM pipeline for underrepresented students, it is essential to solve
problems related to students’ persistence in STEM related subjects (Espinosa, 2011). A
commitment to provide the necessary learning environment for URMs to be successful in STEM
is not only essential for the United States economic prosperity, but ethically and morally prudent
to stabilize the nation’s future security (Espinosa, 2011). If the SCSG does not meet
performance expectations by improving URM STEM participation, the school risks failing to
uphold its commitment to expand opportunities for its BIPOC students. In addition, funding for
future projects and confidence in leadership would also be impacted.
Organizational Performance Status
The mission, strategic plan, and recent strategic initiatives of SCSG support the
promotion of diversity, inclusivity, and social justice as well as the goal to improve student
engagement in STEM-related activities. The school has made significant effort towards these
objectives. Because SCSG has the resources to provide underrepresented students extensive
opportunities to participate in STEM, the school is currently in a unique position to focus on
more subtle barriers to STEM engagement by URMs.
The California Department of Education (2015) defines STEM as courses that help
students learn to be problem solvers who are innovative, creative, and collaborative. The
selection of electives labeled as STEM in this study include all courses associated with the DID,
and courses outside of the core curriculum that utilize science, technology, design, and math
skills. These include such courses as Engineering, Maker’s Space, Digital Media Productions,
Robotics, 3-D Design and Build, and Entrepreneurship. Additionally, enrollment in upper-level
STEM classes, such as Advanced Placement math and science courses are also indicative of
students’ interest in STEM. Course enrollment records show that STEM course participation

5
remains at 30% in the majority population of the student body but has held steady at
approximately12.5% of the URM student population for academic years 2018, 2019, and 2020.
Organizational Performance Goal
In the context of increasing STEM elective and upper-level STEM course participation,
SCSG has set a goal that by September 2020, underrepresented minority (URM) student
enrollment in STEM courses will double from 12.5% to 25% of the URM student population.
This equates to an increase from about 13 students to 26 students from September of 2019 to
September 2020. The school leadership established this goal at the beginning of the 2018-2019
academic year after the opening of the school’s newly constructed Division for Innovation and
Design. The achievement of SCSG’s goal in this matter will be measured by the school’s STEM
course enrollment records.
Discussions emphasizing the need to increase STEM participation began in August 2016
following the opening of a newly constructed makers’ space lab at SCSG. On several occasions
between fall of 2016 and spring of 2018, senior leadership discussed the need to expand the
STEM program beyond the school’s successful all-girls’ robotics teams. An unexpected gift
from a donor in spring 2018 led to the construction of the school’s Division for Innovation and
Design (DID) during the summer of 2018. This project increased SCSG’s facilities and resources
to offer more STEM electives. In August 2018, the school’s leadership announced the expansion
of elective classes related to the new facility including media production, design and build,
engineering, and entrepreneurship. This announcement included a commitment to expand
opportunities for BIPOC students within the DID and SCSG’s commitment to diversity, equity,
and inclusion. As a result, the leadership of the DID and STEM teachers regularly announce
opportunities for students within the DID before course enrollment. For instance, since 2017

6
SCSG has held a course fair to showcase new courses and promote activities. Additionally,
STEM teachers regularly make course recommendations through SCSG’s learning management
system by emailing individual students. This goal supports the principles outlined in the National
Association of Independent School’s Principles of Good Practice regarding diversity, equity,
and inclusion (NAIS, 2012). It is important for independent schools to use their resources to
support initiatives that target URMs. Data obtained from student course registration and STEM
course evaluations (given each semester) will track the progress of this goal quantitatively.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to the achievement of the overall
goal to double the STEM course participation from 12.5% to 25% of the URM student
population by September 2020, it is important to explore the SCSG STEM teachers’ capacity to
implement culturally inclusive pedagogy in support of this goal. Therefore, the stakeholders of
focus for this study were 28 STEM teachers. STEM teachers represent science, math, computer
science, design, and technology instructors. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by the school
leadership, is that by December 2019, as a result of training, 100% of STEM teachers will
implement culturally inclusive teaching (CIT) to foster URM students’ positive STEM identity
construction.

7
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The Southern California School for Girls is a diverse community with rigorous academics and
high ethical standards. Delivering a superior college preparatory education, SCSG provides
students with opportunities to build leadership skills and confidence within an all-girls’
environment while enabling her to become an active global citizen.
Organizational Performance Goal
By September 2020, underrepresented minority (URM) student enrollment in STEM courses will
double from 12.5% to 25% of the URM student population.
The SCSG STEM Teachers The SCSG Senior Leadership
Team
SCSG Students
By December 2019, 100% of
STEM teachers will implement
culturally inclusive teaching
practices that foster
underrepresented minority
(URM) students’ positive
STEM identity construction.
By August 2019, the Senior
Leadership Team will
collaborate to plan and
implement PD for STEM
teachers and workshops for
students on stereotype threat
and implicit biases.
By June 2020, 100% SCSG
underrepresented minority
students will complete
workshop training to explore
stereotype threat and implicit
biases.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to explore STEM teachers’ capacity to implement
culturally inclusive teaching practices as one way to contribute to the organizational goal of
increasing underrepresented minority students’ STEM elective participation from 12.5% to 25%
of SCSG’s URM population. In order to explore the teachers’ capacity comprehensively, the
study implemented the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis with a focus on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is important to focus on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence because people’s perception of these factors
affects their performance, and the process of gap analysis uncovers employee’s beliefs and

8
perceptions leading to a better understanding of performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The following questions guide this study:
1. What are the STEM teachers’ knowledge and motivation regarding the implementation of
culturally inclusive teaching to promote positive STEM identity construction in URMs?
2. What is the interaction between SCSG’s culture and context, and the STEM teachers’
knowledge and motivation to implement culturally inclusive teaching to promote positive
STEM identity construction in URM students?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to support implementation of culturally
inclusive teaching to promote positive STEM identity construction in URM students?
Review of the Literature
The literature available to document the challenges faced by underrepresented students in
STEM fields is extensive (Banning & Folkestad, 2012). The current literature focuses on
detailing the statistical evidence showing the gap in STEM achievement (Hurtado et. al, 2009),
factors involving race and ethnicity that contribute to the STEM achievement gap (Crisp et al.,
2009), and attempts to close the gap through programming (Bianchini, 2013; Hurtado et al.,
2010; Moller et al., 2015). In addition, much literature is reinforced by data from government
agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), United States Department of Education
(DoED), and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This review will detail the factors
regarding the following as it relates to STEM achievement for underrepresented students:
government initiatives related to STEM, social and environmental impediments, barriers to
college readiness for underrepresented minorities (URMs) in STEM, and culturally inclusive
teaching practices that foster a positive STEM identity in URMs.

9
Government Initiatives Related to STEM
Science education shifted significantly in 1996 with the publication of the National
Science Education Standards (NSES) and the recognition of science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) as an important component (Yager, 2015). This change was in response to the
growing debate over the United States’ superiority in science education and the fallout of
international tests that showed low average results for students in the United States (Blackley &
Howell, 2015). President Obama brought national attention to the issue with his President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) reports in 2010 and 2012. Both
reports forecasted the need for increased focus on funding for STEM education and the
importance of STEM education for URMs as part of a comprehensive plan (PCAST, 2010,
2012). In addition, President Obama made STEM education one of the main focal points of his
2009 speech at the National Academy of Sciences (Bartholomew, 2015). The call for more
science integration and cross-curricular learning placed a heavy burden on schools to meet the
challenge (Williams, 2011). STEM education was further developed with the adoption of the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in 2013 (Pruitt, 2014). Pruitt (2014) explained that
the purpose of the new science standards is to change classroom practices to emphasize deeper
exploration of fewer topics and conduct performance-based assessments. The key to success also
included the integration of engineering and technology as well as creativity and critical thinking
(Loveland & Dunn, 2014). All of this change presented a significant challenge for educators in
schools with ample resources, but this is especially daunting to schools that struggle to meet the
basic needs of minority students.
Understanding STEM’s Foreseeable Future
The PCAST (2010) report called for an increase in the number of people of color to

10
pursue STEM related careers. The basis for this action was focused on the obvious positive
impact this would have on the United States economy, but more unrecognizably, the pride and
personal rewards gained with successful participation by URMs (Basile & Lopez, 2015). Basile
and Lopez (2015) discussed how policymakers must recognize a growing need to shift the
awareness of STEM education to underrepresented students by focusing more on issues specific
to each unique minority group rather than approaching the issue as one size fits all. Shifting the
focus is necessary because of three key changes to the United States demographics currently
underway. First, the working population is becoming rapidly older with baby boomers all
reaching retirement age in 2030 (U.S. Census, 2018). Second, because of the aging population
and decrease in births, immigration will surpass births by 2030 as the driver of population
growth (U.S. Census, 2018). Third, current minority groups are rapidly becoming the majority
because the under-eighteen non-Hispanic Whites population is projected to drop below the 50
percent level in 2020 (U.S. Census, 2018), and the United States is expected to become a
majority-minority population by mid-century (U.S. Census, 2018; Yen, 2013). The population
projections underline the need to put policy into action and focus efforts on developing programs
to support STEM education for underrepresented students.
In 2007, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
Technology, Education, and Science Act (America COMPETES Act, 2007) established a
government agency focused on STEM within the Department of Education. Their primary report,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm (National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2007) established
priorities and actions to compete globally in the STEM market. In their report, they stated that
public education must build the foundation for a workforce that is competent in mathematics and
science (NAS, 2007). The report points to hiring highly trained teachers with their 10,000

11
Teachers for 10 Million Minds slogan (NAS, 2007). In addition, the agency focused on
curriculum expansion for pre-advanced placement classes, advanced placement classes, and
providing resources for K-12 education (NAS, 2007). The report acknowledged the importance
of increasing the number of URMs as essential to guaranteeing a superior input of scientists and
engineers in the United States over time (NAS, 2007). In the report, eight recommendations were
made to improve minority participation in STEM based on recommendations by the Building
Engineering and Science Talent (BEST) committee; however, as Basil and Lopez (2015) posit,
the recommendations were not specific enough to implement practical strategies for
underrepresented students. Lim et al. (2013) in their work at RAND Corporation while analyzing
the 2012 Department of Defense STEM Diversity Summit, acknowledged the discrepancy in
minority representation given the fact that they are the fastest growing population. Despite all of
the efforts made by government initiatives, the fact remains that White men constitute 31 percent
of the U.S. population (U.S. Census, 2017), yet make up 71 percent of the STEM workforce
(Landivar, 2013). This dominance results in the underrepresentation of all other minority
categories (National Science Foundation, 2017). The reasons for this discrepancy are rooted in
the many systemic issues related to STEM education (Basile and Lopez, 2015). The government
has documented the issues regarding STEM education; however, the root cause of the
discrepancy is more systemic than acknowledged.
Social and Environment Impediments to STEM Success
The path to a successful college education is varied, and both internal and external
pressures that can impede success (Castillo et al., 2010). Research has identified a lack of self-
efficacy (Varelas et al., 2012), stereotypes (Steele & Aronson, 1995), and microaggressions
(Grossman & Porche, 2014) as contributing factors for the leaky STEM pipeline. According to

12
Varelas et al. (2012), the junction of content learning (CL) and identity construction (IC) form
the basis of meaning-making for students of color and associating a positive identity with science
and mathematics is an important part of any solution to increasing STEM participation. There is
a well-documented correlation between a student’s self-efficacy beliefs and the confidence to
complete academic endeavors (Bandura, 1986; as cited in Pajares & Graham, 1999). In Pajares
and Graham’s (1999) study, self-efficacy was the only variable that consistently predicted
mathematics performance throughout the school year. How students view themselves internally
is clearly connected to their motivation to pursue a STEM career.
Internal Factors Impacting Underrepresented Students in STEM
The relationship between self-efficacy and career confidence in STEM is well
documented (Zeldin et al., 2006; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Steele and Aronson (1995) define
stereotype threat as “anything one does or any of one’s features that conform to [a stereotype]”
(p. 797). Since 1995, several studies have confirmed the impact of stereotype threat on
performance relating to beliefs about race (Aronson et al., 1998; Maass & Cadinu, 2003; Shih et
al., 1999) and gender (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Nguyen & Ryan, 2008; Spencer et al., 1999).
This threat can impact any group where negative stereotypes exist (Steele, 1997). For women,
intellectual inferiority (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000) within a specific domain (e.g., math or
science) or the lack of traits consistent with performance in a science or math field is a perceived
stereotype (Carli et al., 2016; Master & Meltzoff, 2016). Moreover, African American women
face a dual threat of inferiority and racial biases in STEM (Charleston et al., 2014; Farinde &
Lewis, 2012) referred to as a double bind by Ong et al. (2011). Among people of color, there is a
correlation between lower academic performance and the interference caused by stereotype
threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). As well, this persistent threat can ultimately influence personal

13
identity and self-efficacy resulting in changes in career choices (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
Carlone and Johnson (2007) developed a science identity model to better understand the
conditions that successful women of color experienced in science-related fields and the factors
that influenced how they were able to persevere. Their model reinforced the importance of
positive experiences, meaning-making, and self-efficacy to overcome disruptive ethnic and racial
factors (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Similarly, Cokley (2000) studied the academic achievement
of African American students and found that academic self-concept, or the perception of one’s
academic ability, is influenced by positive faculty-student and student-student interactions.
Understanding the link between the social experiences URM students have in school and their
ability to succeed in STEM related subjects is one step towards plugging the leaky STEM
pipeline.
Stereotype threat is situational and impacts academic performance largely by producing
anxiety or causing disidentification among students (Aronson et al., 2002). Disidentification
arises when a person cannot sustain self-esteem within a domain and instead, redefines their self-
concept to remove the threat (Aronson et al., 2002). For example, if a student feels threatened by
math, they may disidentify and remove the threat by “proclaim[ing] that ‘math is for nerds,’ in
response to receiving a poor grade in math.” (Aronson et al., p. 114). If stereotype threats persist,
students may develop prolonged disidentification and this can lead to distancing themselves from
the domain (Major & Schmader, 1998). Within STEM classrooms, teachers need to understand
the impact of anxiety on performance. Research shows that STEM teachers largely lack
knowledge of the positive impact culturally inclusive teaching practices can have on URMs and
how implementation can help mitigate threats and anxiety (Charity Hudley, & Mallinson, 2017;
Reddick et al., 2005).

14
Anxiety has been shown– through studies observing arousal–to be linked to stereotype
threat effects and lower academic performance (Ben-Zeev et al., 2005). According to Ben-Zeev
et al. (2005), anxiety may force one to resort to strategies to suppress one’s feelings such as self-
handicapping and decreased attention or focus. Schmader et al. (2008) confirmed research
showing that stereotype threat lowers performance by impairing executive functioning and
reducing working memory during cognitive tasks. In one study conducted by Schmader and
Johns (2003), working memory was reduced by relevant stereotype threats in women and
Latinxs, resulting in lower performance on cognitively complex tasks. Studies have shown that
the impact of a teacher’s own anxiety about math can lower the performance of their students
within a stereotype threat context (Beilock et al., 2010). Without the knowledge of how
stereotype threat impacts performance, STEM teachers may not be effective at averting it.
Students are well aware of the typical stereotypes linked to their particular group (Cohen
et al., 1999). In 2006, a national public opinion survey conducted by the National Association of
Independent Schools (NAIS) confirmed that independent schools continue to carry the
perception of being non-diverse and elite institutions despite significant increases in diversity
(NAIS, 2006). Distancing students from stereotypes and invoking high standards while assuring
students of their ability may help diminish the impact of stereotype threat in academic
performance-based situations (Cohen et al., 1999). Distancing can include adjusting the
distribution or structure of classrooms in stereotype threat situations. Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev
(2003) showed that threatening intellectual environments that include a higher ratio of boys to
girls negatively impacts the minority students’ performance. In other words, if girls are
outnumbered in a math class by boys in a performance situation, then the girls are not good at
math stereotype threat is more likely to occur. This type of scenario has been attributed to the

15
attention and subsequent token status (Saenz, 1994) endured by the minority group, and the
responsibility felt by this group represent that stereotype (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003). Most
attempts to reverse stereotype threat in the classroom involve redefining the circumstances;
however, simply providing positive role models from stereotyped groups may improve
performance (McIntyre et al., 2003). The combination of stereotype threat associated with
URMs and STEM, the perception of independent schools, and increased diversity in independent
schools, place STEM teachers at SCSG at the frontline of seeking to resolve this problem.
External Factors Impacting Underrepresented Students in STEM
Eccles et al. (2006) associated lower motivation and school performance to
discrimination experienced by minority youth. In their study, the value of education was
diminished by the “aware[ness] of future racial discrimination in educational and occupational
arenas” (Eccles et al., 2006, p. 408). Modern racial discrimination often takes the form of
microaggressions that are described as a microassault, microinsult, or microinvalidation (Sue et
al., 2010). Although microaggressions are subtle and often untended (Sue et al., 2010), they send
discriminatory cues that have a targeted impact on people of color, and this can dissuade
motivation and impede cognitive ability (Grossman & Porche, 2014). Students of color who
could potentially break STEM barriers face stereotype threats and racial microaggressions at a
critical time when they are constructing their science identity and making choices that impact
their ability to remain academically competitive.
Barriers to College Readiness for Underrepresented Minorities in STEM
To develop an interest in STEM careers, URMs need support and experiences early in
their education (Alliman-Brissett & Turner, 2010). Academically, the choice to take basic math
classes over pre-algebra in middle school can have lasting impact on a student’s ability to select

16
advanced math courses in high school thereby impeding college and career choices (Russell &
Atwater, 2005). Adelman (2006) found that the amount of academic rigor a high school student
experiences predicted their ability to complete a baccalaureate degree more than any other
indicator. Moses and Cobb (2002) propose the lack of access to algebra that students of color
have is a civil rights issue. African American and Latinx students are disproportionately taught
by teachers who do not have math or science degrees (NAS, 2009; NAS, 2010). In their study of
a national student database, Tyson et al. (2007) analyzed the level of math classes students
completed in high school and found that African American and Latinx students enrolled in
lower-level classes. This disparity was a direct result of not being prepared for advanced math
classes (Tyson et al., 2007). Improving access to quality math and science instruction is a critical
aspect of STEM equation.
It is also essential to engage students in motivating activities in science through the
primary and middle school years not only to help construct their science identity (Basu & Barton,
2007), but to help students learn effectively (Skamp, 2007). Basu and Barton (2007) in their
study of urban minority youth, found that students’ “sustained interest in science seems
fundamentally related to whether their identity, beliefs, experiences, and conceptions of the
future—their funds of knowledge––were built into the science they studied” (p. 487). In order to
create a sustained interest in science, students need to experience engaging pedagogy and
meaningful curriculum (Skamp, 2007). However, given a shortage of math and science teachers
with an understanding of and training in STEM (Bybee, 2010; English, 2016), a significant
impediment exists. For students of color, there are other important factors to consider when
assessing the ability of elementary, middle, and high schools to prepare students for achievement
in STEM.

17
Teachers have been shown to have lower expectations for students of color resulting in
institutionalized racism (Archer et al., 2015; Fergus, 2009; Xie et al., 2015). The perpetuation of
stereotypes by teachers can have a direct impact on students’ ability to succeed in math and
science (Museus, et al., 2011). Furthermore, this behavior segregates people of color in schools
(Condron et al., 2013). The segregation that results from the pruning of people of color from
STEM classes through tracking (Museus, et al., 2011) deepens the divide between URMs in
STEM and further exacerbates the racial disparities. Other external issues exist between teachers
and students of color in schools.
Data published by the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2010) showed that the quality
of math and science teachers differs between areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities
and areas that are predominately White. African American and Latinx(s) were far less likely to
have a teacher with an advanced degree or a teacher with more than three years of experience
(NSF, 2010). Even more so, students in the bottom achievement quartile were less likely to have
in-field teachers (NSF, 2010) resulting in lower achievement. Coupled with this, school districts
are often tied to property taxes, so districts in low-income areas do not have the funding to offer
STEM resources (Adelman, 2006). Also, funding to schools in low-income areas is more likely
to go towards free or reduced lunch further diminishing resources (Museus et al., 2011).
Teachers are the core resource for students, and a highly inequitable education system replete
with blocks and barriers cannot support progress in STEM.
If underrepresented minority students are able to overcome barriers and enter college as
a STEM major, the odds that they will persist and attain a degree are not in their favor (Bonous-
Hammarth, 2000; NAS, 2010). The NAS (2010) report Expanding Underrepresented Minority
Participation describes evidence from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) showing

18
discrepancies in STEM degree completion. HERI data from the report showed that White
students have a STEM degree completion rate of 24.5 %, whereas African Americans and Latinx
students have STEM degree completion rates of 15.9 % and 13.2 %, respectively (NAS, 2010, p.
40). A majority of the research analyzing the cause for the discrepancy focused on cultural and
social conditions experienced by minority students while attending college (Bonous-Hammarth,
2006; Espinosa, 2011; Griffith, 2010; Museus et al., 2011). Minority students in STEM who
attend minority-serving institutions (MSI) such as historically Black colleges and universities
(HBCU) and Hispanic-serving universities (HSU) are more likely to persist through graduation
(Museus et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2010). Whereas, minority students in STEM attending
predominately White institutions (PWI) and highly selective universities (HSU) have a much
lower success rate (Bonous-Hammarth, 2006; Russell & Atwater, 2005). Research showed that
this discrepancy is linked to lack of racial representation on campus and program support
(Museus et al., 2011). Similar to the roadblocks to STEM presented in the K-12 educational
system, underrepresented minority students find that identity, self-efficacy, and community
support are also necessary to be successful at the university level. STEM teachers’ classroom
practices that create an inclusive culture for URMs may be a key factor in promoting a positive
STEM identity.
Culturally Inclusive Teaching Practices
According to Hammond (2014), culturally responsive teaching is not a specific set of
strategies that educators can apply to their teaching. Rather, cultural competence and associated
teaching practices are more appropriately described as a mindset (Hammond, 2014). Culture
plays a central role in the practice. Pai et al. (2006) describe culture as “the knowledge, beliefs,
values, skills, and behaviors of a social group” (p. 4). There are several terms associated with the

19
evolution of cultural pedagogy including relevant, sustaining, and responsive (Gay, 2018;
Ladson-Billings, 2014; Peters, McMullen, & Peters, 2018). Ladson-Billings (1995) connected
earlier research regarding culture and pedagogy (e.g., Jordan, 1985) with equitable teaching.
Within this context, teacher knowledge of culture, or cultural competency (Ladson-Billings,
2008), became an important factor in the success of students. As summarized by Gay (2018),
pedagogy that is culturally responsive is an approach that is viewed through a multi-cultural lens
and sensitive to diverse needs of students.
Developing Inclusive Relationships Within the Classroom
Culturally inclusive teaching (CIT) includes the establishment of a positive dialog
between students and teachers (Dewsbury & Brame, 2019). The practice of CIT is proactive in
terms of teacher preparedness and requires teachers to learn about their students and plan their
lessons strategically based on information (Yoon et al., 2016). Interactions between faculty and
minority students have been shown to develop positively when there is consistent dialog that
exhibits care and empathy (Gonsalves, 2002). This includes interactions involving constructive
criticism of students’ work (Cole, 2008). Cole (2008) found that approaching critique of African
American and Hispanic students’ work with a growth mindset can help combat stereotype threat
and promote a more inclusive relationship. In addition, it is important for students to feel they are
a valued and active part of the learning environment (Tetler & Baltzer, 2011). Building a warm
and open classroom environment is a primary step in inclusivity.
Developing a Classroom Culture of Belongingness to Promote a Science Identity
According to Brame (2019), classroom culture that promotes a positive science identity
includes avoiding cues or signals that trigger students’ awareness to their stereotypes. Also,
microinequities may occur such as calling on White males more often than females or students of

20
color (Brame, 2019). This behavior can cause underrepresented students to disidentify with
STEM (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Conversely, if STEM teachers make an effort to overtly show
that their URM students are valued and appreciated, they are more likely to identify with STEM
(Brown et al., 2016). Creating the right classroom ethos and environment is critical to culturally
responsive teaching (Hammond, 2014). Although it is important to develop a STEM curriculum
relevant to students of color by relating the cultural background of students to STEM (Gay,
2018), Dewsbury and Brame (2019) pointed out that educators need to develop self-awareness
and empathy first before trying to incorporate culture and inclusivity through pedagogy. This
kind of approach to CIT is not intuitive for STEM faculty.
STEM Teachers’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework established that stakeholders need
requisite knowledge and motivation together with organizational resources to accomplish
performance goals. This review focuses on the essential knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences needed by science, technology, engineering, and math teachers at
Southern California School for Girls (SCSG) to accomplish the stakeholder performance goal.
The performance goal for all STEM teachers at SCSG is to implement culturally inclusive
teaching practices that foster underrepresented minority (URM) students’ positive STEM identity
construction.
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge and skill deficits can be difficult to ascertain because people may not be
aware of their deficiencies (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl (2002) described a revised
taxonomy of the knowledge categories originally presented by Bloom et al. (1956) to include
metacognitive knowledge in addition to factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge. Factual

21
and conceptual knowledge are vital for understanding how to solve problems within a discipline
(Krathwohl, 2002). Both are categorized as declarative knowledge and linked to the ability to
apply specific information strategically (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). This includes the what, or
more specifically, the associated facts and terminology within a discipline (Aguinis & Kraiger,
2009). Kump et al. (2015) define declarative memory as the ability to recall facts allowing for
comparing and contrasting information. Acquiring declarative knowledge is a fundamental first
step in solving performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, it is also important to
understand the knowledge behind why it is important to do something in addition to what and
how to do something (Rueda, 2011).
Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) define procedural knowledge as the knowledge about how.
Procedural knowledge is learned as a function of experience (Mayer, 2011) and the combination
of declarative and procedural knowledge form the basis of the cognitive processes (Krathwohl,
2002). To be successful, the learner must be able to apply facts and strategies to a given situation
(Mayer, 2011). Procedural knowledge is relevant to STEM teachers’ ability to apply culturally
inclusive practices within classroom conditions.
Metacognitive knowledge is a person’s knowledge of their own cognition (Krathwohl,
2002; Pintrich, 2002). This level of knowledge allows for strategizing, controlling, and judging
the appropriate use of information (Pintrich, 2002). A person’s ability to apply knowledge is
critical to affect change (Rueda, 2011). In their study of meta-strategic knowledge (MSK), Zohar
and Ben David (2008) point to the importance of knowing when and why to effectively apply
strategies to solve problems. Most importantly, MSK can be developed through explicit
instruction, coaching, and practice (Zohar & Ben David, 2008); therefore, by integrating
metacognitive practices into CIT, STEM teachers increase the likelihood of their success. Also,

22
given that knowledge of culturally inclusive teaching involves issues of race and gender, which
can be emotionally activating, it is essential for STEM teachers to develop a high level of
metacognitive knowledge in order to solve problems and improve their performance.
The following sections will use Krathwohl’s (2002) revised knowledge structure to
categorize the specific knowledge needs of the STEM teachers in this study. This review will
explore declarative knowledge needed by STEM teachers to understand culture and implicit
biases; their procedural knowledge of what strategies exist to build a culturally inclusive
classroom; and finally, their metacognitive knowledge relating to their own effectiveness in
promoting URMs in STEM.
Understanding How CIT Contributes to the Development of Positive STEM Identity
In order to implement culturally inclusive teaching practices and foster positive STEM
identity construction in URMs, STEM teachers need to have declarative knowledge of culture
and implicit biases. According to Hammond (2014), teachers have a tendency to think from a
colorblind perspective, therefore, focusing on cultural differences is not intuitive. Additionally,
the colorblind misconception disregards the students’ cultural perspective and its influence on
their learning (Gay, 2018). Understanding the sociocultural worldview of students is a critical
first step in implementing practices that support an inclusive classroom environment (Villegas &
Lucas, 2002). However, it has been shown that teachers’ perception of their ability to implement
multicultural education is low due to a lack of resources and support (Gallavan, 1998, 2000).
Conversely, teachers who are culturally competent can utilize that knowledge to make learning
more relevant to diverse students by providing examples and contextualizing content in a way
that make sense (Pang et al., 2011). In a study by Gay (2015), teachers’ beliefs regarding race
and diversity were found to be ambivalent and not conducive to culturally inclusive teaching.

23
To that end, STEM teachers need to develop cultural competence to begin to understand
cultural differences. For instance, for some cultures, unprompted responses are encouraged, but
this can be considered disrupting in a typical American classroom (Pai et al., 2006). Familiarity
with behavior related to cultures may help STEM teachers respond to situations more
compassionately.
To be culturally inclusive in the classroom, it is important to have knowledge of implicit
biases such as microaggressions and cultural misconceptions that activate stereotype threat
because they have been identified as factors that impede students in a performance-based setting
and can be detrimental to student outcomes (Aronson et al., 1998; Berk, 2017). Furthermore,
educators are generally unaware of their impact and the practices needed to avert them
(Schmader et al., 2008). Therefore, to avoid stereotyping, teachers need knowledge of the typical
stereotypes related to their students (Pai et al., 2006).
Implementing and Applying CIT to Develop a Positive STEM Identity
As critical procedural knowledge, STEM teachers need to know how to implement
culturally inclusive teaching practices to foster positive STEM identity construction in URMs.
Establishing a culturally inclusive classroom environment “focus[ing] on caring for instead of
caring about the personal well-being and academic success of ethnically diverse students” (Gay,
2018, p. 58) begins by understanding the cultural background of each student and conveying an
ethic of care (Owens & Ennis, 2005). Specifically, care must be overt and aligned with each
student’s needs (Garza et al., 2014). Building on this, research has shown that teachers who are
culturally caring demonstrate concern for students’ overall emotional, physical, financial, and
social wellbeing (Gay, 2018). By consistently referring to culture and inculcating it into the
classroom experience, STEM teachers can construct a caring learning environment for URMs.

24
Similarly, teachers need to know how to communicate high expectations to improve
student performance. The Teacher Expectancy Effect (TEE) or Pygmalion Effect has been
studied for several decades (Jussim et al., 1996; Szumski & Karwoski, 2019), and has been
shown to particularly influence girls and students of color (Jussim et al., 1996). Additionally,
STEM teachers’ expectations tend to be more influential in subjects related to mathematics
(Trusz, 2018). The expectations STEM teachers set for URMs should be based in an
understanding of their culture and individual needs (Gay, 2018).
Integrating culturally relevant material into classroom activities and discussions will help
diverse students connect prior knowledge to classroom content and improve their learning (Pang
et al., 2011). Teachers should be critical of racial and gender biases in textbooks, the internet,
and other classroom resources (Gay, 2018). Analyzing the curriculum content of STEM courses
to identify areas where biases exist, and establishing more minority representation within
classroom resources, is essential to build a culturally inclusive classroom for URMs.
Procedural knowledge relating to averting implicit biases and stereotype threat are
important to building an inclusive classroom environment. Increased understanding of stereotype
threat has led to research regarding practices that may have a positive impact on student
performance (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Johns et al., 2005). Explicitly teaching about
stereotype threat and addressing the anxiety caused by it has been shown to reduce its negative
impact and improve student performance (Johns et al., 2005). Similarly, teachers can replace a
threatening stereotype with a positive stereotype relevant to the student can improve performance
(McGlone & Aronson, 2007). For example, McGlone and Aronson (2007), in their study of 128
undergraduate students at a private liberal arts college, showed that simply reminding female
students that they are part of a private college (positive stereotype) before testing improved their

25
performance significantly on a quantitative math test. Inclusive practices that can deactivate
stereotype threat for URMs in classroom situations where they are in the minority (Inzlicht &
Ben-Zeev, 2003) include explicitly acknowledging the recognition of that threat to students
(Johns et al., 2005).
Implementation of Metacognitive Practices to Facilitate CIT
STEM teachers need to be able to reflect on their own effectiveness in implementing
culturally inclusive teaching because of the cross-cultural nature of teaching as a practice. In
Ferry and Ross-Gordon’s (1998) analysis of Schön's theory of reflective practice, they posit
reflecting educators as using reflection–both during and after practice–to develop skills and
expertise. Lin et al. (2005) refer to this practice as adaptive metacognition. The belief structures
that teachers’ hold impact their perceptions and classroom behavior (Pajares, 1992). Within a
culturally inclusive classroom, teachers need to be aware of their own biases, and they also need
to be cognoscente of how students’ experiences impact their performance (Dewsbury, 2017).
Because stereotype threat is a negative belief held by a certain group (Carli et al., 2016; Hilton &
Hippel, 1996), it is important for teachers to be able recognize and strategize through reflection
to counter potential threats proactively. The same holds true for microaggressions (Berk, 2017).
A teacher must be simultaneously aware of their beliefs, students’ needs, and the classroom
dynamics all while adapting through feedback (Lin et al., 2005). Teacher metacognition plays an
important role in creating an effective learning environment (Jiang et al., 2016). This includes
teachers providing effective formative feedback, something that has been shown to be deficient
and misunderstood by educators (Shute, 2008). Therefore, being metacognitively aware will
assist STEM teachers at SCSG in maintaining a culturally inclusive classroom for URMs.
Table 2 summarizes SCSG’s mission, the stakeholder goal, and each of the

26
aforementioned knowledge influences, as well as the knowledge type and assessment.
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis

Motivation Influences
This section reviews the motivation literature as relating to the factors that impact STEM
teachers’ ability to implement culturally inclusive teaching practices. Mayer (2011) defines
motivation as “an internal state that initiates and maintains goal directed behavior” (p. 39).
Stakeholder Goal
By December 2019, 100 percent of STEM teachers will implement culturally inclusive
teaching practices that foster underrepresented minority (URM) students’ positive STEM
identity construction.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
STEM teachers need to know how
culturally inclusive teaching
practices contribute to the
construction of a positive STEM
identity for URMs.
Declarative

Survey-to assess teachers’
understanding of key terms.

Interview-to assess STEM
teachers’ knowledge of the
importance of a culturally
inclusive environment for
URMs.

Interview-to assess STEM
teachers’ understanding of
impact of culture and implicit
biases.
STEM teachers need to know how
to implement culturally inclusive
teaching practices that foster
positive STEM identity
construction in URMs.

Procedural Interview and Survey-to
assess teachers’ understanding
of how to implement
culturally inclusive practices.
STEM teachers need to know how
to implement metacognitive
practices to facilitate culturally
inclusive teaching.

Metacognitive Interview-to assess teachers’
own understanding and
experience implementing
strategies.

27
Having knowledge and skills does not determine if a person will be motivated to carry out
related behavior (Rueda, 2011). Therefore, in addition to knowledge and skills, STEM teachers
at SCSG must be motivated to implement culturally inclusive teaching practices. Clark and Estes
(2008) described three components to motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
In the context of this study, active choice refers to a STEM teacher’s actions towards pursuing
culturally inclusive teaching practices; persistence refers to a STEM teacher’s attention and
dedication towards culturally inclusive teaching practices; and mental effort refers to a STEM
teacher’s willingness to devote mental energy to implement culturally inclusive teaching
practices. Furthermore, choice, persistence, and the mental effort are driven by both intrinsic and
extrinsic influences (Rueda, 2011). How a teacher views themselves within the context of school
culture and sociocultural influences impacts their motivation to choose, persist, and expend
mental effort towards achieving the performance goal (Pintrich, 2002).
The following sections examine three motivational influences relating to the perceived
ability and expectations of STEM teachers at SCSG to successfully implement culturally
inclusive teaching practices. Self-efficacy, task value, and outcome expectancy are important
motivational constructs to consider in understanding motivation associated with a goal-related
task. Given that culturally inclusive teaching practices are related to beliefs about race, ethnicity,
and gender, it is important to understand motivational influences. Specifically, their self-efficacy,
or belief in their ability to be successful at a task, their value or desire a person associates with a
task, and their outcome expectations, effect their level of engagement (Eccles, 2006). For STEM
teachers to engage in culturally inclusive teaching, they need to see themselves as becoming
successful at CIT, value improving conditions for URMs in STEM, and have a high level of self-
efficacy for the practice.

28
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Towards Implementing Culturally Inclusive Teaching
In order to engage and persist at CIT, STEM teachers need to feel confident in their
ability to foster URMs’ positive STEM identity. Pajares (2006) defines self-efficacy as
“judgements that individuals hold about their capabilities to learn or perform courses of action at
designated levels” (para. 1). Self-efficacy, as a construct, was introduced through Bandura’s
(1977) social cognitive theory, and is fundamental to motivation (Pajares, 2006). According to
Gallavan (2007), teacher efficacy for culturally inclusive practices stems from acquiring
knowledge of and competence for culture. Teacher self-efficacy also includes their own belief in
their ability to impact student performance (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Importantly, teacher self-
efficacy has also been shown to improve student outcomes (Anderson et al., 1988; Vieluf, et al.,
2013). The relationship between student achievement and teacher efficacy dates back to studies
showing a strong correlation (Armor, 1976) in reading achievement, but in more recent years,
this relationship has been extended to STEM (Beilock et al., 2010). Teachers of STEM not only
have to maintain self-efficacy for the subject matter (Midgley et al., 1989; Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2001) to avoid practices that engender biases, but they also need self-efficacy as it relates to
their own capacity (DeCoito & Myszkal, 2018) to implement culturally inclusive teaching
practices. This double-threat makes it especially important for STEM teachers to develop high
self-efficacy.
According to Pajares (2006), self-efficacy beliefs originate primarily from mastery and
vicarious experiences. Mastery experiences derive from individual accomplishments while
vicarious experiences originate from observing others accomplish tasks (Pajares, 2006). Both
experiences influence perception, with perception of efficacy being essential for behavior
relating to goal attainment and outcomes, especially in social situations (Bandura, 2000). There

29
is a strong social structure embedded in organizational culture, as well as individual efficacies,
and both influence collective efficacy (Bandura, 2006). Goddard et al. (2000) referred to the
collective teacher efficacy within a school as an important construct that supports the perception
that their colleagues’ work contributes to the greater good and impacts students positively.
Goddard et al. (2000) acknowledged that collective teacher efficacy is context specific. It is
important for STEM teachers at SCSG to have not only high self-efficacy but reinforce their
individual efforts with confidence in their collective efficacy to promote a culturally inclusive
classroom environment.
Teachers’ Value for Implementing Culturally Inclusive Pedagogy
In order to engage in culturally inclusive pedagogy, teachers need to value promoting a
positive classroom environment by implementing CIT practices for URMs in STEM. According
to Eccles (2006), outcome expectancy and values are influenced by one’s perception of ability,
task difficulty, and personal goals. Task value is linked to four constructs: attainment value or
importance, intrinsic value, utility value or usefulness of the task, and perceived cost. For the
purpose of this study, both attainment value and perceived cost were identified as key constructs
to STEM teachers’ motivation at SCSG.
Intrinsic value is defined as the importance attached to a task and the relationship of that
task to a person’s own understanding of themselves (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Tasks offer an
opportunity to exhibit intrinsic values, and the higher the attainment value associated with a task,
the greater the task value (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, if cultural competence is
fundamental to the values a STEM teacher attaches to their identity (Gee, 2000), then it will have
higher attainment value or place a higher personal importance on the task (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). Intrinsic value is the satisfaction someone receives from engaging in a task (Eccles,

30
2006). Chalofsky and Krishna (2009) linked intrinsic value to the meaningfulness of task
engagement. If someone perceives a task as personally meaningful, then they are more likely to
be motivated to commit to the task (Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009; Eccles, 2006). Furthermore,
Ryan and Deci (2000) stated that people will only be motivated by tasks that hold intrinsic value
to them. Therefore, STEM teachers at SCSG must intrinsically value the need to develop
knowledge and skills related to culturally inclusive teaching practices.
Cost is an interpretation of value based on beliefs associated with weighing the costs and
benefits of a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Socio-cultural influences impact a person’s
perception of cost (Eccles, 2006). For example, one could view cultural competence as stressful
because of their own experiences and consider the task an emotional cost. Moreover, a task could
require sacrificing work time and effort to implement leading to an efficiency cost (Conley,
2012). As a result, value associated with cost is important to consider in seeking to understand
motivational influences that impact STEM teachers’ willingness to implement culturally
inclusive teaching practices.
Teachers’ Expectancy in Implementing Culturally Inclusive Pedagogy
STEM teachers need to believe that their effort to practice culturally inclusive teaching
will lead to better performance. Expectancies for success are focused on future outcomes and
include how well one expects to do on a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Eccles and Wigfield
(2002) discussed how one aspect of expectancy is action-outcome, meaning that outcome
success is based on one’s actions. According to the research, to be successful at CIT, STEM
teachers need to believe that their engagement with the practice can lead to desired outcomes.
Table 3 summarizes the assumed motivational influences and related assessments as it pertains to
STEM teachers and stereotype threat at SCSG.

31
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Analysis
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Analysis

Organizational Influences
Organizations are unpredictable and challenging while attempting to identify problems
and implement change (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Schools, as organizations, are intricate systems
that carry an additional emotional component due to the direct implications for students (Rueda,
2011). Because of this, it is important to identify organizational factors that influence the STEM
teachers’ capacity to implement culturally inclusive teaching practices and foster a positive
STEM identity in URMs. Although culture is generally associated with people, it is an essential
Stakeholder Goal
By December 2019, 100 percent of STEM teachers will implement culturally inclusive teaching
practices that foster underrepresented minority (URM) students’ positive STEM identity
construction.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-efficacy –
STEM teachers need to feel confident in their
ability to implement culturally inclusive teaching
practices.
Survey (Rate Scale 0-100): “I am confident
in my ability to design a classroom
environment using displays that reflect a
variety of cultures.”
Interview Prompt: “In what ways, if at all, do
you see yourself as successful in promoting
equity and inclusivity in your classroom?”

Task Value –
STEM teachers need to value promoting a
positive classroom environment through
culturally inclusive teaching practices.

Survey (Likert-type): I enjoy learning about
diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Interview Prompt: “Some would say that
understanding a student’s cultural
background is one of the most important
aspect of connecting course content to
student learning, in what ways do you agree
or disagree with this statement?”
Outcome Expectancy –
STEM teachers need to believe that their efforts
to practice culturally inclusive teaching will lead
to better student performance.

Interview Prompt: “What plans, personal
expectations, or goals, if at all, have you set
regarding the school’s diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives?”

32
part of each organization (Rueda, 2011) and is described as “the most important ‘work process’
in all organizations because it dictates how we work together to get the job done” (Clark & Estes,
2008, p. 107). Organizational culture impacts efforts to improve performance in many ways
(Clark & Estes, 2008). To that end, aspects of organizational culture impact organizational
performance improvement efforts differently and will be discussed in the subsequent section,
followed by the organizational influences specific to this study.
Encouraging a Culture of Inclusivity at SCSG
To engage in culturally inclusive practices, SCSG needs to foster an organizational
culture that encourages STEM teachers to engage in practices that promote equity for URMs.
Organizational culture, as described by Schein (2004), is a learned pattern of conventions that
forms as people work together that has become prevalent enough to be endorsed and shared with
new colleagues as acceptable. Organizational culture can be subdivided into both cultural models
and cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
describe cultural models as invisible and include the organization’s underlying schema of how
decisions are made, the assumed rules, and what is valued. Within schools, organizational culture
affects school structure, beliefs, policies, and protocols (Rueda, 2011). Although the cultural
model is invariably important, it is not static, and is capable of change according to the
interactions within different individual groups every day (Rueda, 2011).
Organizations may be described inherently through their cultural models, but it is the
cultural settings that determine how principles are formed and policies and practices are
validated (Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings are context-specific, and as described by Rueda
(2011), take place in classrooms, hallways, offices, and other areas of a school. Therefore, the
cultural setting includes the visible aspects of organizational culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg,

33
2001). The importance of cultural settings is especially important in classrooms, where complex
social interactions take place continuously (Rueda, 2011).
The expectation to increase diversity and become more inclusive within independent
schools has been a focus for several years (see NAIS, 2012). To encourage schools to prioritize
diversity, the National Association of Independent Schools outlined expectation in their
Principles of Good Practice (NAIS, 2006). At SCSG, efforts have been made to become more
diverse and inclusive. This effort, although well intended, remains complex and difficult to
ascertain. Shifting enrollment efforts have been effective in increasing diversity but becoming
more inclusive requires a deeper cultural change that includes efforts from all of the
constituencies within the school. This study explored the degree to which STEM teachers
perceive the culture at SCSG as inclusive of URMs.
Organization’s Promotion of Professional Development Opportunities
To promote STEM teachers’ efforts, SCSG must provide professional development
opportunities, time, and resources relating to equity, diversity, and classroom practices. Research
shows that teachers tend to think that other factors beyond their immediate control are
responsible for minority students’ lack of achievement (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Nelson &
Guerra, 2014). As Gay (2018) explains, educators inherently intend to avoid discriminatory or
racially biased practices; however, efforts to improve achievement in students of color fail due to
implicit deficit thinking. Because a teacher’s mindset has been shown to influences their
students’ mindset (Schmidt et al., 2015), it is critical for STEM teachers to be trained in
culturally inclusive teaching practices to react appropriately within the classroom setting.
Training emphasizes a change is needed (Clark & Estes, 2008). In June of 2018, all employees at
SCSG attended a day-long workshop focusing on understanding racial and ethnic diversity and

34
promoting equity and inclusion for the BIPOC community. Following the workshop, each
department set goals to focus attention on ways to address diversity, equity and inclusion. For
several months following the workshop, the facilitators were available to faculty via online
conferencing for consultation and brainstorming. Additionally, a day-long workshop was offered
to all employees in August of 2019. To make organizational change effective, it must be
integrated into the institutional culture (Kezar, 2001b). Consequently, for culturally inclusive
teaching practices to be institutionalized, efforts are needed at the administrative and department
level to promote and provide ongoing training and set expectations.
Organization’s Specific Goals for Culturally Inclusive Teaching Practices
In order to support STEM teachers in CIT, it is important for SCSG to specify its goals.
Performance goals require clear tasks and objectives that must match the values of the
organization to be successful (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, if SCSG values a culture of
diversity and inclusion, and a focused cultural setting that develops culturally inclusive STEM
teachers, clear goals will be evident and supported. In the spring of 2020, SCSG announced a
new strategic plan focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion. The strategic plan also included a
new philosophy and values pinpointing practices that promote equity and inclusivity. In addition,
the plan clearly makes diversifying its employees and students a priority.
Table 4 summarizes the assumed organizational influences and related assessments as it
pertains to STEM teachers and culturally inclusive teaching practices at SCSG.

35
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments for Analysis
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Analysis

Interactive Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is the combination and interrelationship of factors, variables,
and philosophical beliefs that help explain a phenomenon of study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework is derived from the researcher’s own worldview and
orientation within a particular discipline, and therefore, influences the approach and proposed
questions regarding the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of a conceptual
framework is to present a model or plan of what is currently occurring within the context of the
investigation (Maxwell, 2013). The exploration of STEM teachers’ success at meeting the
organizational goal of increasing STEM elective participation from 12.5% to 25% of SCSG’s
URM population is framed within the Clark & Estes (2008) gap analysis. The gap analysis
framework facilitates the identification of performance gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
Stakeholder Goal
By December 2019, 100 percent of STEM teachers will implement culturally inclusive teaching
practices that foster underrepresented minority (URM) students’ positive STEM identity
construction.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs to foster a culture that
encourages STEM teachers to engage in practices
that promote equity and inclusivity for URMs.
Survey questions and interviews to elicit
STEM teachers’ perception of the school’s
culture with regard to promoting equity for
URMs.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to provide professional
development opportunities, time, and resources to
encourage STEM teachers to be more equitable
and inclusive.
Document analysis, interviews, and survey
questions to look for evidence of related
professional development, resources, and
time allocated in the work schedule.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to specify its goals to
STEM teachers related to promoting URMs
through culturally inclusive teaching practices.

Document analysis and interviews to look for
evidence of the STEM teachers’ awareness
of goals.

36
organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). Although knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences are each presented independently, they do not occur in isolation, and
therefore interact and influence one another. The following is a concise interpretation of the
conceptual framework for this study showing the interaction of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences guided by the researcher’s experience and related literature.
The underrepresentation of minority women in STEM is attributed to many causes both
internal and external to schools (Steinke et al., 2007), but most efforts to improve the conditions
for URMs focus on factors regarding access to resources that hinder URMs’ ability to succeed in
STEM (Chen & Snolder, 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). At SCSG, URMs are not
faced with a lack of resources, yet there is still low participation in STEM courses. The STEM
teachers at SCSG are at the front line when it comes to providing an environment conducive to
building URMs positive STEM identity. Research shows that there are hidden and ignored
factors such as stereotype threat (Steele, 1997) and implicit biases (Berk, 2017) that contribute to
the leaky STEM pipeline (Espinosa, 2011) that may be mitigated if STEM teachers were able to
provide more culturally inclusive teaching practices (Gay, 2018). Rather than focus on other
factors outside of the STEM teacher’s control, this study focused on factors that take place
within the teacher’s purview. Although knowledge and motivation are two distinct influences,
they cooperate to achieve performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). For STEM teachers to have
the motivation to practice culturally inclusive teaching, they must intrinsically value (Eccles,
2006) promoting a positive STEM identity in URMs, and have knowledge of culturally inclusive
teaching practices to promote URMs’ in STEM. How SCSG approaches and supports the STEM
teachers through training around this effort is part of the cultural setting (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001) needed to close any performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally,

37
because implicit biases and stereotype threat are racially, ethnically, and gender-based, there may
be some apprehension by teachers to acknowledge deficiencies in their practice (Gay, 2018).
This emphasizes the need for STEM teachers to develop self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006) and be
reflective in practice (Ferry & Ross-Gordon, 1998) in order to feel empowered to make
responsive decisions while interacting with URMs in their classes. Thus, metacognitive
knowledge is fundamental to the successful implementation of culturally inclusive teaching
practices (Gay, 2018). Consequently, the influence of organizational culture on knowledge and
motivation is important to understand as it relates to the implementation of teaching practices
promoting a positive STEM identity in URMs.

38
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework guiding this study by showing the relationship
between SCSG, the STEM teachers, their knowledge and motivational influences, and the
performance goal. The large blue circle represents SCSG and contains all of the organizational
components. The cultural influences important to this study are represented as part of the
organization and interact with the STEM teachers by shaping their level of engagement with
knowledge and motivational factors within the organizational context. The STEM teachers,

39
represented by the green circle, are not only part of SCSG but are the stakeholders responsible
for acquiring the knowledge and having the motivation to accomplish the performance goal. The
performance goal, contained in the orange box, is joined by an arrow from the organization
because although the study focuses on the STEM teachers as the primary stakeholder, it is the
organization’s responsibility to reach the goal.
Methodological Framework
For the purpose of this study, the research questions are descriptive, and descriptive
research questions can be answered by qualitative, quantitative, or mixed research methods. My
purpose statement, however, indicates that I am trying to understand the meaning that STEM
teachers make of their knowledge and motivation in terms of implementing culturally inclusive
teaching practices as well as how SCSG supports STEM teachers in this respect. Therefore, a
mixed methods approach provided the in-depth analysis needed to answer the research questions.
Mixed methods research includes the collection and analysis of both qualitative and
quantitative data (Johnson et al., 2007). Qualitative research is inductive, flexible, and reflective
(Maxwell, 2013). While quantitative research explores how many or how much, qualitative
research explores the meaning behind a phenomenon and how people construct meaning from
their environment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through mixed methods research, both forms of
data can be timed and integrated in different ways depending on the needs of the study (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Explanatory sequential mixed methods design allows for the collection and
analysis of quantitative data first, followed by a qualitative phase of data collection (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Using Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis, this sequential explanatory mixed
methods study explored the STEM teachers’ level of knowledge and motivation as well as the
organizational factors that influence their capacity to implement culturally inclusive teaching

40
practices. The study began with a quantitative survey instrument to gather the STEM teachers’
perception of value and efficacy for CIT, and the degree to which they felt SCSG supports, if at
all, STEM teachers in CIT. Mixed methods design also allows for emphasis regarding data
collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study, more emphasis was placed on the
qualitative phase. Once the survey data was gathered and analyzed, the qualitative interviews and
document analysis took place. Interviews specifically probed deeper into the STEM teachers’
knowledge. Additionally, the document analysis was used to explore relevant organizational
influences.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Explanatory sequential mixed-methods research incorporates the use of quantitative
methods followed by a qualitative phase (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). One method of
quantitative research investigates the connections between variables through the use of surveys
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Additionally, quantitative research involves collecting data in the
form of numbers, which allows for statistical analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study
surveyed STEM teachers at SCSG and explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences pertaining to their culturally inclusive teaching practices in order to answer the
research questions. In this mixed-methods study, the surveys, or quantitative phase, were
administered first; in turn, this data informed the qualitative phase by allowing for emphasis on
specific interview questions.
Surveys
According to Fink (2015), surveys offer a unique way to collect individual information
about understandings, thoughts, values, and preferences. Surveys allow researchers to gather data
efficiently about a specific population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The following section

41
describes the survey used in this study as well as the survey procedure.
Survey Instrument
The survey (Appendix B) was made up of seventeen survey items that explored
respondents’ knowledge and motivation towards culturally inclusive teaching strategies as well
how the STEM teachers perceived organizational support. To understand the respondents’ levels
of value and self-efficacy for the practice, several survey questions focused on their engagement
with behaviors that showed evidence of culturally inclusive teaching. The organizational
influences were assessed through questions that asked respondents’ opinions or perspectives on
diversity and inclusion at SCSG.
The closed-ended response choices were item-specific, and they varied according to the
questions in order to maintain clarity and relevance (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). For
questions relating to knowledge and motivation, Likert-type items with bipolar scales (including
agree and reflecting choices from strongly disagree to strongly agree) were utilized (Robinson
& Firth Leonard, 2019). This gave the respondents the ability to accurately choose their level of
understanding or engagement. To lower the cognitive load on the respondents, most questions
related to organizational influences were closed-ended and multiple choice (Robinson & Firth
Leonard, 2019). Moreover, one open-ended question, which allowed the respondents to comment
on their ability to access student information, was offered to assess the knowledge and
motivation for culturally inclusive practices. This question helped correlate the findings with the
responses from the interview phase of the study.
Survey Procedures
The survey was administered online using Qualtrics survey software. Online surveys
offer a convenient and efficient means to collect data familiar to respondents (Sue & Ritter,

42
2012). Due to the small number of available participants, all 28 STEM teachers at SCSG were
invited to participate in the survey. The STEM teachers received an email with a link to the
survey; IP addresses were not gathered to help ensure anonymity, and responses were kept
anonymous to protect the participants’ identities. However, the survey included a separate email
link to allow teachers to submit their contact information if they volunteer. Online surveys offer
efficiency and they allow the researcher to send prompt follow-up reminders (Robinson & Firth
Leonard, 2019). The survey questions addressed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences related to respondents’ perception of culture, inclusion, and related pedagogy.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
In this sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the qualitative forms of data
collection used interviews and document analysis to answer the research questions. Interviews
provided the researcher with the opportunity to understand perspectives, past experiences, and
how people interpreted their environments (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Consequently, in this case, the interviews helped explore the STEM teachers’ knowledge
and motivation as well as their perception of the organization’s culture; this covered the material
from research questions one and two. The interview questions specifically probed for responses
regarding the STEM teachers’ interpretations and experiences with culture and inclusion within
their classroom and in the school. In addition to the interviews, the qualitative aspects of this
study were reinforced with document analysis. Documents and artifacts can help contextualize
the research environment (Bowen, 2009) and they can provide evidence of the teachers’
motivation and commitment; this provided answers to research questions one and two. For
instance, lesson plans, syllabi, and objects within a classroom offered authenticating evidence in
this area (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

43
Interviews
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), interviews offer a distinct form of qualitative
data collection based on the interaction between the researcher and the interview participant(s).
Interviews allow the researcher to gather information directly that cannot be observed (Patton,
2015). The following section describes the interview protocol used in this study as well as the
interview procedure.
Interview Protocol
To allow respondents an opportunity to present their perspectives while maintaining
consistency of information, a semi-structured interview protocol was provided. This format gave
some flexibility to the interviewer to probe for deeper responses as information was gained, but it
also structured the interview adequately to gather specific information (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also pointed out that semi-structured interviews enable the
respondents’ worldviews and ideas to emerge. Although interview questions probe more
effectively into a respondent’s knowledge, they can also reveal information regarding employee
perceptions to help pinpoint gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gathering information about the
respondents’ perspectives is a key component of qualitative research (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
The interview protocol utilized a guide with thirteen predetermined open-ended questions
(Appendix C). The questions were asked in order, and follow-up probing questions were
provided to the interviewer to elucidate responses (Patton, 2002). The interview guide also
helped systemize the interview across the nine respondents by pre-determining the focus for each
topic (Patton, 2002). To encourage rich responses, it is important to ask a wide variety of
questions that target the desired information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2015) suggests

44
six types of interview questions to increase the depth of the interview; and several types of these
questions were included in the protocol. To facilitate the interview process, many questions
focused on the respondents’ experiences and examine how they have engaged in culturally
inclusive practices and conversations at SCSG. Because this concept was new to some STEM
teachers at SCSG, it was important to understand their experiences in order to answer the
research questions regarding knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Asking
opinion questions is another way to elicit respondent’s beliefs regarding a topic (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Three questions focus on the respondents’ opinions, including a devil’s advocate
question. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), devil’s advocate questions are effective to
use when exploring a controversial topic. Because culturally inclusive teaching practices are
related to issues of race and equity, the respondents’ opinions could be important to understand
how they value the topic. For instance, the question “Some would say that understanding a
student’s cultural background is one of the most important aspects of connecting course content
to student learning, in what ways do you agree or disagree with this statement?” is an example of
devil’s advocate question that may indicate the respondent’s opinion. Similarly, feeling questions
may elicit the affective qualities of the respondent’s situations; therefore, they could be
implemented to help the researchers evaluate self-efficacy (Patton, 2015). In sum, the interview
protocol was designed to explore the respondents’ knowledge and motivations as well as their
perspectives on the organization’s philosophy regarding culturally inclusive teaching practices.
Interview Procedures
Interviews can be employed in conjunction with document analysis and other types of
data collection methods (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In this sequential explanatory mixed-methods
study, formal interviews and collection of documents followed a quantitative survey. This

45
sequence allowed the quantitative phase to inform the qualitative phase (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The information derived from the survey and the initial documentation enriched the
interview protocol. The interviews were conducted over a two-week period one month after the
survey was implemented and the initial document collection began. This allowed time to collect
and analyze the survey and documents data prior to conducting the interviews. Respondents
indicated their willingness to participate in a follow-up interview by accessing an email link at
the end of the survey. Also, to meet the minimum criteria for the interview, respondents must
have had a minimum of one year of STEM teaching experience at SCSG and have attended at
least one of SCSG’s professional development workshops on diversity, equity, and inclusion in
the past two years. These criteria were important to ensure that interview participants had at least
minimal experience with STEM at SCSG and been exposed to training. A total of nine
respondents were selected for interviews based on their willingness to participate. Due to the
COVID–19 pandemic, all interviews were carried out online via Zoom, and scheduled based on
feedback from the respondents during the recruitment process. The duration of each interview
varied based on the respondent’s engagement; however, interviews averaged approximately 60
minutes. In total, this resulted in the researchers gathering approximately nine hours of interview
data. The interviews were conducted by a CITI-trained graduate of the doctoral program at
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education; therefore, the interview audio
recordings and their subsequent transcripts acted as the main source of data for this phase of the
research.
Documents and Artifacts
Documents include “written, visual, digital, and physical material relevant to the study”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 162). In turn, artifacts are three-dimensional objects that convey

46
meaning to the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents and artifacts can both
provide valuable qualitative data when gathered and reviewed systematically (Bowen, 2009).
Additionally, documents and artifacts contain data that are generated independent of the
researcher (Bowen, 2009) and they are part of the study’s setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Documents were important in this study because the use of documents is applicable to case
studies involving the evaluation of a program (Bowen, 2009).
Document analysis can act as a method for tracking change and it can also support the
evidence from other forms of data collection (Bowen, 2009). Document and artifact analysis
specifically help explore organizational influences because they help provide insights into the
cultural model and settings (Rueda, 2011). Documents, such as meeting agendas and minutes,
helped match a teacher’s decision-making process with their program implementation; therefore,
this provided evidence of program efficacy. Meeting agendas, minutes, and professional
development plans were readily available via employee login in Google Docs on the SCSG’s
Google platform. In addition, STEM teachers’ syllabi and course materials were observed
through the school’s learning management system and provided evidence of both knowledge and
motivation. Because teachers are able to customize their online course pages, the pictures and
resources they have chosen to use offered important information regarding their priorities and
worldviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Other important documents included professional
development requests forms as these indicated STEM teachers’ desire to engage in professional
development related to diversity and inclusion. A close inspection of STEM teachers’ classroom
settings also revealed artifacts relevant to their knowledge and motivation for providing a
culturally inclusive classroom. This included visual displays such as posters, books, and resource
materials (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Research questions one, two, and three were supported by

47
documentation showing a commitment by SCSG in general and by individual teachers to
promoting culturally inclusive practices.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is necessary to make meaning of the information obtained during the data
collection process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For the quantitative phase of this study,
descriptive statistical analysis was applied following the survey data collection. This included
generating frequencies for demographic data as well as the Likert-type survey items. Measures of
central tendency, including mean, median, and mode, as well as variability, including standard
deviation, were calculated for all continuous data. The analysis of the survey data provided
insight into the STEM teachers’ capacity for CIT.
For the qualitative phase of this study, data analysis occurred simultaneously with data
collection. Analytical memos were kept based on interviews and guided by the documents
collected. Interview transcripts were transcribed and coded. Following the conceptual
framework, I documented patterns, thoughts, preliminary conclusions, and emergent themes
while focusing on the STEM teacher’s knowledge, motivation, and the organizational culture.
Results and Findings
The results and findings were obtained by first conducting a census survey of all 28
STEM teachers in June 2020. This was followed by nine STEM teacher interviews and a
comprehensive document analysis that took place in July 2020. By framing the study within
Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences, the
following research questions were addressed:
1. What are the STEM teachers’ knowledge and motivation regarding the implementation of
culturally inclusive teaching to promote positive STEM identity construction in URMs?

48
2. What is the interaction between SCSG’s culture and context, and the STEM teachers’
knowledge and motivation to implement culturally inclusive teaching to promote positive
STEM identity construction in URM students?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to support implementation of culturally
inclusive teaching to promote positive STEM identity construction in URM students?
The sections below use the KMO framework to present the results and findings for research
questions one and two. This approach specifies each aspect of the KMO framework being
addressed, and relates this to the data derived from surveys, interviews, and the document
analyses. Knowledge findings are presented first, followed by motivation results, and
organizational findings where applicable. Research question three will be addressed in the
Organization Recommendations’ section following the Findings. As well, the Organizational
Recommendations will be presented according to KMO framework by first addressing the
associated knowledge influences, followed by the motivational influences, and finally the
organizational influences.
Participating Stakeholders
The population of study was the 28 STEM teachers at SCSG. Of the 28 STEM teachers,
21 completed the survey, generating a response rate of 75%. The participating stakeholders
represent science, math, technology, and design teachers. The survey respondents included
STEM teachers with a wide range of teaching experience. The survey data indicated that one
respondent selected 0-4 years of teaching experience, six respondents selected five to10 years of
teaching experience, five respondents selected 11-15 years of teaching experience, and nine
respondents selected more than 15 years of teaching experience. Nine participants volunteered to

49
be interviewed, and all nine interviews were conducted between July 20 and July 30, 2020. The
proxy conducting the interviews verified that the participants, in sum, represented all STEM
departments, and years of teaching experience at SCSG. Additionally, two of the nine interview
participants (22%) self-identified as BIPOC. Table 5 shows the interview participants and their
associated gender-neutral pseudonyms to protect the participants’ anonymity.
Table 5: Interview Participants
Interview Participants
Interview Participant
Number
Pseudonym
Names
STEM Department
Participant 1 Alex Math
Participant 2 Charlie Science
Participant 3 Drew Science/Technology
Participant 4 Emerson Math
Participant 5 Jordan Science
Participant 6 Kennedy Science
Participant 7 Logan Science
Participant 8 Parker Science
Participant 9 Ryan Science

Results and Findings for Research Question 1: STEM Teachers’ Knowledge and
Motivation for Implementing CIT
The first research question focuses on STEM teachers’ knowledge and motivation for
practices related to inclusion and equity for URMs. The survey questions were designed to
obtain a general sense of all STEM teachers’ understanding CIT and their motivation to
implement practices discussed during training. The interview questions were structured to elicit
STEM teachers’ knowledge and skills related to diversity, equity and inclusion training and
recollection of associated terminology and practices. As well, interview questions explored the

50
STEM teachers’ perception of training and willingness to engage in CIT. Where applicable,
document evidence is presented to support organizational influences.
Knowledge Results and Findings
The literature review presented earlier in this study discussed the importance of key
terminology, concepts, and practices associated with CIT (Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2014).
Research question one, in part, explored STEM teachers’ declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge related to CIT. First, this section presents findings describing the
knowledge level of terminology and key concepts. The results of one survey question specific to
equality versus equity is also discussed. Second, interview data is presented to show the STEM
teachers’ understanding of CIT implementation. Third, interview evidence associated with
STEM teachers’ planning and strategizing is presented to capture their level of metacognitive
knowledge.
Gaps in Declarative Knowledge Associated with CIT
Knowledge gaps need to be addressed to be able to perform effectively (Rueda, 2011).
Understanding terminology and concepts related to CIT is an antecedent to effective practices.
This is a part of developing the effective mindset for inclusive and equitable practices
(Hammond, 2014). Key terminology explored via the study included teachers’ understanding of
implicit bias, microaggressions, stereotype threat, as well as inclusion and equity. Additionally,
for CIT, internalizing what culture means and its relationship to the STEM classroom is also
important, and will be explored in the subsequent sections. Declarative knowledge was
determined to be a gap if 30% or more of the respondents lacked declarative knowledge in the
terminology under discussion. The following sections explore the findings associated with
STEM teachers’ declarative knowledge of CIT.

51
STEM Teachers Have a General Knowledge of Terminology but Lack of Deep
Internalization. To understand the STEM teachers’ knowledge of terminology, interview
participants were asked to describe their thoughts about specific terms such as implicit bias,
microaggression, and stereotype threat. Their level of understanding varied, but many STEM
teachers were able to articulate some aspects of each term. Although this shows some knowledge
of terminology, responses indicated that key terms were not deeply internalized.
Implicit bias, according to Hammond (2014), denotes unconscious thoughts that impact
how a person responds to a particular group. This definition focuses on two essential parts–the
implicit or unconscious and the response or action that is biased. While responding to an
interview question asking to describe their thoughts on implicit bias, STEM teachers often used
words verifying their understanding of the unconscious aspect of the term. For instance, an
analysis of words and phrases showed that all nine interview participants described implicit bias
by using words such as “subconscious” or phrases similar to “you’re not actually aware of.” It
should be pointed out that if a respondent understands the definition of the word “implicit,” one
would expect them to respond to the term accordingly. STEM teachers had a less articulate and
varied explanation of the “biased” aspect of the term. Only four of the nine respondents used an
example related to the classroom to describe bias. Descriptions that did not relate to the
classroom included an example from movies where “cops always bend the rules in order to catch
the bad guy, who is usually Black.” This nuanced, yet important distinction points to the
challenges associated with a deep understanding of the term implicit bias. Additionally,
respondents were not confident in their answers. Kennedy stated, “I’m glad this is not a quiz,
because I won’t have a great definition.” As well, the comment “I think” was stated 18 times
while answering the implicit bias question. This points to the participants’ uncertainty with

52
implicit bias. Also, not having confidence in understanding implicit bias generated an emotional
response. Logan stated, “It was horrifying to realize that could happen.” While describing their
realization that they may have biases, Drew reflected on how they may have “disadvantaged”
BIPOC students by not recognizing their biases. Similarly, Charlie critically said, “I think of
myself in terms of things that I had done, that I later realized were not good and were rooted in
things that I realized that were - that I had done - which were harmful to my students.” Possibly,
the struggle to understand implicit bias impedes the STEM teachers’ ability to fully internalize
the term. The STEM teachers’ uncertainty with terminology will be addressed further while
presenting motivational data and self-efficacy.
Microaggressions, according to Sue et al. (2010), are regular, unintended discriminatory
cues that target people of color. Knowledge of microaggressions is fundamental to CIT.
Interview respondents were asked about their thoughts regarding microaggressions to explore
their knowledge of the term. All nine interview respondents articulated that microaggressions are
small and unintended, and that they target people of color. For instance, Ryan said, “when you
are doing or saying something that is racist, whether you know it or not, but it's not overt, it's
subtle, but it's repetitive and ongoing and grinds people down.” Ryan showed that they
understand the term; however, they also stated that “microaggression is one of those more
nebulous terms that I think gets thrown around a lot, but I don't know that people have a specific
understanding.” The data shows that there is an overall awareness of the definition of
microaggressions, but not a universal understanding of its connection to teaching. Ryan stated,
“we tend to use the term a lot without necessarily defining the term clearly.” This response
represents the overall view and supports the challenge associated with terminology and CIT.
Stereotype threat, as defined by Steele and Aronson (1995), is the threat of verifying a

53
negative stereotype about one’s race, ethnicity, or other dimension of identity. Awareness of
potential stereotypes and how they impact students is a critical aspect of forming alliances with
students in a culturally responsive classroom (Hammond, 2014). Therefore, STEM teachers must
have knowledge of stereotype threat to implement CIT. Interview respondents were asked to
discuss their thoughts regarding stereotype threat to understand their knowledge of the term.
Based on interview questioning, eight of the nine interview respondents stated that stereotype
threat is the term they are most familiar with and hear about most often. For instance, Parker and
Logan said, “We actually talk about stereotype threat a lot” and “We've talked about it a lot at
school over the last 10 years,” respectively. Additionally, Charlie, Emerson, Jordan, Kennedy,
Logan, and Parker were able to provide specific examples such as the following quote by Logan:
It definitely means if you're aware of a stereotype, even if you don't believe the
stereotype, it could affect you. Like a woman or a student of color in math or science
could think, ‘Oh, I'm not expected to do well at this.’ Even if you know you're good at it,
your performance could be affected by knowing that.
As well, Drew was able to provide a specific definition by stating, “So, stereotype threat would
be a student's performance being impacted because they identify with a group that stereotypically
does not perform well at that task.” This supports a relative understanding of stereotype threat
compared to other terms discussed during interviews. Charlie did acknowledge, “I guess I'm not
sure, because I don't even remember what the term is.” Although this is one response, it does
show that not all STEM teachers at SCSG are familiar with the term.
STEM Teachers Demonstrated Difficulties Understanding the Difference Between
Equity Versus Equality. According to Gay (2018), many teachers believe that effective
teaching is based in ensuring equality whereby all students are treated the same regardless of

54
their cultural differences and backgrounds. In culturally inclusive classrooms, being explicit
about equity over equality is important (Gay, 2018). Treating students equally assumes that
students are starting at the same level, whereas equity provides a pathway for all students to be
successful. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the
statement: “It is important that I treat all students equally, irrespective of race and ethnicity.”
Figure 2 shows that 16 (76%) of the STEM teachers strongly agreed, one (5%) agreed, four
(19%) disagreed, and no respondents strongly disagreed to the statement. This data indicates that
many STEM teachers at SCSG may adhere to the equality mindset. In addition to selecting from
Likert-type choices, respondents were asked to comment about why they disagreed with the
statement to elicit their level of understanding. However, participants were not asked to comment
why they agreed. The open responses indicated that respondents who disagreed could support
their choice from an equity perspective. For example, one survey respondent stated, “It depends
on what you mean by treating students ‘equally.’ Helping all students to be successful may
require different approaches for different students.” Another survey respondent said, “Fair is not
always equal. It is important to treat everyone fairly and to consider each student's circumstances
individually.” Evidently, the respondents who disagreed with the statement understood the
importance of equity over equality; however, the 16 respondents who strongly agreed may not
possess a similar understanding.

55
Figure 2: Frequency of Responses to Survey Regarding Equality in Teaching Practices
Frequency of Responses to Survey Regarding Equality in Teaching Practices

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on Likert-type scale to the statement: It is important that
I treat all students equally, irrespective of race and ethnicity.
In addition to the survey, an interview question asked participants to comment on how
they promote equity and inclusivity in their classroom, and Alex stated, “I feel that I do grade my
students or teach my students equally.” Because it is important to be able to clearly differentiate
between equality and equity in order to implement CIT, the STEM teachers need more time to
develop a deeper understanding of the terms. This gap in declarative knowledge is essential to
STEM teachers’ ability to apply or implement CIT.
Gaps in Procedural Knowledge Related to Implementing CIT
The acquisition of procedural knowledge integrates required skills and processes that
result in a change in behavior (Mayer, 2011). Because CIT is an active process, knowing how to
implement inclusive and equitable practices is fundamental. Without clear procedural knowledge
that is effective and appropriate, STEM teachers will struggle to implement CIT. The methods

56
associated with CIT are both tangible and intangible. The tangible efforts to become more
equitable and inclusive include processes such as examining curriculum and reviewing
departmental policies. The more intangible processes include building partnerships with URM
students, self-examination of one’s own implicit bias, and developing more cultural competence
(Hammond, 2014). Procedural knowledge was determined to be a gap if 30% or more of the
respondents lacked knowledge of CIT implementation knowledge. The following sections
explore the findings associated with STEM teachers’ implementation of CIT.
STEM Teachers Had Difficulty Embracing Teaching with Equity and Inclusivity in
Mind. Interview data demonstrated that STEM teachers tend to believe they are data-driven so
they gravitate towards the more tangible – readily available and concrete – processes. For
instance, Kennedy said, “So we've done some sort of data-driven or like easy changes,” and
Ryan commented, “It's taken us a while because we had some challenges in obtaining the data . .
.but we're data driven.” Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that performance is directed by what
people believe. According to Sorrel (2013), scientists approach teaching by avoiding self-
awareness and cultural aspects of the subject. This scientistic approach to teaching may prevent
them from seeing the importance of deeper, personal and internal work. STEM teachers’ beliefs
may make it difficult to move beyond cultural neutrality (Hammond, 2014). For instance, the
data showed that STEM teachers have a tendency to focus on concrete approaches such as
grading, curriculum, and policies, but not focusing on the development of a culturally inclusive
classroom environment through cultural competency and connection.
Many interview participants expressed the difficulties they face identifying inequities and
changing or implementing culturally inclusive practices. Ryan discussed the challenge of
creating an equitable classroom environment in STEM with the following statement:

57
But I think as science teachers, we have very clinical topics that we teach about. And I
think we tend to become very clinical people, and that can come across as hard edged that
then doesn't serve students as equitable.
STEM teachers tend to think objectively, so they may be inclined to approach their teaching in
that manner (Dewsbury & Brame, 2019). When asked to discuss their thoughts regarding culture
and student learning, Emerson commented, “I'm not going to redo the posters in my room every
year based on who's in my class.” While disagreeing to the importance of relating a students’
cultural background the subject matter, Alex likewise said the following statement:
I don't necessarily agree [to the importance of cultural connection] in terms of what gets
taught. Partly because there are educational standards that are defined by the state that
need to be met. For example - like math is fairly cultural free.
Alex also commented, “You can talk about mathematicians of color or non-male mathematicians
within your work, but ultimately that's not going to change what you're presenting.” Similarly,
while expressing that science is culturally neutral, Parker stated, “Like you throw a ball up in the
air - it doesn't matter where you come from as to what's going to happen to that ball.” The
difficulty of understanding what culturally inclusive teaching in STEM means is evident by what
Kennedy stated, “I've struggled, I guess. I don't know exactly how much it matters to relate
science curriculum to their life.” Charlie also agrees in the following statement, “the content is
fairly neutral, you know, universal. And so, if you're just teaching that content, which I can do, I
can get away without addressing issues of inclusion or whatever.” The findings show that STEM
teachers’ difficulties integrating equitable and inclusive practices may come from their STEM
mindset and their need to approach learning from an objective perspective.

58
STEM Teachers Experienced Challenges Connecting CIT Terminology to Practice.
Many interview participants demonstrated knowledge of terminology related to CIT; however,
evidence indicated that having knowledge of the terms and connecting the terms to practice or
conceptualization remains a challenge. Responses showed a lack of classroom examples and
deep understanding of terminology that comes with application. When participants gave
classroom examples and ability to translate concepts into practical application. For example,
Drew made the following statement:
Again, I don't know if that's correct - but yeah, I feel like that's kind of similar to maybe
like a blind spot. Like I might be biased in a way that I may not even know about. And so
possibly when I'm grading papers, maybe I might grade a student of color more harshly
than a White student and not be aware of that.
In this response to describing implicit bias, it is clear that the teacher understands the meaning of
the term, but gave a hypothetical example using terms such as “possibly” and “might,” indicating
that their knowledge is not based on an actual account or specific experience. Respondents
showed hesitation while answering questions related to terminology indicating a lack of self-
efficacy as well. Similarly, Emerson stated, “it's biases you have that you don't necessarily even
recognize you have- that you've just kind of absorbed through your experience in life. So, they're
implicit. So that's how I understand it.” Again, the expression “so that’s how I understand it”
indicates a lack of self-confidence with the term. Although most participants expressed more
confidence with the term stereotype threat and indicated that they hear about it “a lot,” none gave
a specific example related to their practice. The challenge with terminology important to CIT is
related to level of understanding needed to develop the right mindset–familiarity versus
internalization. STEM teachers need a high level of factual knowledge to implement CIT.

59
Identity construction in adolescent years for girls has been linked to performance within
specific domains (Roeser et al., 2008). This is especially true for STEM fields (Archer et al.,
2008), and for students of color (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Gee, 2000). According to Kim et al.
(2018), STEM identity is considered to be a social identity that allows people to see themselves
as members of the group. To promote a positive STEM identity in URMs, it is essential for
STEM teachers to have knowledge of STEM identity. Interview participants were asked, “What
do you think it means to promote a positive STEM identity?” Seven of the nine interview
respondents were able to articulate definitions of STEM identity that indicate some knowledge of
the term. For instance, Jordan said, “I think it means, have the idea that you can do science,
math, engineering, technology.” Similarly, Ryan stated, “So for me, it's getting students,
regardless of who they are, to see that they have always been a scientist since birth.” Lastly,
Drew said, “I mean, I guess it would be a student who feels like they would be comfortable in
STEM or comfortable in STEM fields.” Each response shows that the STEM teacher understood
the importance of having their students see themselves as part of the STEM community.
However, similar to other terminology related to CIT for STEM, most respondents showed a lack
of confidence in their answers. For instance, Kennedy said, “Well, I'm sure my interpretation of
that statement is probably part of the question, but I don't think I know what that means.”
Knowledge of key terms associated with the promotion of URMs in STEM through CIT, while
present, remains challenging for STEM teachers. Document analysis of math and science
department meeting agendas showed discussions related to equity and inclusion focused mostly
on course placement. This finding was confirmed by comments made during the STEM teacher
interviews. Ryan stated in response to his subject-specific practices, “So, we really wanted to see
if there was any sort of unconscious bias or implicit bias that was affecting our decisions in

60
encouraging students to move through our courses.” This statement was reinforced by Jordan’s
response, “You know, I've had a feeling when I look out at my honors or AP class that the faces,
I'm seeing are not a good representation of the student body as a whole.” Seven of the nine
interview respondents highlighted the course placement process into upper-level STEM courses
as an area of consistent discussion.
Grading practices were also discussed frequently. A query of the term “grading” showed
that, in total, the nine interview respondents mentioned “grading” 35 times. Equitable grading
practices are an important component for implementing culturally responsive teaching (Gay,
2018). Ryan said, “[I am] really looking into equitable grading practices in the classroom and
really shifting what I do in the realms of that. Trying to promote equitable assignments and
equitable grading practices.” Drew offered insight into their desire to shift grading practices, “I
mean, from the standpoint of grading, wanting to move towards, you know, the grading for
mastery, seeing it as a more equitable way to grade.” Charlie also discussed grading in the
following statement:
I have been trying to get to standard based grading for years, but I've never been able to
do it because of the institutions I was in and they weren't compatible, even though they
were telling us to do it.
The findings show from interview data and document analysis that implementing equitable
grading practices is widely discussed across the STEM departments at SCSG. Examining and
discussing grading practices, again, are more tangible approaches to CIT rather than intangible,
self-reflective approaches.
In addition to grading practices, integrating more examples of diversity into the STEM
curriculum–as a more tangible approach CIT–was a common topic. Alex made the following

61
statement, “Finding ways to display non-dominant Western civilization culture within the
examples I have for my class and the curriculum.” Similarly, Drew said, “You know, planning in
the curriculum to try to incorporate more topics that highlight people of color and just sort of
structurally speaking, how to structure the class to make it more accessible for everybody and
more equitable.” Additionally, Drew said, “From the standpoint of curriculum, you know, sort of
what's included and seeing if there's ways that we can sort of authentically integrate, you know,
stories or contributions of people of color to the courses that I teach.” A query of the word
“curriculum” resulted in 31 matches within the nine interviews, highlighting the significance of
this practice by teachers across STEM disciplines. Again, Hammond (2014) points out the
tendency of teachers to approach culturally responsive teaching by focusing on artifacts and
content but not necessarily developing a classroom ethos that supports culture and inclusivity.
Gaps in STEM Teachers’ Metacognitive Practices Related to CIT
Pintrich (2002) defined metacognitive knowledge in terms of a person’s awareness of
their own cognition. More specifically, Mayer (2011) stated that metacognition is knowing when
to use certain processes. This includes the processes of strategizing and planning (Rueda, 2011).
Based on interview data the following subsections will be addressed: 1) STEM teachers’ varied
tangible metacognitive practices over deeper self-awareness and reflection, 2) STEM teachers’
perception of successful CIT practices, 3) STEM teachers’ acknowledgment of being in the
initial phases of planning and preparing. Metacognitive knowledge was determined to be a gap if
30% or more of the respondents did not indicate metacognitive practices related to CIT. The
following sections discuss STEM teachers’ metacognitive knowledge.
STEM Teachers Articulated of Varied Metacognitive Strategies and the Need to
Engage in More. STEM teachers discussed various metacognitive strategies as part of their

62
process of understanding practices related to diversity, equity, and inclusivity. For instance, eight
of the nine interview participants referred to the importance of reading about equity and anti-
racist practices in their thinking and learning process. For instance, Jordan said, “I've been
encouraged to read more, to think more.” Kennedy describes their approach to learning in the
following statement:
I've been doing my own work in anti-racism and reading White Fragility and How to be
an Anti-racist. And in reading those books, I realized so many things that I - you know,
like those implicit biases or those places where I just definitely needed to read these
books.
The process of reading was coupled with reflection. Emerson commented, “Teachers need to
think thoroughly through their lesson plans and then reflect after the class period.” Emerson also
stated, “I reflected on my lessons and think about my interactions with students and what criteria
I was using to place them in honors level courses.” Emerson reinforced their statement, “I don't
know that professional development has made me more intentional, but it has made me reflect
and think.” Logan discussed their thought process as well, “I've started reflecting on like, "are
there advantages that, for example, White students get just by being White?" The use of planning
was also articulated. Jordan offered the following, “I think a lot of my planning has - so I still
have to deliver the content. But I'm thinking about ways that I can deliver that content that would
also be incorporating nonwestern outlooks.” Emerson discussed their practice of trying to
integrate more diversity into the curriculum in the following statement:
Teachers and students come with a variety of experiences. And that needs to be
thoroughly thought out before class lessons, before PD sessions, etc. For example, I was
just, before we met, I was just lesson planning and I was looking for a video about

63
[subject matter] to include for my class.
Additionally, Ryan expressed their reflection in the following statement, “I need to show people
that I'm an ally through my actions, through what I do, through what I practice. I'm not a very
performative person.” The findings show that training has translated into various metacognitive
strategies that teachers use to plan and prepare to be more equitable and inclusive teachers.
The interview respondents suggested a need for more time to practice metacognitive
strategies. When asked what is needed to promote more equity and inclusivity, Drew said, “I
think maybe like a really hard self-reflection.” Charlie said, “I feel like self-reflection is
absolutely essential for progress. And I think that means you need the opportunity to reflect.”
Similarly, Emerson said, “So, I think we need a lot more sharing out of what people are planning
on doing.” Recognizing the need for more time to reflect and plan supports the identified gap in
metacognitive knowledge.
STEM Teachers Had a Positive Perception of CIT Practices. The STEM teachers
discussed their perception of success throughout the interview responses. While referring to their
own equitable practices, Alex said, “I mean, certainly in terms of how I teach my class, I feel that
I've done fairly well.” Similarly, Ryan stated the following while commenting on equitable
practices:
I think, trying to meet the learners where they are and bring them with me, trying to get at
those actions, I think that's been very successful. I think in terms of the equitable practice
is homework load. I think my students are feeling really well supported in the changes
made in those arenas.
Ryan interprets successful implementation of equitable practices in terms of meeting students’
needs and “students feeling really well supported.” Logan describes the outcome of an inclusive

64
practice where students share something new or good in their life:
We get to know each other in ways that feel safe, but also as individuals, like what's
significant to this person - at least today, what's significant to that person. What are they
willing to share? So, it feels to me like that helps build community, which builds
inclusivity.
Logan sees the successful outcome of building inclusivity through the exercise. Drew comments
on activities to connect robotics students at the school with other students who are
underrepresented:
They teach coding to [group name], which is a group for students with chronic illness and
they have taught coding classes at [shelter name], the women's shelter. Right before the
pandemic hit, they were about to teach more like a robotics course, actually to a group
called [group name], which is a group of students that have hearing impairments. So,
while I'm not directly responsible for most of these things, I do feel like I was successful
in sort of fostering this community that feels strongly about these issues and enabling
them to, you know, actively support underrepresented groups.
Drew perceives their efforts to build inclusivity as a successful, and by “fostering” this
community they are contributing to equitable and inclusive practices.
STEM Teachers Acknowledge Being in the Beginning Phases of Planning and
Preparing to be More Equitable and Inclusive. Throughout the interview process, the STEM
teachers acknowledged that they are in the initial phases in their learning related to diversity,
equity and inclusion. While responding to a question about personal goals related to the school’s
diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, Ryan said, “So I think I'm on the step where I'm
acquiring information, and I'm now processing and determining exactly what steps I want to

65
take.” Throughout the interview, comments such as, “Well, there's always room for
improvement” or “Uh, not super successful right now” showed that STEM teachers need more
time to develop their strategies and build on their plans and goals. Logan’s comments summed
up teachers’ current status in general with the statement, “I think we're just sort of in the initial
[stages], and we're going to have to do something and learn what that is.” Jordan summed up
their response with the statement, “It’s an ongoing challenge.” The evidence points to the need
for more time to develop more effective metacognition.
STEM teachers are just beginning to plan and prepare in the context of equity and
inclusion. Again, due to their training and mindset, STEM teachers tend to find it challenging to
integrate self-awareness into their pedagogy (Dewsbury & Brame, 2019). Understanding one’s
own implicit biases while critically examining their own teaching to pinpoint where inequities
occur is an important aspect of CIT. Logan made the following statement:
[I am] just starting to think about what I could be doing without realizing it. And I've
started reflecting on like, ‘are there advantages that, for example, White students get just
by being White?’ I've been thinking a lot about who asks for help, who asks for
extensions.
Jordan reflected, “I've been thinking a lot about how can I make everything that I am asking of
my students equally accessible to them.” Many STEM teachers discussed their own self-guided
approach to implementing equitable and inclusive practices. Much of the work pointed to the
complexity of integrating diversity, equity and inclusivity in STEM. Jordan said, “This is like my
far-out idea that I'm trying to work through right now: to find those people who contributed to
the scientific community as it relates to what we learn in class.” Similarly, Charlie said, “[I’m]
trying to figure out how to authentically integrate the contributions and experiences of people

66
who belong to marginalized groups into the curriculum.” Alex also stated, “I've thought about
the authors of the material we're using, the examples that I can use in class, how that might
widen our inclusion.” Jordan, while reflecting on the complexity of appropriate activities said,
“And then a huge amount of awareness around not asking students to do any sort of genetics
work about their own family. I mean, like, just do not go there.” Although examining the
curriculum to identify ways to integrate diversity is a part of establishing an inclusive class, the
interview response data showed that it is a formidable undertaking for individual teachers. This
also redirects the focus and energy from the self-work and reinforces concrete tasks on which
many STEM teachers rely. Emerson was forthright with their approach to equity and inclusion
and a high level of internal work. In their response regarding their own practice, they made the
following statement:
I have reflected on [equity and inclusion] quite a bit. I was always the one that was
somehow “different” in school…And so when I am teaching, I always think back to my
experience and how do I fix the negative in it?
Developing the right mindset to approach CIT by examining one’s self is an important aspect of
implementing equitable and inclusive practices (Hammond, 2014). The findings show that
STEM teachers’ difficulty integrating equitable and inclusive practices may come from their
STEM mindset and tendency to focus on tangibles approaches.
Motivation Results and Findings
The motivation section of the first research question focuses on the STEM teachers’
motivation regarding the implementation of culturally inclusive teaching to promote positive
STEM identity construction in URMs. The results and findings focus on three areas of the STEM
teachers’ motivation. First, self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s capacity to achieve a performance

67
goal. Second, the STEM teachers’ value, or the importance of a task based on individual beliefs.
Third, expectancy, or one’s belief that their effort will lead to desired outcomes. The three areas
are explored in the following sections.
STEM Teachers’ Low Self-Efficacy for Implementing CIT
Pajares (2006) described self-efficacy beliefs as one’s perception that they have the
capacity to foster a specific outcome. According to Siwatu (2007), teachers’ beliefs in their
ability to implement culturally responsive teaching directly impacts their actions to apply the
practices. If STEM teachers are confident in CIT, then they can foresee success. The following
sections discuss the findings associated with self-efficacy by exploring survey and interview data
related to CIT implementation.
To understand the STEM teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching practices associated with
equity and inclusivity, the survey respondents were asked to rate their confidence in the
following statement: “I am able to design a lesson that shows how different cultural groups have
contributed to the subject area.” Responses were free-form numeric on a rate scale of 0-100 with
higher numbers indicating higher confidence and with results as follows: three (14%) responded
in the 0-20 range; three (14%) responded in the 21-40 range; four (19%) responded in the 41-80
range; two responded (10%) in the 61-80 range; and eight (38%) responded in the 81-100 range.
There was one non-response (5%). Efficacy was defined as falling within the range of 81-100
and indicates that 38% of the STEM teachers have efficacy for the task. The mean rating for
STEM teachers was 63, falling below the 81-100 efficacious range. Figure 3 shows the number
of responses for each range.

68
Figure 3: Rate Scale Responses to Cultural Inclusion in Lessons
Rate Scale Responses to Cultural Inclusion in Lessons

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on a rate scale to the statement: I am able to design a lesson that shows
how different cultural groups have contributed to the subject area.
Similarly, another survey question asked STEM teachers to rate their confidence in the
following statement: “I am able to teach students about their cultures' contributions within the
subject I teach.” Responses were free-form numeric on a rate scale of 0-100 with higher numbers
indicating higher confidence and with results as follows: three (14%) responded in the 0-20
range; six (29%) responded in the 21-40 range; one (5%) responded in the 41-80 range; three
(14%) responded in the 61-80 range; and seven (33%) responded in the 81-100 range. There was
one non-response (5%). Efficacy was defined as falling within the range of 81-100 and indicates
that 33% of the STEM teachers have efficacy for the task. The mean rating for STEM teachers
was 58, falling below the 81-100 efficacious range. Figure 4 shows the number of responses for
each range.

69
Figure 4: Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Teach Culture’s Contribution to Subject
Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Teach Culture’s Contribution to Subject

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on a rate scale to the statement: I am able to teach students about their
cultures’ contribution within the subject area I teach.

A third survey question asked STEM teachers to rate their confidence in the following
statement: “I am confident in my ability to design a classroom environment using displays that
reflect a variety of cultures.” Responses were free-form numeric on a rate scale of 0-100 with
higher numbers indicating higher confidence and with results as follows: two (10%) responded
in the 0-20 range; one (5%) responded in the 21-40 range; five (24%) responded in the 41-80
range; six (28%) responded in the 61-80 range; and seven (33%) responded in the 81-100 range.
Efficacy was defined as falling within the range of 81-100 and indicates that 33% of the STEM
teachers have efficacy for the task. The mean rating for STEM teachers was 67.4, falling below
the 81-100 efficacious range. Figure 5 shows the number of responses for each range.

70
Figure 5: Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Design Classroom Reflecting Cultures
Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Design Classroom Reflecting Cultures

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on a rate scale to the statement: I am confident in my ability to design a
classroom environment using displays that reflect a variety of cultures.

To compare the differences between STEM teachers’ confidence integrating culture into
the STEM curriculum and years of teaching experience, Figure 6 shows disaggregated survey
data between teachers with 0-10 years of experience versus teachers with 11 or more years of
experience. The data shows that teachers with more teaching experience indicate less confidence
in their ability to integrate culture into their curriculum. Specifically, the mean self-rating of
STEM teachers with less than 10 years of teaching was 72 whereas the mean self-rating of
STEM teachers with greater than 11 years of teaching experience was 52. Though statistical
tests, such as a t-test, was not run due to the small sample size, the differences between the mean
scores appear to be significant.

71
Figure 6: Rate Scale Responses to Ability to Design Classroom Reflecting Cultures
Confidence Integrating Culture Based on Years of Teaching Experience

Note. Disaggregated data showing STEM teachers’ responses on a rate scale (0-100) to the statement: I am
confident in my ability to design a classroom environment using displays that reflect a variety of cultures
versus their years of teaching experience. There were 20 responses with one nonresponse to the question.

The findings showed that the STEM teachers indicate, overall, low self-efficacy for
practices associated with CIT. Specifically, the data showed that STEM teachers have low self-
efficacy for integrating culture into their teaching practices. According to the data, this is
especially true for teachers who have more teaching experience.
STEM Teachers Communicated Low Confidence for Promoting Equity and
Inclusivity. To further probe the STEM teachers’ self-efficacy for practices associated with
equity and inclusion, an interview question asked, “In what ways, if at all, do you see yourself as
successful at promoting equity and inclusivity in your classroom?” Within interview
respondents’ answers, specific points indicating self-efficacy were made. For instance, Charlie
said, “So I can't say that I'm successful in terms of incorporating into my curriculum. Now in
terms of my classroom management, I also am not sure I can say that.” Charlie also stated, “I

72
can't say much about, I don't know about the curriculum, because I don't know what I'm going to
do with it yet.” Similarly, Kennedy said, “In terms of [being] culturally inclusive, I don't think I
know exactly what that might look like specifically.” These statements point to a lack of
confidence. Ryan stated, “I feel like I'm not yet all the way there in full anti-racist integration, as
I was speaking of in goals.” While responding to a question about different ways of approaching
teaching BIPOC students, Kennedy said, “I guess, I don't know. I think this is somewhere where
I need to grow and learn how to be better.” Likewise, Jordan said, “But you know, there can be
weird situations where you're just like, "I'm not entirely sure what to do right now." Logan’s
comments also reflect a sense of lack of preparation, “I'm like, ‘well, what can I do? Like, how
do I fix this?’ That's the frustrating thing is, how do I fix it when I don't know what I'm doing to .
. . you know?” Throughout the interview, respondents expressed doubt by using the phrase “I
don’t know” 69 times. Similarly, a query of the phrase “I guess” showed that it was used 58
times throughout the interviews. The use of “I guess” and “I don’t know” may indicate low
confidence within a response.
As previously mentioned, the interview participants were challenged to express
confidence with key terms associated with CIT. Phrases reflecting a lack of confidence in
terminology were stated throughout the interviews while discussing implicit bias,
microaggressions, stereotype threat, and STEM identity. For example, Drew said, “I would say,
I guess I feel like…” As well, Emerson said, “so that’s how I understand it.” Similarly, Logan
said, “I would say it's the idea that…” Finally, Charlie also expressed low confidence in
understanding in the following phrase by stating, “I think it means.” Both survey and interview
responses indicate STEM teachers’ low self-efficacy for terms associated with CIT.

73
STEM Teachers’ Emerging Value for CIT
Task persistence and choice are directly influenced by the value a person places on that
task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Value is measured by how essential, useful, or interesting a task
might be to a person (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Achievement is not only linked to the
importance a person places on an activity, but also their expectation of success (Eccles, 2006).
Expectancy – Value Theory includes one’s thoughts about if a task is applicable to them.
Survey and interview data showed that STEM teachers value practices related to CIT. Value was
determined to be a need if 30% or more of the respondents indicated a lack of value for CIT. The
following sections discuss the STEM teachers’ level of value for tasks associated with DEI and
subsequently CIT.
STEM Teachers’ Conforming Appreciation for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. To
understand the STEM teachers’ appreciation for learning about diversity, equity, and inclusion,
the survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 4-point Likert-type
scale with the statement, “I enjoy learning about diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Figure 7
shows the results of the findings with 15 (71%) strongly agree, six (29%) agree, and no
respondent disagreeing or strongly disagreeing to the statement. This finding indicates that the
STEM teachers may enjoy learning about topics associated with CIT.

74
Figure 7: STEM Teachers’ Enjoyment of Learning about Diversity, Equity, and Inc
STEM Teachers’ Enjoyment of Learning about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on Likert-type scale to the statement: I enjoy learning about diversity,
equity, and inclusion.

Responses during the interview also showed that the STEM teachers value topics related
to diversity equity and inclusion. For instance, Drew said, “I really want to try to embrace this
idea of being an anti-racist and try to make sure that I don't let something like a microaggression
happen without responding to it.” Also, while responding to the question, “While teaching a
lesson, please describe any differences you keep in mind, if at all, when working with BIPOC
students,” Drew made the following statement:
I certainly wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions, but I think it does sort of make you
realize the importance of getting to know these students better on a personal level, so you
can understand how their experience or perspective might be different than the other
students in their class.
The use of word such as “want” as well as the phrase “realize the importance” indicates the value
the STEM teachers place on equitable and inclusive practices. A query of the word “trying”

75
showed that the word was used 63 times during the nine interviews. The STEM teachers use of
“trying” may also indicate the importance they saw in CIT. Ryan also expressed value for CIT
by stating, “So I think, trying to meet the learners where they are and bring them with me, trying
to get at those actions, I think that's been very successful.” The STEM teachers were also asked,
during the survey, to indicate their level of agreement to the following statement: “Learning
about my students’ cultural background is important to me.” Figure 8 shows that 100% of the
STEM teachers either agree or strongly agree with the statement. This high level of agreement is
consistent with other indicators of the teachers’ high value for CIT.
Figure 8: Personal Importance of Students’ Cultural Background to STEM Teachers
Personal Importance of Students’ Cultural Background to STEM Teachers

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on Likert-type scale to the statement: Learning about my students’
cultural background is important to me.

Based on the data, the STEM teachers value their experience engaging in DEI work, including
activities that elicit information about their students’ backgrounds. Interview respondents were
asked to answer the following open-ended question: “List the ways in which you can obtain
information about your students’ background and home life.” As part of their beginning-of-the-
year process, 12 of the 21 interview respondents use a written survey or form to ask students

76
questions about their background. One survey respondent made the following comment:
I have them do a ‘getting to know you’ form at the beginning of the year. When they ask
for something or are having problems, home life is one of the things I inquire about. If I
interact with the parents for any reason, I can learn a lot there.
Another eight respondents used interpersonal conversations and observations to get to know their
students. For example, one survey respondent wrote, “Developing relationships, asking
questions, incorporating opportunities within pedagogy for students to share their personal
experiences.” One interview participant did not respond to the question. Overall, the engagement
of 20 of the 21 STEM teachers in this process shows high value for inclusive practices and
subsequently, CIT.
Despite Value, STEM Teachers Struggle to Embrace Cultural Backgrounds in the
Context of Teaching STEM. The positive influence of culturally connecting with students
through teaching and learning is evident (Gay, 2018). Ayers (2015) discussed the importance of
creating an effective environment for learning by connecting students’ backgrounds and
experience to the classroom. Approaching STEM education by connecting students’ cultural
background to the content improves students’ ability to understand and learn content (Brown,
2015). This connection includes reducing the differences between a student’s home culture and
the school’s culture (Gay, 2018). To elicit STEM teachers’ perception of the importance of
culture, a survey question asked, “Connecting my students’ cultural background with my
classroom instruction will lead to deeper learning.” Figure 9 shows that 11 (52%) of the STEM
teachers agree, and eight (38%) of the STEM teachers strongly agree. In contrast, two (10%) of
the STEM teachers disagreed with the statement. This indicates that not all STEM teachers are
not embracing the connection between culture and STEM.

77
Figure 9: Connection of Cultural Background in STEM
Connection of Cultural Background in STEM

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on Likert-type scale to the statement: Connecting my students’ cultural
background with my classroom instruction will lead to deeper learning.

Similarly, another survey question asked STEM teachers to indicate their agreement to
the following statement: “It is important to consider my students’ cultures and experiences while
planning lessons.” Figure 10 indicates that 13 (62%) of the respondents agree and seven (33%)
of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement. Additionally, one respondent disagreed
with the statement, indicating again, that not all STEM teachers understand the importance of
culture in STEM. It is important to note that the respondent who disagreed with this statement
also disagreed to the previous statement.

78
Figure 10: Considering Culture While Lesson Planning
Considering Culture While Lesson Planning

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on Likert-type scale to the statement: It is important to consider my
students’ cultures and experiences while planning lessons.

Although most STEM teachers identified some connection between culture and STEM,
six of the nine interview participants struggled to articulate the need for connecting their
students’ cultural background in STEM. When asked about understanding and connecting a
student’s cultural background with course content in STEM, Logan said, “I'm not sure how
much I agree. Content - I mean, in most math classes it's too hard to really get examples in that
are culturally connecting.” Additionally, Logan said, “I don’t know if I completely agree with
that in STEM.” Ryan articulated their thoughts about culture in STEM in the following
statement:
I don't know that I would put it at the center. And that might be one of my blind spots. I
think it's something we don't think about enough in the sense that we tend to be in the
dominant culture, and I'm personally of the dominant culture and therefore don't
recognize the effect that culture can have on a student.
Parker struggled to understand the connection between culture and their own teaching with the

79
following statement:
There's a small part of me that disagrees because some branches of science - and it might
just be that old tradition thing that I talk about, sort of that thing you grew up with - some
branches of science feel like they're fairly ethnically neutral.
This evidence points to the need to build STEM teachers’ cultural capacity to help them
understand and embrace the importance of culture in teaching and in learning, first, and support
them in creating the connection between students’ backgrounds and their teaching practices.
STEM Teachers’ Desire to Increase Their Capacity for CIT. Throughout the
interview process, STEM teachers indicated their desire to learn and understand ways to be more
equitable and inclusive. Drew said, “I want to try to educate myself and prepare myself, so I'll be
ready when [challenging situations] happen.” When asked to discuss their needs regarding
professional development, the interview participants expressed a need for more practical
knowledge and skills. Emerson stated, “More discussion on pedagogy would be beneficial for
professional development and be open to suggestions and feedback.” Additionally, Jordan said,
“I think if we're going to reimagine [practices] in ways that are more equitable, we probably need
some help thinking about how those should be framed in ways that are equitable.” Kennedy also
said, “So, I think it'd be really nice to have a required reading and then talk about it.” Logan
discussed their need for more help with the following statement:
I just feel like I need to get the information somehow that's targeted to math and science.
Like if I could have a list of the 10 things that happen in math and science classes that
Black, Indigenous, students of color feel like hold them down, I would be doing anything
for that list.
Logan went on to say, “I think I'm getting a lot out of what we've done so far, and I want to do a

80
lot more.” Alex also commented on the need for more professional development in the following
statement”
I think, first having a panel of speakers, so in addition to, you know, having one person
come and we have discussions about equity, diversity, and inclusion with this one person,
we have a panel of diverse people, so that we're hearing different perspectives on the
same issue.
The responses indicate a desire to increase capacity for CIT and point to the motivational
challenges associated with undertaking a complex, personal endeavor.
STEM Teachers Have Tempered Expectations for CIT’s Role in Supporting Student
Performance
Expectancy refers to one’s belief that their effort will lead to the desired outcome
(Wigfield, 2000). A teacher’s belief in positive outcomes related to practices involving culture
and inclusivity may differ from their perception of ability to perform (Siwatu, 2007); hence, low
self-efficacy for CIT discussed above does not necessarily correlate to low expectancy.
Conversely, expectancies and values are often assumed to be directly correlated (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002); therefore, because the findings above showed undeveloped value for CIT, one
can anticipate similar outcome expectancies. The following discusses the findings related to
outcome expectancy by exploring the STEM teachers’ beliefs regarding CIT and BIPOC
performance in STEM.
To elicit the outcome expectancies of STEM teachers for CIT, one interview question
explored the interview participants’ perception of success at promoting equity and inclusivity,
Charlie made the following statement:
There's been a big push for being more inclusive as a teacher. And I think that if I were to

81
just implement even a few of the changes that they're talking about, that I would become
way better just in terms of my management.
Charlie’s comment demonstrated optimism that their effort will lead to a successful outcome by
stating that by “implement[ing] even a few of the changes” they “would become way better.”
Similarly, Drew acknowledges belief that their effort will lead to a positive outcome by saying,
“And it's more about what I'm presenting in my class that we're taking a further look at [equity
and inclusivity] as a department and, you know, as an individual teacher, to do better.” Drew is
discussing future success with continued effort by the department and them as an “individual
teacher.” Ryan, while discussing the success of their inclusive practices related to BIPOC
students made the following statement:
I started asking myself the question, ‘Well, clearly it can't always be them.’ There has to
be a piece that I'm responsible for. And even if they're coming to me with deficiencies,
how can I get them to where I need them to be?
Ryan’s statement, “Well, clearly it can’t always be them” showed that, as an external factor, he
does not attribute successful inclusive practices as the BIPOC students’ responsibility. Ryan
recognized that successful outcomes are based on their efforts to “get them where I need them to
be.” The data showed that the STEM teachers believe that CIT can lead to successful outcomes
for students.
Results and Findings for Research Question 2: Impact of Organizational Influences on
STEM Teachers’ Knowledge and Motivation for CIT
The second research question addresses how SCSG’s culture influences the STEM
teachers’ knowledge and motivation for implementing CIT. The first section will address the
encouragement of a culture of equitable and inclusive practices by the organization through

82
opportunities and conversation. The second section will explore the professional development
and resources provided by the organization to target classroom practices. Finally, the third
section will discuss the organization’s leadership and goals related to DEI and subsequently CIT.
Organizational Results and Findings
Within organizations, performance goals rely on the processes and resources needed, but
it is also important to consider how organizational culture influences attempts to improve
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). As discussed in the Organizational Context and Mission
section, SCSG has been undergoing a significant change in its practices regarding diversity,
equity, and inclusion. At the time of this study, racial and social unrest, including protests against
civil inequities were taking place in proximity to SCSG. As a result, during the summer of 2020,
SCSG increased its efforts to become more inclusive by offering teachers individual
opportunities–over and above the ongoing diversity, equity and inclusion training–to take part in
online classes to address issues related to inclusivity in their classrooms. During the interview
process, eight of the nine interview participants took part in this training. Because responses
indicate that training was helpful for teachers, the perception of culture related to equity and
inclusivity at SCSG was influenced. If 30% of the respondents or more hold negative perceptions
about organizational influences, the influence was determined to be a need. The organizational
findings are described by the following three sections: 1) the organization’s approach to
supporting equity and inclusivity, 2) the organization’s use of professional development and
resources to support equity and inclusivity, 3) the organization’s communication of goals and
plans regarding DEI, and consequently CIT.
The Organization’s Varied Support for Building a Culture of Equity and Inclusivity
The organization’s approach to supporting equity and inclusivity, beyond the DEI

83
consultant training, included conversations at employee meetings and emails from the Dean of
Faculty promoting outside programs related to DEI. Document analysis showed that other
opportunities included the National Association of Independent Schools’ People of Color
Conference, the Teaching While White workshop, and the Stanley H. King Institute workshop.
As well, the faculty were provided opportunities to read several books: Teaching to Transgress
(Hooks, 2014), Grading for Equity (Feldman, 2018), White Fragility (DiAngelo, 2018),
Whistling Vivaldi: And Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us (Steele, 2011), and How to be
an Anti-Racist, (Kendi, 2019). The process of DEI training and related opportunities provided the
STEM faculty with consistent exposure to information regarding equity and inclusion. According
to the data, this continued conversation was well-received by the STEM faculty. Ryan discussed
their reading experience in the following statement:
Teaching to Transgress, which was really eye opening for me, because that piece really
started my grappling with issues of racial diversity in the classroom. And really, in
particular, I think the piece that made me question and grapple the most is where bell
hooks talks a lot about how challenging it is for me as a White teacher to educate my
Black students.
While referring to Grading for Equity (Feldman, 2018), Ryan stated, “It kind of tied everything
that I was already doing under an umbrella of, ‘Yes, yes - this is why we should be doing this.’"
Findings showed that providing faculty reading suggestions for self-study helped maintain a
learning community culture while exploring equity and inclusion.
In spring 2020, the focus of employee meetings included the establishment of identity-
based affinity groups for faculty. While reflecting on the school’s DEI workshops, Emerson
stated, “I was really happy to see the changes for this past spring, where we were able to actually

84
break out into affinity groups and speak with other people.” Charlie also commented on the
affinity groups with the following statement:
And having that space to talk with other people about some of the unique issues that we
have, or even just the feelings that we have - it's very validating. And it was a really good
experience and I enjoyed that. So that affinity group thing was nice.
Emerson also suggested, “I would do more of the activities we did in the spring, with breaking
out into the different affinity groups.” The identity-based affinity groups were another effort by
the organization to approach diversity, equity, and inclusion through relationship-building. The
data showed that affinity groups helped facilitate a dialog that was considered a positive
experience by STEM faculty.
To understand the interview participants’ perceptions of the organization’s efforts to be
culturally inclusive, the following question was asked: “In what ways, if at all, do you feel the
school is a culturally inclusive institution?” The STEM teachers articulated their uncertainty
regarding the organization’s efforts. Parker pointed their perception of inclusivity in the
following statement, “I think there's always an intention for inclusivity that may not always play
out, which ties into our constant conversations about intent versus impact.” The phrase “intention
versus impact” was introduced by the DEI consultant to help the organization’s employees
reflect on the actual effectiveness of practices. That is to say, intending to do the “right thing”
does not guarantee that an action will generate the expected outcome. Additionally, responses
were reflective of the school’s effort, and indicated a need for a more explicit plan with specific
steps taken by the organization. For instance, Charlie discussed the need for diversity in
leadership with the following statement:
But I am currently feeling like [the organization] is trying, but I don't know how effective

85
it can be until it really puts people who are marginalized into leadership positions and
gives them a voice in a way too, and gives the rest of us some - what's the word I'm
looking for–like a framework in which we can deal with these situations, I guess.
Other respondents indicated their perception of the organization’s leadership related to inclusion,
and the challenges. Charlie discussed their overall perception in the following statement:
The customs, they feel White, I guess. But I think they are clearly making pushes. I don't
know how effective they are. I think while you have pretty much entirely White people in
the upper echelons of leadership, it's going to be hard to achieve true equity, I guess. But
I'm not sure how to go about doing that.
Charlie, again, acknowledged intention by stating “making pushes,” but their assessment about
effectiveness is low. Similarly, Kennedy discussed their feelings regarding the organization’s
cultural inclusivity in this statement:
I think that [the organization] may not be very inclusive - I think it's sort of like, "it's
inclusive, but must be student driven." I'm not sure what really goes on from an
administration-driven level that makes it feel culturally inclusive.
This statement points to a disconnection between the intention of the training, the mission and
plans, and the STEM faculty's perception. The STEM teachers questioned who provides the
efforts to be more inclusive–is it the administration, the students, or the teachers. Ryan
reinforced this perception in the following statement:
I feel like in my time here at [the organization], we are increasingly talking about, and
grappling with and working toward, becoming more inclusive from the top down. From
the teacher side, I feel like we're doing a lot of work.
The interview participants all acknowledged the organization’s effort, but the effectiveness and

86
focus of that effort was questioned. This points to the struggle with organizational culture and the
need for continued work, feedback, and reflection.
To assess the STEM teachers’ perception of the organization’s promotion and support of
BIPOC students, the following interview question asked, “In what ways, if at all, do you see the
school encourage all Black, Indigenous, and people of color or BIPOC students' success?” Drew
stated, “I'm not sure that I know of any sort of specifically overt ways that [the organization] is
contributing to that.” Ryan also stated, “I haven't got the sense yet that there's a cohesive push. I
think it's a lot of individuals working, and teaming up and working together, but, but I feel it
needs to be more universal.” Similarly, Jordan said, “I’m not entirely sure that I see the school
encouraging their success specifically. I do see the school, of course, encouraging success
broadly.” Finally, Emerson said, “Because I feel like there's a lot of talking up here, at the
abstract, theoretical level and not a lot of, ‘okay, here is how you actually do this.’” Most
respondents had similar perspectives pointing, again, to the need for an articulated plan as the
school implements this change. Charlie summed up their discussion by stating, “I think [the
organization] may struggle a little bit with the implementation of strategies to make things better.
But I mean, that's the nature of the beast.” The reference to the “nature of the beast” implies that
the organization is grappling with a cultural shift, and the intricate process of change associated
with sensitive initiatives.
Interview data indicated that the perception of efforts to implement CIT practices varied
between the faculty from different STEM departments. An interview question asked, “As a result
of the professional development, please describe any discussions, if any, you have had at the
department level.” Interview participants in the science department discussed their effort to
understand the number of BIPOC students in upper-level STEM classes. Ryan said, “In

87
particular, we're looking at the question of honors and AP and we're starting out with raw data.
We finally did that data analysis and actually talked about it today in a department meeting.”
Ryan continued to discuss other efforts including the “great canvases made from posters of
women in science. And they're from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of nationalities and
ethnicities and races.” Kennedy had a similar comment, “We've made departmental decisions to
put up posters, highlighting women who've been successful in science.” Additionally, according
to Parker, the science department’s conversations also centered around “mastery-based grading
for equity-type practices.” Ryan, said, “We discussed crafting a departmental honor code that
dealt specifically with equity, diversity, and inclusion.” Ryan also said, “we also discussed, and
began the process of discussing, how to widen our equity and diversity in our programming, in
our materials and in our masterclass options.” The variability in approaches points to the
challenges encountered while implementing a change at the core of organizational culture.
Emerson expressed a different viewpoint about their department’s progress in the following
statement:
We've had very few [discussions] and they've been unsatisfying. There's still not really an
understanding of what we're trying to do, I believe. I feel there's a lot of knee jerk
reactions to things. So, because of the PD, we've had a few departmental discussions, but
not really anything coming out of it. No concrete action steps.
This points to the challenge the STEM departments have focusing effort towards equitable and
inclusive practices. The data indicated that the efforts are varied, and some departments need
more support and guidance than others in implementing CIT and advancing DEI.
Document analysis also showed that discussions of equitable and inclusive practices were
varied and broad in science and math department meetings from spring 2018 through fall of

88
2020. Comments by the interview participants regarding STEM department meetings support
their efforts. For instance, Ryan said, “So we really wanted to see if there was any sort of
unconscious bias or implicit bias that was affecting our decisions in encouraging students to
move through our courses.” Similarly, Charlie said, “I think you've probably already heard about
the Science Department's research into the paths that students take, whether they make the jump
from honors to AP or whatever.” Again, there is intentional work related to DEI and
implementing CIT, but responses indicated that the lack of concerted effort and specificity can
be detrimental to a sense of progress. For instance, Alex said,
I've heard discussions within my department and heard rumors, I guess, more than any
actual, like definitive things that other departments are working on [regarding equity and
inclusion for BIPOC students], which I would assume they are. And so, in that regard,
nothing specific, but that it's happening.
Similarly, Emerson expresses the variable STEM department challenges in the following
statement:
It is clear that we all need to support BIPOC students but there is not a lot of concrete
information on how to exactly do that in your classroom. And that's where, depending on
the teacher, depending on the department, the faculty gets stuck.
Emerson’s statement, “depending on the department” indicates, again, the variation in
departments’ commitment to CIT in support of DEI.
Organization’s Underdeveloped Efforts to Provide DEI Resources and Professional
Development
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed how training is, in many ways, the organization’s effort
to change culture. Diversity, equity, and inclusivity training began at SCSG in August of 2018,

89
almost two years before data collection. During the first year of training, a consultant conducted
large group trainings with the entire faculty and staff at SCSG, with follow-up visits to individual
department members throughout the fall of 2018. In March 2019, the consultant returned for a
day-long workshop. Finally, in the fall of 2019, the consultant returned to work with individual
departments, and returned again in January 2020 to speak at an all-employee meeting. The
following discussion explores the STEM teachers’ view of DEI professional development, and
the need for more support implementing CIT.
All survey respondents indicated that they attended at least one diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) professional development day in the last two years. A survey question asked the
STEM teachers to indicate their level of agreement on a 4-point Likert-type scale with the
following statement: “The school is providing effective professional growth opportunities
relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Of the 21 survey respondents, 10 (48%) agreed, 11
(52%) strongly agreed with the statement (see Figure 11).
Figure 11: Organization Providing Effective DEI Professional Development
Organization Providing Effective DEI Professional Development

Note. STEM teachers’ responses on Likert-type scale to the statement: The school is providing effective
professional growth opportunities relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

90
All nine interview participants reflected on the diversity, equity, and inclusivity training
throughout their responses. Eight of the nine interview respondents referred to the consultant by
name, indicating their recollection of training. Interview participants were asked, “Tell me about
your experience regarding the school’s professional development opportunities or workshops
directed at diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Alex described their positive experience with the
following statement:
Well, first I think it's great that the school is pursuing greater equity, diversity and
inclusion, regardless of the current political climate. It's, it's great that we had scheduled
that prior to the current protests that are going on in the national resurgence of the Black
Lives Matter movement. So, with that in mind, my experience with it has been very
positive.
Emerson expressed a positive experience as well, “I found the workshop very interesting and that
it contained good information.” Similarly, Kennedy said, “I feel like I walk away from the
professional development feeling really good about them. I think that the topics that the school
chooses to cover in professional development are really important.” All nine interview
participants articulated a positive perception of the training.
Participants discussed more details regarding their perception of the DEI professional
development. For instance, Jordan stated, “I think the professional development has been
challenging for some people, challenging ideas of how things really are for everyone and how
like everything's fine. But challenging in a good way, challenging the way that suggests paths for
growth.” Parker described their experience in the following statement:
I think, [professional development] was really important, especially for some of the older
teachers who just didn't realize that things that they thought were so innocuous, they just

91
didn't know that they might be hurting somebody unintentionally. And I think it was
really important for them to have that sort of ‘no judgment’ space for them to ask really
stupid questions.
The data presented above indicate that the STEM teachers reflected deeply upon the experience
and the impact of the training. This statement also hints to the open dialog created by the
experience, and the positive organizational culture related to DEI professional development.
All nine interview participants expressed a need to work with other faculty or
professional experts to understand cultural inclusivity and equity to improve their performance.
Emerson said, “I would like to hear from other faculty as to what they're doing in their
classrooms to promote diversity and equity, and how it looks in their classroom.” While referring
to the potential benefits of mentoring, Alex said, "Hey, you mentioned that that's something that
you've had trouble with. Can I help you get over that by being your [mentor]?" Alex went on to
describe their need for more personal feedback in the following statement:
But that can't happen without the dialogue of, ‘these are the areas in which I feel I could
need improvement or the ways in which that I now recognize that I'm missing or not
meeting the mark,’ but we can't do that without other people hearing you say these are the
ways in which I feel like I'm not meeting the mark.
Similarly, Emerson offered their view on feedback with the following statement:
I think feedback is hard for us as faculty to hear. For example, ‘here is a suggested
activity you could do for blank.’ If we're going to move forward, we have to be able to
hear feedback and suggestions and realize it's not a criticism. Feedback can be hard to
hear because teaching is so personal.
The STEM faculty consistently expressed the benefit of having more explicit support. For

92
instance, Jordan made the following statement:
I think other teachers I've talked to grapple with this - okay, we want a classroom where
people feel comfortable and where things are addressed. More concrete help on what to
do when something happens when those uncomfortable moments happen.
Adding to their statement Jordan said, “probably we need some role-playing practice.” The
interview participants recognized the need for more individualized support beyond the
professional development already received.
The Organization’s Unspecified Goals and Plans Related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity
Organizational change success depends on a number of factors, but most importantly,
having clear goals, a plan to reach goals, and a system to measure the progress of goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Through interview questions, the STEM teachers expressed their perception of the
organization’s efforts to set goals and plans regarding DEI. The following discussion explores
the organization’s effort to promote DEI goals and plans.
The interview data and document analysis showed that SCSG articulated their overall
goals through multiple communications (employee meetings, marketing materials, and emails).
Department meeting agendas show that there is a consistent effort to establish a variety of
practices related to equity and inclusion; however, there was no evidence of a comprehensive
implementation plan to support the change. The interview responses indicated this as well. Alex
said, “It's a transitional time where we know we need to fix [our DEI practices], but we haven't
come up with a specific plan yet.” Similarly, while referring to communication regarding the
organizational change related to DEI, Parker said, “So you can definitely tell that commitments
are being made and the follow through is going to be really important for all that stuff that's on
paper. But that's never step one. Those are always step seven through ten.” In this statement,

93
Parker is referring to the strategic plan’s mission and values as the “stuff that’s on paper.” Parker
also acknowledges that there is a need for more action to support the plan by saying, “But that’s
never step one.” Additionally, Ryan comments on the organization’s communication of DEI
goals in the following statement:
So, in terms of the strategic plan, I think we've put this messaging out there - it's out there
in the world. Now our biggest challenge and goal should be next to make sure that we're
meeting that lofty goal of the [mission statement].
Ryan is referring to the “biggest challenge” as the process of bringing the plan to fruition. Ryan’s
reference to “lofty goal” also shows how this is perceived as a major cultural shift for the
organization–one that needs clarification.
Document analysis shows that during spring of 2020, SCSG released a new strategic plan
and mission statement focusing on equity as the main component. This supports the DEI
training’s focus and goals; however, some interview participants were still unclear on how the
training and plans integrate with the school’s goals. For instance, Jordan said, “I think the school
has communicated [the direction] through the strategic plan and value statements associated with
the new strategic plan, and [equity…mission statement]. But those are squishy things, right?
They sound good. But they're not very concrete.” By saying, “not very concrete,” Jordan is
pointing to the lack of specific action steps. Likewise, Charlie stated, “In terms of more specific
goals to help us get to where we need to go, I haven't heard much about that, but I mean, it's a
very new thing.” Logan described their understanding of the organizational goal in the following
statement:
Well, I guess they changed their mission statement to [equity…mission statement]. So
that certainly is quite a banner for them to hang out there in terms of their stated goals.

94
What that actually means and the steps that they're taking to actually follow up on the
statement is less clear.
Finally, Kennedy said, “I would say that, you know, in terms of what our goals are as a school, I
don't think I see that in writing much. And so, I just hear it a lot.” When Kennedy said, “I just
hear it a lot,” there is skepticism in their statement. Again, this points to the organizational
change and cultural shift both associated with the school’s DEI initiatives and CIT
implementation.
The school has clearly articulated the mission statement well. Six of the nine interview
participants articulated the mission statement verbatim in their responses. Also, the term
“strategic plan” was said 11 times, in total, by seven of the nine interview participants while
answering a question regarding the school’s goals. A fully developed integration of a plan, and
the actions needed to implement the plan was not evident in responses, As Charlie stated earlier,
“it’s a new thing,” and as Alex commented earlier, “we are in a transition period.” The
expectation for a comprehensive plan is palpable in the interview respondent’s answers. Also,
phrases throughout the interview showed that the organizational culture is optimistic for the
change. Recall, Alex said, “I think it’s great” while referring to the changes moving towards
more equity and inclusivity. Parker also commented, “the work has been really important” while
reflecting on the changes. The data showed that the organizational climate is ready for a specific
plan.
Summary of Findings
In summary, through qualitative and quantitative methods, the findings and results
demonstrated that specific gaps in knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences need
to be addressed to improve performance in practices related to culturally inclusive teaching

95
(CIT). The STEM teachers need to build a deeper, internalized knowledge of terminology,
concepts, and practices related to CIT. Many STEM teachers are making their own
interpretations of what equitable and inclusive practices are and following their STEM training
to guide them into material changes. This is a positive step, but their interpretations may not be
sufficient for authentic implementation of CIT. Also, this approach bypasses self-awareness and
other important aspects of inclusivity such as developing cultural competence related to URMs
in STEM. The data showed underdeveloped value, yet appreciation for equitable and inclusive
practices which may be used as a foundation to improve self-efficacy. Implementing CIT
requires the willingness to be venerable and personifies the experience for teachers of STEM that
may tend to be reluctant or unaware of this approach. Because of STEM teachers’ apprehension
to mistakes, improving self-efficacy is critical to practices related to culture, equity, and
inclusivity. Parker said while contemplating making a mistake, "Have I ruined their entire STEM
career? Have I just chopped them out of the pipeline, right here?" This indicates the personal
responsibility STEM teachers feel and requires high self-efficacy to overcome.
The findings showed that the organization’s efforts to improve equity and inclusivity for
BIPOC students are appreciated by faculty but are not experienced as fully articulated. By
introducing a new mission statement, the STEM teachers understood the intent, but were not
been able to point to specific steps or an action plan to reach the goal. The data indicated a need
for organization to provide more resources and training for the STEM teachers. This also
includes time to reflect and collaborate. Based on the perception of the leadership, the data
showed that the organization needs to continue to improve the ethos for change related to
diversity, equity, and inclusivity.

96
Results and Findings for Research Question 3: Recommendations for Organizational
Practice to Support Implementation of CIT
The third research question addresses the recommendations in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences to support culturally inclusive teaching practices and
promote positive STEM identity construction in URM students. The first section will address
knowledge recommendations followed by motivational recommendations, and finally,
organizational recommendations. Each section is framed within specific theoretical principles
that are applicable to each influence.
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge influences listed in Table 6 denote remaining needs and are emphasized
based on their importance to the stakeholder goal and representation in the literature. Table 6
addresses principles supported by research for each knowledge influence. According to Rueda
(2011), declarative knowledge is fundamental to performance within a domain. Additionally,
Table 6 shows that employees need to practice and apply what they have learned in their job
setting (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011), and frequently reflect on their practice (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000). Table 6 also addresses the context-specific recommendations for each knowledge
influence based on each theoretical principle.

97
Table 6: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
STEM teachers need to know how
culturally inclusive teaching practices
contribute to the construction of a
positive STEM identity for URMs
(D).
Declarative
knowledge is essential
to understanding and
functioning within a
context or domain
(Rueda, 2011).
Provide a job aid
with terminology
and resources
pertaining to
culturally inclusive
teaching
practices.
STEM teachers need to know how to
implement culturally inclusive
teaching practices that foster positive
STEM identity construction in URMs
(P).
Employees need time
to observe and
practice what they
have learned (Mayer,
2011).

Results improve when
employees practice
strategies learned
during training in the
context of their job
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Provide training to
reinforce CIT
practices through
one-on-one teacher
coaching.
STEM teachers need to know how to
implement metacognitive practices to
facilitate culturally inclusive teaching
(M).
Self-regulation and
goal setting increase
performance (Dembo
& Eaton, 2000).
Provide a journal
and prompts for
STEM teachers to
discuss their goals
and practices
regarding equity
and inclusion
during weekly
department
meetings.

Incorporate
prompts on faculty
self-evaluation
forms to encourage
reflection and goal
setting focused on
equity and
inclusion.

Improving STEM Teachers’ Knowledge of Culturally Inclusive Teaching Practices
The findings of this study imply that STEM teachers need to expand their declarative

98
knowledge of culturally inclusive teaching practices. A recommendation centered on information
processing theory was chosen to close this declarative knowledge gap. This recommendation is
based on the principle that declarative knowledge is essential to performance within a context or
domain (Rueda, 2011). This suggests that providing STEM teachers with a concise visual aid to
reference would help support their learning. The recommendation then is to provide all STEM
teachers with a job aid displaying terminology and resources pertaining to culturally inclusive
teaching practices.
Job aids help prompt user recall after training has been administered (Spaulding &
Dwyer, 2001). According to Clark and Estes (2011), job aids have been shown to improve
performance by guiding users on how to help themselves. More specifically, a cueing job aid is
effective at focusing attention to information, but does not provide step-by-step instructions
(Kluge, Grauel, & Burkolter, 2013). Kluge et al. (2013) point out that properly designed job aids
can help reduce extraneous cognitive load and increase germane cognitive load leading to
improved learning. Similarly, Mayer (2011) stresses the importance of decreasing extraneous
information to reduce cognitive load. This evidence suggests that providing a concise visual aid
that cues STEM teachers to recall culturally inclusive teaching practices could be an effective
way to reinforce declarative knowledge and lead to improved performance.
Improving STEM Teachers’ Knowledge of Practicing Culturally Inclusive Teaching
The results and findings of this study indicate that STEM teachers need more
comprehensive procedural knowledge to apply culturally inclusive teaching practices. A
recommendation based on social cognitive theory has been selected to close the procedural
knowledge gap. Research underscores how performance results improve when employees
practice strategies learned while training in their job setting (Clark & Estes, 2011; Mayer, 2011).

99
This would suggest that providing employees with training through coaching would support their
learning. The recommendation then is to provide training to reinforce culturally inclusive
teaching practices through one-on-one teacher coaching with an equity and inclusion consultant
who can observe and guide STEM teachers in their classroom.
Training, as defined by Clark and Estes (2008), involves information, feedback, and
guided practice. Teacher training, followed by individualized coaching within the classroom
setting, has been shown to be more effective at helping teachers implement new classroom
practices (Driscoll et al. 2011; Reinke et al., 2014). Because teachers work in unique settings
under diverse circumstances, a one-size-fits-all approach to training that does not include
individualized feedback within the teacher’s classroom is often ineffective (van den Bergh &
Beijaard, 2015). Opfer and Pedder (2011) emphasize that when teachers learn, this should be
thought of as a complex system and not a single event. Therefore, teacher learning is more
effective when it is situational and conducted within their own classroom setting (Opfer &
Pedder, 2011).
Improving STEM Teachers’ Metacognitive Knowledge While Practicing Inclusive Teaching
The findings of this study indicated that STEM teachers need to engage in more self-
regulation to implement culturally inclusive teaching practices. A recommendation founded in
social cognitive theory has been selected to close the metacognitive knowledge gap. Dembo and
Eaton (2000) found that people who practice self-regulation and goal setting improve their
performance. This would suggest that providing STEM teachers with opportunities to reflect and
set goals would support their learning. The recommendation then is to provide a journal and
prompts for STEM teachers to discuss their goals and practices around equity and inclusion both
in weekly department meetings, and in their yearly written self-evaluation form.

100
Teaching is viewed as a unique task that requires metacognition because situations faced
by teachers can take a long time to resolve and require adapting to distinct student needs
(Xiaodong et al., 2005). Paris and Winograd (2003) discussed how teachers need to expand their
skills to reach a more diverse student body, and that teachers need to be more reflective about
their own beliefs and practices to realize this objective. Metacognition facilitates a way for
people to manage their learning and identify weaknesses that need to be corrected (Schraw,
1998). This includes goal setting, planning, and self-reflection (Schunk, 2005). For decades,
teacher reflective practices have been supported in the literature (Dewey, 1933; Paris &
Winograd, 2003; Schon, 1987). Reflection is a social act (Lin & Schwartz, 2003); therefore,
teachers should summarize their process in a group setting such as their department meetings and
evaluation meetings to culturalize their experience.
Motivation Recommendations
The motivational influences listed in Table 7 denote the remaining motivational needs
and are emphasized based on their importance to the stakeholder goal and representation in the
research literature. In order for STEM teachers to be successful at implementing culturally
inclusive teaching practices, they must be motivated to do so. Table 7 addresses principles
supported by research for each motivational influence, including credible role models to
establish value for the task (Denler et al., 2009), and the practice of positive feedback in building
self-efficacy (Consiglio et al., 2016). Table 7 also addresses the context-specific
recommendations for each motivational influence based on each theoretical principle.

101
Table 7: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
STEM teachers need to feel
confident in their ability to
implement culturally inclusive
teaching practices. (Self-
Efficacy)
Feedback as well as actual
success on challenging tasks
positively influences people’s
perceptions of competence
(Consiglio et al., 2016).

Feedback and modeling
increase self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide a mechanism for STEM teachers to
receive feedback and guidance while
practicing culturally inclusive teaching
within their classroom setting.
STEM teachers need to value
promoting a positive classroom
environment through culturally
inclusive teaching practices.
(Value)

STEM teachers need to believe
that their effort to practice
culturally inclusive teaching
will lead to better student
performance.
(Outcome Expectancy)

Models who are credible and
similar (e.g., gender,
culturally appropriate) can
foster positive values (Denler
et al., 2009).

Model values,
expectancies for success, and
enthusiasm (Eccles, 2006)
Provide STEM teachers with a respected
peer role model to help them establish
goals, implement strategies, and enhance
their understanding of cultures, equity, and
inclusion.

Increasing Confidence in Implementing Culturally Inclusive Teaching Practices
The results and findings of this study suggest that STEM teachers need to increase their
confidence in culturally inclusive teaching practices. The stakeholders’ lack of confidence
suggests that a solution rooted in self-efficacy theory would be most effective at overcoming this
gap. Consiglio et al. (2016) found that feedback as well as success on tasks positively influences
people’s perceptions of competence. As well, Pajares (2006) discussed how feedback and
modeling increase self-efficacy. This indicates that providing STEM teachers with feedback
while attempting to implement culturally inclusive teaching practices would increase their
confidence. The recommendation then is for the organization to provide a mechanism for STEM
teachers to receive feedback and guidance while practicing culturally inclusive teaching within

102
their classroom setting.
Self-efficacy beliefs are often dependent on social relationships and can be altered
through vicarious experiences while observing others accomplish tasks (Bandura, 1997). Powell
et al. (2016) studied teacher self-efficacy for culturally responsive practices by evaluating
participants’ progress during a one-year professional development program. As part of their
study, the intervention incorporated individual classroom coaching and mentoring. This
included, instructional planning support, collaboration, and feedback through the development of
individual action plans (Powell et al., 2016). The results of this study showed that teachers who
received the intervention were significantly more confident in their ability to implement
culturally responsive instruction and this translated to better student outcomes (Powell et al.,
2016). Consequently, the recommendation to incorporate modeling and feedback as a way to
improve STEM teacher self-efficacy for culturally inclusive teaching is supported in recent
literature.
Increasing Outcome Expectancy and Value for Culturally Inclusive Teaching Practices
The findings of this study suggest that STEM teachers need to increase their value and
outcome expectancy for culturally inclusive teaching practices. The stakeholders’ need to
increase their value and outcome expectancy for CIT indicates a solution rooted in expectancy-
value motivational theory would be most efficacious at overcoming this performance gap. Denler
et al. (2009) found that role models who are deemed credible will foster positive values. As well,
Eccles (2006) discussed the importance of modeling values through positive expectancies and
enthusiasm. This would suggest that providing teachers with an effective peer model would help
increase value. The recommendation then is to provide STEM teachers with a respected peer role
model to help them establish goals, implement strategies, and enhance their understanding of

103
cultures, equity, and inclusion.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), active choice, persistence, and mental effort are the
three factors of motivational performance. Task value directly influences motivational factors
related to performance, effort, and persistence (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Subsequently, from a
theoretical perspective, increasing value for a task increases performance for that task. Research
shows that peer models are effective at promoting positive values (Pajares, 2006). In addition, it
is important for modeling to take place in a setting that can foster a sense of competence and
social connectedness (Eccles, 2006). Ladson-Billing (2009) stresses the importance for
professionals familiar with culturally relevant teaching competencies to mentor inexperienced
teachers. This evidence suggests that peer-modeling by a colleague competent in cultural
diversity, equity, and inclusion can provide STEM teachers with increased value for culturally
inclusive teaching practices.
Organization-Related Recommendations
The organizational influences listed in Table 8 denote the remaining organizational needs
and are emphasized based on their importance to the stakeholder goal and representation in the
research literature. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) suggest that organizational culture is
composed of cultural models–the shared beliefs, behaviors, and values, as well as the cultural
setting–the context in which organizational activities occur. To accomplish performance goals,
the organizational culture must be aligned with organizational behavior (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 8 addresses principles supported by research for each organizational influence, including
the importance of leadership that promotes a diverse, equitable, and inclusive organizational
culture (Angeline, 2011), as well as the necessary guidance (Knowles, 1980), and resources
(Waters et al., 2003) needed to improve performance. Table 8 also addresses the context-specific

104
recommendations for each organizational influence based on each theoretical principle.
Table 8: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization needs to
foster a culture that
encourages STEM teachers to
engage in practices that
promote equity and inclusivity
for URMs (Cultural Model).
Effective leadership includes fostering
an organizational culture that promotes
equity and inclusion and cultivates an
atmosphere where diversity is viewed
as an asset to the organization and its
stakeholders (Angeline, 2011; Prieto,
Phipps, & Osiri, 2011).
Provide opportunities for
administrators and STEM teachers
to discuss practices once per quarter,
share ideas, and make decisions that
foster equity and inclusivity for
URMs.
The organization needs to
provide professional
development opportunities,
time, and resources to
encourage STEM teachers to
be more equitable and
inclusive (Cultural Setting).
Organizational effectiveness increases
when leaders ensure that employees
have the resources needed to achieve
the organization’s goals (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty, 2003).
Align the allocation of professional
development opportunities and
resources with the goals and
priorities that promote culturally
inclusive teacher practices.

The organization needs to
specify its goals to STEM
teachers related to promoting
URMs through culturally
inclusive teaching practices
(Cultural Setting).
People are goal oriented and are more
motivated to participate (and learn)
when they see the relevance of
information, a request, or task (the
why) to their own circumstances
(Knowles, 1980).
Provide clearly articulated
performance goals linked to the
school’s guiding principles and
strategic plan that address culturally
equitable and inclusive teaching
practices for STEM teachers.

Fostering an Organizational Culture Promoting Equity for URMs
SCSG needs to foster an organizational culture that encourages STEM teachers to engage
in practices that promote equity and inclusivity for URMs. A principle rooted in diversity theory
has been selected to close this performance gap. Effective leadership includes fostering an
organizational culture that promotes equity and inclusion and cultivates an atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as an asset to the organization and its stakeholders (Angeline, 2011; Prieto et
al., 2011). This suggests that SCSG leadership needs to take explicit steps to foster an equitable
and inclusive organizational environment. Therefore, the recommendation is to provide

105
opportunities once per quarter for administrators and STEM teachers to discuss practices, share
ideas, and make decisions that foster equity and inclusivity for URMs.
Although difficult to influence, it is essential to align organizational change and
organizational culture to increase the probability of success (Clark & Estes, 2008). As well,
practices that promote understanding diversity and the importance of diverse perspectives have
been shown to improve performance (Homan et al., 2007; Prieto et al., 2011). When leadership
values diversity, workgroups react more positively to diversity (Homan et al., 2007). Therefore,
the literature suggests that to improve performance related to culturally inclusive teaching, it is
important to foster a culture that embraces diversity and inclusivity mirroring the practices
expected of STEM teachers.
Providing Opportunities and Resources to Encourage Equity and Inclusivity
SCSG needs to provide professional development, and dedicate time and resources
encouraging STEM teachers to be more equitable and inclusive. A principle rooted in
organizational change theory has been selected to close this resource gap. Organizational
effectiveness increases when leaders ensure that employees have the resources needed to achieve
the organization’s goals (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). This suggests that careful
allocation of resources dedicated to equity and inclusion would help encourage STEM teachers
to improve their practice. Therefore, the recommendation is to align the allocation of
professional development opportunities and resources with the goals and priorities that promote
culturally inclusive teaching practices.
Lehman et al. (2002), as part of their evaluation of organizational readiness for change,
stress the importance of resources and training as an antecedent to change. Given the complexity
of implementing a change in teaching practices, it is important to provide teachers with sufficient

106
resources (Fullan, 2015). Griner and Stewart (2013), in their development of a tool for culturally
responsive teaching, highlight resources as a key component of successful implementation.
Additionally, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015) established
standards emphasizing the responsibility of school leaders to promote culturally responsive
teaching and increase teacher capacity for its practice. Accordingly, access to resources and
ongoing opportunities to practice are critical to improving STEM teachers’ capacity for
culturally inclusive teaching.
Establishing Goals for STEM Teachers Promoting Culturally Inclusive Practices
SCSG needs to specify its goals to STEM teachers with respect to the promotion of
URMs through culturally inclusive practices. A principle rooted in organizational leadership
theory has been selected to close this performance gap. People are goal oriented and are more
motivated to participate (and learn) when they see the relevance of information, a request, or task
(the why) to their own circumstances (Knowles, 1980). This suggests that establishing specific
goals relevant to the STEM teachers would improve performance. Therefore, the
recommendation is to provide clearly articulated performance goals linked to the school’s
guiding principles and strategic plan that address culturally equitable and inclusive teaching
practices for STEM teachers.
The significance of setting goals while implementing organizational change is well
documented (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Kotter (2007) describes
communicating a vision for change and the need for stakeholders to understand goals and
direction. Challenging goals, that are assigned to employees, have been shown to improve
performance (Wood et al., 1990). Additionally, Kezar (2011) established basic principles of
change listing the importance of connecting the change process to the institutional identity.

107
Therefore, it is essential that the goals of the organization match the strategic plan and other
guiding principles to help sustain the change (Buchanan et al., 2005). The literature supports the
need for SCSG to set specific goals to guide decision-making and progress toward culturally
inclusive teaching practices.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are components of a study that the researcher cannot control. Awareness of
one’s own biases and connection to the study is an important aspect of research (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). One of the key limitations of this study is the close proximity of the researcher
to the organization. As a senior leader of SCSG, involvement with key decisions at that level
could have impacted the evaluative nature of the research. As such, the researcher is in a position
of authority and also has personal relationships and daily interactions with the participants.
Familiarity with the researcher and study could have influenced the participants’ responses to
survey and interview questions. For instance, due to social desirability or self-report biases,
participants may have answered questions based more on senior leadership expectations rather
than their own experience. Also, because of the sensitive nature of this study, participants may
have reported answers inconsistent with their actual beliefs. However, specific strategies to
communicate the importance of anonymity as well as the use of a proxy unrelated to the study to
conduct interviews likely helped mitigate such biases.
Delimitations are the decisions made by the researcher that place boundaries on the study.
This study was a glimpse into the progress STEM teachers at SCSG are made towards
understanding and applying culturally inclusive teaching practices. Consequently, the study is
delimited to the preliminary phases of the organization’s goal to increase URM STEM
participation. This limited the participants’ capacity to grasp the organization’s initial intention

108
with the change; therefore, care was taken to align survey and interview questions with
reasonable expectations at this stage. In addition, the study is delimited by one school, and a one
stakeholder group, the STEM teachers at SCSG. To protect my influence on the participants and
the progress of the organizational goal, I intentionally removed myself from planning and
decisions related to diversity, equity and inclusion professional development during the
development and process of this study.
Conclusion
The purpose of the study was to explore the STEM teachers’ capacity to implement
culturally inclusive teaching practices by applying the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
focusing on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Southern California School
for Girls offered a unique opportunity to investigate more subtle yet important teaching practices
that may improve the conditions for underrepresented minority students in STEM. The
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were evaluated through a survey,
interviews, and document analysis. The results and findings suggested that because STEM
teachers have an objective mindset due to the nature of their field, they have difficulty relating
culture to their curriculum, and therefore, underemphasize the role of culture in their practice.
Consequently, the STEM teachers’ self-efficacy for CIT is negatively impacted. Efforts made by
the organization to develop a diverse culture that is inclusive and equitable have been well
received, but more resources and direction are needed to build STEM teachers’ capacity.
Recommendations focused on building STEM teachers’ capacity for CIT through one-on-
one coaching and increased dialog was presented. This approach is needed to provide deeper
knowledge of CIT and higher value, outcome expectancies, and subsequently, self-efficacy. In
addition, to achieve the goals outlined in the school’s strategic plan, a step-by-step process that is

109
clearly articulated to the STEM teachers is needed. An implementation plan (Appendix H) was
presented based on Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's (2016) New World Model to increase
motivation and capacity for CIT. By focusing STEM teachers’ efforts on CIT, it is the intention
that underrepresented minority students who attend SCSG develop a more assertive STEM
identity and remain eager to participate in STEM-related classes.

110
References
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school
through college. Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Dept. of Education.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
https://www.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Alliman-Brissett, A. E., & Turner, S. L. (2010). Racism, parent support, and math-based career
interests, efficacy, and outcome expectations among African American
adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 36(2), 197-225.
America COMPETES Act. (2007). https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW
110publ69.pdf
Anderson, E., and Kim., D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and
technology. American Council on Education.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’
thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 34(2), 148–165
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: Expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249–255.
Archer, L., Dewitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2015). Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’
views of science and science careers. Science Education, 99(2), 199-237.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). “Balancing acts'':
Elementary school girls' negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science

111
Education, 96(6), 967-989.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., &
Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los
Angeles minority schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). RAND.
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on
African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125.
Aronson, J., Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the academic
underperformance of minorities and women. In Prejudice (pp. 83-103). Academic Press.
Ayers, W. (2015). To teach: The journey of a teacher. Teachers College Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/1467
8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164-180.
Banning, J., & Folkestad, E. (2012). STEM education related dissertation abstracts: A
bounded qualitative meta-study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6),
730-741.
Bartholomew, S. (2015). Who teaches the “STE” in STEM? Technology and Engineering
Teacher, 75(2), p. 14-19.
Basile, V., & Lopez, E. (2015). And still I see no changes: Enduring views of students of color in

112
science and mathematics education policy reports. Science Education, 99(3), 519-548.
Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban
minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466-489.
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math
anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 107(5), 1860-1863.
Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. (2005). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 174-181.
Berk, R. A. (2017). Microaggressions trilogy: Part 3. Microaggressions in the
classroom. The Journal of Faculty Development, 31(3), 95-110.
Bianchini, J. A. (2013). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America's science
and technology talent at the crossroads. Science Education, 97(1), 163- 166.
Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 8.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Englehard, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David
McKay.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science,

113
mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education, 92-111.
Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2006). Promoting student participation in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics careers. In Higher education in a global society: Achieving
diversity, equity and excellence (pp. 269-282). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), pp. 27-40.
Brame, C. J. (2019). Science Teaching Essentials: Short Guides to Good Practice. Academic
Press.
Brown, J.C. (2015, September 4). Reach your students through culturally responsive STEM
education methods. https://cehdvision2020.umn.edu/blog/culturally-responsive-stem-
education/
Brown, B. A., Henderson, J. B., Gray, S., Donovan, B., Sullivan, S., Patterson, A., & Waggstaff,
W. (2016). From description to explanation: An empirical exploration of the African‐
American pipeline problem in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1),
146-177.
Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop, R., Jones, J. L., Lamont, S. S., Neath, A., &
Whitby, E. (2005). No going back: A review of the literature on sustaining organizational
change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 189-205.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering
Teacher, 70(1), 30.
California Department of Education. (2015). Defining STEM: STEM education in
California. http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp
Cannon, R.K., Simpson, R. (1985). Relationships among attitude, motivation, and achievement

114
of ability grouped, seventh grade, life science students. Science Education, 69,
121-138.
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and
science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244-260.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful
women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218.
Castillo, L., Conoley, C., Cepeda, L., Ivy, K., & Archuleta, D. (2010). Mexican American
adolescents’ perceptions of a pro-college culture. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 9(1), 61-72.
Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The
intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 11(2), 189-203.
Charity Hudley, A., & Mallinson, C. (2017). “It’s worth our time”: A model of culturally and
linguistically supportive professional development for K-12 STEM educators. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 12(3), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9743-
7
Charleston, L., Adserias, R., Lang, N., & Jackson, J. (2014). Intersectionality and STEM: The
role of race and gender in the academic pursuits of African American women in
STEM. Journal of Progressive Policy & Practice, 2(3), 273-293
Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM
fields statistical analysis report. Report NCES 2014–001, US Dept. of Education.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf

115
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: Providing critical
feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10),
1302-1318.
Cokley, K. (2000). An investigation of academic self-concept and its relationship to academic
achievement in African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(2),
148-164.
Cole, D. (2008). Constructive criticism: The role of student-faculty interactions on African
American and Hispanic students' educational gains. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(6), 587-605.
Condron, D. J., Tope, D., Steidl, C. R., & Freeman, K. J. (2013). Racial segregation and the
black/white achievement gap, 1992 to 2009. The Sociological Quarterly, 54(1), 130-157.
Conley, A. M. (2012). Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achievement goal and
expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 32-47.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0026042
Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Di Tecco, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). What makes employees
engaged with their work? The role of self-efficacy and employee’s perceptions of social
context over time. Career Development International.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student Characteristics, Pre-College, College, and
Environmental Factors as Predictors of Majoring in and Earning a STEM Degree: An

116
Analysis of Students Attending a Hispanic Serving Institution. 46(4), 924–942.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209349460
DeCoito, I., & Myszkal, P. (2018). Connecting science instruction and teachers’ self-efficacy
and beliefs in STEM education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(6), 485-
503.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100, 473–490.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.
Dewsbury, B. (2017). On faculty development of STEM inclusive teaching practices. FEMS
Microbiology Letters, 364(18). https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx179
Dewsbury, B., & Brame, C. (2019). Inclusive Teaching. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(2),
fe2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-01-0021
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it's so hard for white people to talk about racism.
Beacon Press.
Donovan, B. M., Mateos, D. M., Osborne, J. F., & Bisaccio, D. J. (2014). Revising the economic
imperative for US STEM education. PLoS Biology, 12(1), 1-5.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001760
Driscoll, K. C., Wang, L., Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2011). Fostering supportive teacher
child relationships: Intervention implementation in a state-funded preschool program.
Early Education & Development, 22(4), 593-619.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. http://www.education.com/

117
reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 109-132. https://linkgalecom.libproxy1.usc.edu/apps/doc/A83789642/
AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=586a4d68
Eccles, J. S., Wong, C. A., & Peck, S. C. (2006). Ethnicity as a social context for the
development of African-American adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5),
407-426.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal
of STEM Education, 3(1), 3.
Espinosa, L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors
and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Education Review,
81(2), 209-241. https://www.doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u
Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G.,
Okpodu, C. M., Robinson, J.T., Summers, M.F., Werner-Washburne, M., Zavala, & M.,
Marsteller, P (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM.
CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), es5.
Farinde, A. A., & Lewis, C. W. (2012). The underrepresentation of African American female
students in STEM fields: Implications for classroom teachers. US-China Education
Review, 2(4), 421-430.
Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). Bureau of Labor Statistics: STEM occupations: Past,
present, and future. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/sciencetechnology-engineering-
and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/home.htm
Feldman, J. (2018). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform

118
schools and classrooms. Corwin Press.
Fergus, E. (2009). Understanding Latino students’ schooling experiences: The relevance of skin
color among Mexican and Puerto Rican high school students. Teachers College
Record, 111(2), 339-375.
Ferry, N. M., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schön's epistemology of practice:
Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly,
48(2), 98–112. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/074171369804800205
Fink, A. (2015). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications.
Foltz, L., Gannon, S., & Kirschmann, S. (2014). Factors that contribute to the persistence of
minority students in STEM fields: this exploratory study examined factors that
contributed to the college persistence of minority students in STEM graduate programs at
LMCU, providing nuance and texture to the existing theory and research. Planning for
Higher Education, 42(4), 46.
Fullan, M. (2015). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press.
Gallavan, N. P. (2000). Multicultural education at the academy: Teacher educators’ challenges,
conflicts, and coping skills. Equity & Excellence in Education, 33(3), 5-11.
Gallavan, N. P. (2007). Seven perceptions influencing novice teachers’ efficacy and cultural
competence. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 2(1), 1.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36,
45–56. https://www.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to
create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150-

119
168.
Garza, R., Alejandro, E. A., Blythe, T., & Fite, K. (2014). Caring for students: What teachers
have to say. ISRN Education, 2014.
Gay, G. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about cultural diversity: Problems and Possibilities. In H, Fives
& M/G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 436-
452). Routledge.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Chapter 3: Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of
Research in Education, 25(1), 99-125.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Pearson.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Gonsalves, L. M. (2002). Making connections: Addressing the pitfalls of white faculty/black
male student communication. College Composition and Communication, 435-465.
Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the
school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911-922.
Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. L. (2013). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality
through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48(4), 585-
621.
Grossman, J. M., & Porche, M. V. (2014). Perceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers to STEM

120
success. Urban Education, 49(6), 698-727.
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and
teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 153-
166.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions.
American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627–643.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003627
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Hilton, J. L., & Von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 237
271.
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Bridging
faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and
performance in diverse work groups. Journal of applied psychology, 92(5), 1189.
Hooks, B. (2014). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N. L., Lin, M. H., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L. L. (2009). Diversifying
science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research
in Higher Education, 50(2), 189-214.
Hurtado, S., Newman, C., Tran, M., & Chang, M. (2010). Improving the rate of success for
underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2010, (148), 5-15.
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are
susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of

121
males. Psychological Science, 11(5), 365-371.
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2003). Do high-achieving female students underperform in
private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual
processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 796-805.
Jiang, Y., Ma, L., & Gao, L. (2016). Assessing teachers’ metacognition in teaching: The Teacher
Metacognition Inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 403–413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.014
Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching
stereotype threat as a means of improving women's math performance. Psychological
Science, 16(3), 175-179.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.). SAGE
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational
program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 16(2), 105-123.
Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher
expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy.
In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 281-388). Academic Press.
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One world.
Kezar, A. (2001b). Research-based principles of change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 113-123.

122
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century:
Recent Research and Conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume
28, Number 4 (Vol. 155). John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, A., & Sinatra, G. (2018). Science identity development: an interactionist approach.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-
0149-9
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
King Miller, B. (2015). Effective teachers: Culturally relevant teaching from the voices of
Afro-Caribbean immigrant females in STEM. SAGE Open, 5(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015603427
Kluge, A., Grauel, B., & Burkolter, D. (2013). Combining principles of Cognitive Load Theory
and diagnostic error analysis for designing job aids: Effects on motivation and diagnostic
performance in a process control task. Applied Ergonomics, 44(2), 285-296.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Follett.
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
86, 97-103.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://www.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kump, B., Moskaliuk, J., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). Cognitive foundations of
organizational learning: re-introducing the distinction between declarative and non-
declarative knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-12.

123
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). Yes, but how do we do it?”: Practicing culturally relevant
pedagogy. City kids, city schools: More reports from the front row, 162-177.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Landivar, L.C. (2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin, in
American community survey reports. Washington, DC: United States Department of
Commerce.
Lehman, W. E., Greener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing organizational readiness for
change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 197-209.
Lim, N., Haddad, A., Butler, D. M., & Giglio, K. (2013). First steps toward improving DoD
STEM workforce diversity: response to the 2012 Department of defense STEM diversity
summit. RAND.
Lin, X., & Schwartz, D. L. (2003). Reflection at the crossroads of cultures. Mind, Culture, and
Activity, 10(1), 9-25.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition.
Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_6
Loveland, T. & Dunn, D. (2014). Teaching engineering habits of mind in technology education.
Technology & Engineering Teacher, 73(8), p. 13-18.
Maass, A., & Cadinu, M. (2003). Stereotype threat: When minority members underperform.
European Review of Social Psychology, 14(1), 243-275.
Major, B., & Schmader, T. (1998). Coping with stigma through psychological

124
disengagement. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Stigma: The target’s perspective.
Academic Press.
Martens, A., Johns, M., Greenberg, J., & Schimel, J. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The
effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42(2), 236-243.
Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Building bridges between psychological science and
education: Cultural stereotypes, STEM, and equity. Prospects, 46(2), 215-234
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. SAGE.
McGlone, M. S., & Aronson, J. (2007). Forewarning and forearming stereotype-threatened
students. Communication Education, 56(2), 119-133.
McIntyre, R. B., Paulson, R. M., & Lord, C. G. (2003). Alleviating women's mathematics
stereotype threat through salience of group achievements. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39(1), 83-90.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M., Bledsoe, K. L., Sullivan, M., Wilson, A., (2016). Utilization of mixed
methods for transformative purposes. In Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), SAGE
handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp.193-214). SAGE.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self
and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247.

125
Moller, S., Banerjee, N., Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., Dancy, M., Wright, E., &
Valentino, L. (2015). Moving Latino/a students into STEM majors in college: The role of
teachers and professional communities in secondary schools. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 14(1), 3-33.
Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2002). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Beacon
Press.
Museus, Samuel D., Palmer, Robert T., Davis, Ryan J., & Maramba, Dina C. (2011). Special
issue: Racial and ethnic minority students' success in STEM education. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 36(6), 1-140.
National Academy of Science (NAS). (2007). Rising Above the gathering storm: Energizing
and employing america for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463/rising-above-the-gathering-storm
energizing-and-employing-america-for
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2009). President Barack Obama addresses the 146th
annual meeting of the national academy of sciences. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(24), 9539-9543.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/24/9539.full.pdf
National Academy of Science (NAS). (2010). Expanding underrepresented minority
participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/Xb-
-Expanding_Underrepresented_Minority_Participation.pdf
National Association of Independent Schools. (2006). National public opinion poll: Awareness
and perception of independent schools. http://www.nais.org/Articles/SiteAssets/Pages

126
/NAIS-2006-National-Public-Opinion-Poll149920/PublicOpinionPoll2006.pdf.pdf
National Association of Independent Schools. (2012). Equity and justice.
http://www.nais.org/Series/Pages/Equity-and-Justice.aspx
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). (2015). Professional standards
for educational leaders 2015. Author.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistic. (2019).
Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019.
Special Report NSF 19-304. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest
National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation. https://wayback.archiveit.org/5902/20160210221014/http://
www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdfstart.htm
Nelson, S. W., & Guerra, P. L. (2014). Educator beliefs and cultural knowledge: Implications for
school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 67-95.
Nguyen, H. H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of
minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(6), 1314-1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012702
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of
empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172-209.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.
Owens, L. M., & Ennis, C. D. (2005). The ethic of care in teaching: An overview of supportive
literature. Quest, 57(4), 392-425.

127
Owen, S. V., Toepperwein, M. A., Marshall, C. E., Lichtenstein, M. J., Blalock, C. L., Liu, Y.,
Pruski, L. A., & Grimes, K. (2008). Finding pearls: psychometric reevaluation of the
Simpson–Troost Attitude Questionnaire (STAQ). Science Education, 92(6), 1076-1095.
Pai, Y., Adler, S., & Shadiow, L. (2006). Cultural foundations of education (4th ed.). Merrill.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy
-theory/.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24(2), 124-139.
Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Thompson, T. (2010). Theory meets practice: HBCU initiatives
that promote academic success among African Americans in STEM. Journal of College
Student Development, 51(4), 440-443.
Pang, V. O., Stein, R., Gomez, M., Matas, A., & Shimogori, Y. (2011). Cultural competencies:
Essential elements of caring-centered multicultural education. Action in Teacher
Education, 33(5-6), 560-574.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2001). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching:
Principles and practices for teacher preparation. U.S. Department of Education.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Peters, J., McMullen, B., & Peters, P. D. (2018). Professional development school experiences

128
and culturally sustaining teaching. Journal of Higher Education Theory and
Practice, 18(1), 32-48.
Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire k-12
education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for the future.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed
-final.pdf
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing
one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/
files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T., & Osiri, J. K. (2011). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(4),
13–22.
Pruitt, S. L. (2014). The next generation science standards: The features and challenges. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 145-156.
Reddick, L., Jacobson, W., Linse, A., & Yong, D. (2005). A framework for inclusive teaching in
STEM disciplines. In M. Ouellett (Ed.), Teaching inclusively: Diversity and faculty

129
development (Chapter 32). New Forums Press.
Redmond-Sanogo, A., Angle, J., & Davis, E. (2016). Kinks in the STEM Pipeline: Tracking
STEM Graduation Rates Using Science and Mathematics Performance: Kinks in the
STEM Pipeline. School Science and Mathematics, 116(7), 378–388.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12195
Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., & Newcomer, L. (2014). Using
Coaching to Support Teacher Implementation of Classroom-based Interventions. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 23(1), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9186-0
Rivers, E. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering.
National Science Foundation.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Roeser, R. W., Galloway, M., Casey-Cannon, S., Watson, C., Keller, L., & Tan, E. (2008).
Identity representations in patterns of school achievement and well-being among early
adolescent girls: Variable-and person-centered approaches. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 28(1), 115-152.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Russell, M. L., & Atwater, M. M. (2005). Traveling the road to success: A discourse on
persistence throughout the science pipeline with African American students at a
predominantly white institution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 691-
715.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

130
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Saenz, D. S. (1994). Token status and problem-solving deficits: Detrimental effects of
distinctiveness and performance monitoring. Social Cognition, 12(1), 61-74.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, 5
th
Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working
memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440-451.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat
effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336-356.
Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. (2015). Exploring teacher effects for mindset
intervention outcomes in seventh-grade science classes. Middle Grades Research
Journal, 10(2), 17-32.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2),
113-125.
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich.
Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 85-94.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and

131
shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80-83.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153
189.
Siwatu, K. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086–1101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011
Skamp, K. (2007). Conceptual learning in the primary and middle years: The interplay of heads,
hearts, and hands-on science. Teaching Science, 53(3), 18-22.
Sorell, T. (2013). Scientism: Philosophy and the infatuation with science. Routledge.
Spaulding, K., & Dwyer, F. (2001). The effect of time-on-task when using job aids as an
instructional strategy. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(4), 437.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
Stearns, L. M., Morgan, J., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2012). A teacher observation
instrument for PBL classroom instruction. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and
Research, 13(2), 7-16.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
Steele, C. M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us (issues of
our time). WW Norton & Company.
Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

132
Steinke, J., Lapinski, M. K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y., Evergreen, S. H.,
& Kuchibhotla, S. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school– aged children's
perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science
Communication, 29(1), 35-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007306508
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271.
Sue, V., & Ritter, L. (2012). Conducting online surveys (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Exploring the Pygmalion effect: The role of teacher
expectations, academic self-concept, and class context in students’ math achievement.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101787
Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in
science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-1144.
Tiedemann, J. (2000). Gender-related beliefs of teachers in elementary school
mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 191-207.
Tetler, S., & Baltzer, K. (2011). The climate of inclusive classrooms: The pupil
perspective. London Review of Education, 9(3), 333–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2011.616326
Trusz, S. (2018). Four mediation models of teacher expectancy effects on students’ outcomes in
mathematics and literacy. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 257-287.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.

133
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
12(3), 243-70.
United States Census Bureau. (2017). QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
geo/chart/US/PST045217
United States Census Bureau. (2018). Demographic turning points for the United States:
Population projections for 2020 to 2060. https://www.census.gov/content/dam
/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/P25_1144.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (2018). Population Projections. https://www.census.gov/
programs-surveys/popproj/about/faq.html#par_textimage_1540554195
US Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection. (2014). Data Snapshot, College and
Career Readiness. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdccollege-and
-career-readiness-snapshot.pdf
van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of a
continuing professional development programme: A case study. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 47, 142-150.
Varelas, M., Martin, D. B., & Kane, J. M. (2012). Content learning and identity construction: A
framework to strengthen African American students’ mathematics and science learning in
urban elementary schools. Human Development, 55(5-6), 319-339.
Vieluf, S., Kunter, M., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2013). Teacher self-efficacy in cross-national
perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 92-103.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the

134
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and
postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-
1121.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid
continent Research for Education and Learning.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/
ceps.1999.1015
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002). Development of achievement motivation. Academic Press.
Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 16(1).
Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational performance
in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 46(2), 181-201.
Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology, 41,
331-357.
Yager, R. (2015). The role of exploration in the classroom (STEM). Society, 52(3), p. 210-
220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9890-6
Yen, H. (2013). Census: White majority in US gone by 2043. NBC News.
http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/12/census-whites-no-longer-a-majority-in-us-by-2043/
Yoon, J., Kyoung, J. K., & Martin, L. A. (2016). Culturally inclusive science teaching (CIST)

135
model for teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal for
Multicultural Education, 10(3), 322-338. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-01-2016-0012
Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self‐efficacy
beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology
careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036-1058.
Zeldin, A.L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in
mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 215–246.
Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic
classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59-82

136
Appendix A: Sampling Criteria for Interview and Survey
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Surveys offer a way to quantify beliefs, opinions, and trends in a population (Creswell &
Creswell, 2002). A census sample is selected when the whole population of a study can be
reasonably accessed (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Because the population for this study is
limited to 28 STEM teachers, a cross-sectional (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) census of all STEM
teachers was distributed for the initial quantitative phase. The purpose of the quantitative phase
is to provide insight into the qualitative phase (Creswell & Creswell, 2002), therefore, important
characteristics from the quantitative census were used to emphasize specific questions during the
interviews.
Criterion 1
To guide selection of survey participants, each participant must teach more than 75
percent (fulltime) at SCSG. To fully understand the organizational culture and practices
regarding diversity and inclusion, participants needed to be part of the SCSG community to the
extent that they engage in meetings and activities expected of full-time employees.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
To determine STEM teachers at SCSG, STEM classes were identified based on the
school’s Course of Study that lists courses by department (science, math, technology, etc.). Once
STEM classes were documented, this information was then matched with teacher schedules to
formulate a list of teachers who teach a minimum of one STEM class. Teacher email addresses
are available in the faculty and staff directory.
To build interest in the study, the identified STEM teachers at SCSG were introduced to
the study’s purpose and process through an informational email. Because the researcher is in a

137
direct supervisory role, a CITI-trained graduate of USC’s Rossier School of Education will act as
a proxy for interviews and facilitate any interactions between the researcher and participants to
ensure ethical standards. Following the introduction email, an anonymous online survey was
delivered to all 28 STEM teachers via an email link.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Because it is not practical to interview all 28 STEM teachers, a sample of nine interview
participants were selected. Survey participants had the option to volunteer for an interview
anonymously via a separate link at the end of the survey. Based on the number of volunteers,
participants were recruited and scheduled for an interview through email by the proxy. This
method will provide a practical number of participants with a basic understanding of how SCSG
engages in diversity, equity, and inclusivity within the STEM classrooms.
Criterion 1
In order to be eligible for the study, the participants needed to have had more than one
year of teaching experience at SCSG. To explore the STEM teacher’s experience while at SCSG,
the participants must have been employed at SCSG during the previous academic year.

138
Appendix B: Survey Protocol
Survey Email Invitation
You are invited to take this brief survey as part of Sean Fitts’s doctoral study on STEM
teachers’ capacity to implement practices that foster underrepresented students’ interest in
STEM. The results of this survey and other aspects of the study will be used to make
recommendations to help improve institutional practices for underrepresented students.
Instructions
Thank you for taking this survey regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion practices from
your perspective as an instructor of STEM. Your feedback is important. Your participation in
this survey is anonymous. You may skip any questions and terminate your participation in the
study at any time for any reason. This survey should take between 5-7 minutes. Please note that
this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer. Some features may be less
compatible for use on a mobile device. At the conclusion of the survey, you will be provided
with an email address to indicate your willingness to participate in a confidential interview via
Zoom on a date that is convenient for you.
1. By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is
voluntary, you are 18 years of age, and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your
participation in the study at any time and for any reason.
(yes, no)
Survey Items
2. Please indicate your years of classroom teaching experience
1. 0-4 years 2. 5-10 years 3.11-15 years 4. More than 15 years
3. I have attended at least one of the school’s professional development days regarding diversity,

139
equity, and inclusion within the last two years.
(Yes, No)
4. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:
a. The school is providing professional growth opportunities relating to diversity, equity, and
inclusion.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
b. I enjoy learning about diversity, equity, and inclusion.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
c. Students will be successful at achieving learning objectives when instruction is adapted to
meet their needs.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
d. Connecting my students’ cultural background with my classroom instruction will lead to
deeper learning.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
e. It is important to consider my students' cultures and experiences while planning lessons.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
f. It is important that I treat all students equally, irrespective of race and ethnicity.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
g. Learning about my students’ cultural background is important to me.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
5. Answer the following questions based on the course(s) you teach. Higher numbers on the scale
indicate higher confidence or agreement with the statement.
a. I am able to design a lesson that shows how different cultural groups have contributed to the

140
subject area.
(Rate Scale 0–100)
b. I am able to identify ways that the school culture (e.g., values, norms, and practices) is
different from my students’ home culture.
(Rate Scale 0–100)
c. I am confident in my ability to design a classroom environment using displays that reflect a
variety of cultures.
(Rate Scale 0–100)
d. I am able to critically examine my instruction to determine whether it reinforces negative
cultural stereotypes.
(Rate Scale 0–100)
e. I am able to implement cooperative learning activities such as students collaborating on a
problem for those students who like to work in groups.
(Rate Scale 0–100)
f. I am able to teach students about their cultures’ contributions within the subject I teach.
(Rate Scale 0–100)
6. List the ways in which you can obtain information about your students’ background and home
life.

141
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to take the time to participate in the interview phase of this study.
We have forty-five minutes for this interview; however, I have allotted sixty minutes in case we
need extra time. This study’s purpose is to explore the school’s culture and practices regarding
diversity, equity, and inclusion within STEM classrooms. This interview is part of Sean’s
doctoral study, and in the context of this study, he is not serving as an employee of this
organization nor is he assessing your performance as a teacher. To ensure you remain
anonymous, I am serving as a proxy in the process of administering the interviews. The
interview audio will be recorded, uploaded to a secure cloud storage account, and transcribed by
a third party. Before Sean views the transcription, I will remove any identifying language to
protect your anonymity. As such, the information you provide in this interview is confidential
and your name or responses will not be disclosed to anyone at any point in this study. You may
decide not to answer any questions at any time, and you may withdraw from the study during any
part of the process. A transcript of your responses will be shared with you at a later date to allow
you to check the accuracy of responses and withdraw any specific responses if preferred. Three
years after the date of Sean’s dissertation defense, all information linked to this interview will be
erased and securely discarded.
Having said that, do you have any questions before we begin? Please review and keep
this information sheet (see copy below). Do I have your permission to begin the interview? As
well, do I have your permission to record this conversation?
Interview Questions
Again, thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Your answers to the following

142
questions will contribute to our understanding of teaching practices in the context of diversity,
equity, and inclusion. The first set of questions I will ask relates to the school’s initiatives to help
employees understand diversity, equity, and inclusion. Feel free to take a moment to think about
the question before you begin your response. Also, if you need me to repeat a question, please do
not hesitate to ask.
1. Tell me about your experience regarding the school’s professional development opportunities
or workshops directed at diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Probing: As a result of the professional development, please describe any
discussions, if any, you have had at the department level.
2. Tell me how you would utilize resources, if available, at the school to learn more about
diversity, equity, and inclusion training opportunities. Who would you contact? What
would that process look like?
3. In what ways, if at all, do you feel the school is a culturally inclusive institution?
4. In what ways, if at all, do you see the school encourage all Black, Indigenous and people of
color (BIPOC) students’ success?
5. In what ways, if at all, has the school communicated its goals related to diversity, equity, and
inclusion?
Transition: I’m interested to know more about your experience, if any, with certain terms
related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The following three questions focus on this
terminology.
6a. When you hear the term implicit bias, what comes to mind? At what times, if at all, have you
heard these terms used at school?
6b. When you hear term microaggression, what comes to mind? At what times, if at all, have

143
you heard these terms used at school?
6c. When you hear term stereotype threat, what comes to mind? At what times, if at all, have
you heard these terms used at school?
Transition: Now we will discuss more about your practices regarding diversity, equity, and
inclusion.
7. In what ways, if at all, have you reflected on your teaching practices or thought about your
role as a teacher in the classroom since the school’s professional development workshops
on diversity, equity, and inclusion?
8. What plans, personal expectations, or goals, if at all, have you set as a result of the
school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives?
9. In what ways, if at all, do you see yourself as successful at promoting equity and inclusivity
in your classroom?
Probing: While teaching a lesson, please describe any differences you keep in mind when
working with BIPOC students?
10. In what ways, if at all, do you encourage BIPOC students to participate in STEM (STEAM)
classes?
11. Some would say that understanding a student’s cultural background is one of the most
important aspect of connecting course content to student learning. In what ways do you
agree or disagree with this statement?
12. What do you think it means to promote a positive STEM identity?
13. Suppose you were given the task of deciding the next professional development to promote
diversity, equity, and inclusive practices at the school. What would that look like?

144
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. You will receive a copy of
the transcript of this interview via email within the next few weeks. Please review this transcript
for accuracy and communicate any changes by completing the form attached to the email. As a
token of my appreciation, you will receive an Amazon gift card via email shortly.

145
Appendix D: Documents Analysis Protocol
All documents were accessed anonymously via the school’s online learning management
system or through the school’s Google Drive of which the researcher has regular access to.
Documents were collected and stored digitally in a secure, password protected folder for the
duration of this study, and held for three years after the researcher’s dissertation defense.
Table 9: List of Documents for Analysis
List of Documents for Analysis
Document Purpose
Meeting Agendas/Minutes To document the organizational discussions
regarding ethnic diversity, equity, inclusion, and
STEM initiatives.

Email Announcements To document the organization’s
communications to faculty and staff about
diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Marketing Materials To document the organization’s commitment to
ethnic diversity, inclusion, and STEM.

Classroom Materials To document the presence of diversity and
inclusivity in classroom material.

STEM Teachers’ Syllabi and Course
Expectations
To document the diversity and inclusivity of
course materials such as references to different
viewpoints and flexibility regarding
expectations.

Teacher Online Course Pages To document the diversity and inclusivity of
course materials such as images and examples
representing diverse perspectives and inclusive
language.

Professional Development Materials To document professional development
regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Organization Budget To document budget items related to diversity,
equity, and inclusion.

Event Planning Database To document the events related to diversity,
equity, and inclusion.

146
Appendix E: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research relies on the researcher’s ability to counteract threats to credibility
and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2018). According to Maxwell (2013), researcher bias
and reactivity are both threats that are often scrutinized in qualitative studies. Because the
researcher is a member of the organization under study and has preconceptions, it is important to
consider both threats throughout the process. In addition, in a qualitative study, the interpretation
of data is based on the researcher’s own assumptions and worldview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2018).
To reduce the threats to credibility and trustworthiness, specific strategies were employed
throughout the design, data collection, and data analysis phases.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2018), triangulation, the use of two or more
measurements, is an important strategy to increase the credibility of a qualitative study. In the
qualitative phase, both document analysis and interviews were used to help validate findings. To
reduce the reactivity, interviews were conducted by a proxy. The interviewer was provided with
a peer-reviewed interview guide that contains a variety of open-ended questions to help the
interviewer elicit thorough responses (Patton, 2002) that are linked to the research questions.
Merriam and Tisdell (2018) emphasize that an adequate engagement with the research material
increases the credibility of data. To mitigate concerns regarding credibility and trustworthiness, it
was necessary to record and have a third party transcribe the recorded interviews and to
meticulously look for emerging patterns in data transcripts until saturation (Merriam & Tisdell,
2018), and to collect rich data by keeping copious notes (Maxwell, 2013).

147
Appendix F: Validity and Reliability
Having adequate validity and reliability helps the researcher uncover constructive data
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To establish validity and reliability in quantitative research, it is
essential to verify that the assessment tools measure what they intend to assess and to do so
dependably (Salkind, 2017). In addition, validity and reliability can be substantiated through a
rigorous process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2018).
Reliability refers to how well an instrument consistently performs as a measurement tool
(Salkind, 2017). The survey items were developed by the researcher to answer the proposed
research questions. The survey questions were evaluated by the dissertation committee for clarity
and applicability. Internal consistency and reliability tests measure how well each survey item
correlates with the total score (Salkind, 2017). In this study, the internal consistency reliability
was determined by comparing the answers on survey items to see if there are discrepancies
between the responses. In addition, the survey items were pre-tested with peers in my doctoral
program who are not involved in the study in an effort to gather feedback on their clarity and
readability. Instructions for each test was standardized and administered in the same manner for
each survey (Salkind, 2017). Salkind (2017) recommends that multiple items target particular
components as a way of increasing reliability. In this study, the components to be targeted were
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences relating to culturally inclusive teaching
practices. Lastly, the survey was administered at a time when external events are minimal
(Salkind, 2017). For teachers, this could include times when grades are due or when holidays are
approaching.
Validity indicates that the instrument measures what it purports to measure (Salkind,
2017). Salkind (2017) described content validity as a test property that validates the contents of a

148
test. To maximize the content validity of the items, the researcher had the survey reviewed by a
professor familiar with culturally inclusive teaching practices. Items were checked to ensure that
they aligned with the research questions relating to knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. Additionally, items were analyzed through the lens of the conceptual framework to
confirm that the motivational influences of self-efficacy, value, and outcome expectancy were
represented in the survey.
To increase the likelihood of participation and completion, the survey design was user-
friendly and formatted tactically (Sue & Ritter, 2012). Sue and Ritter (2012) recommended to
include matrices to organize the survey items and to maintain font size and type consistency
throughout. Also, grouping questions in a logical order helped reduce the respondents’ cognitive
load (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Initially, participants were encouraged to participate via
email. Due to the small sample size and the researcher’s familiarity with the participant group,
the response rates were high (75%). Responses were monitored via Qualtrics. Participants who
did not complete the survey within two days were sent a friendly follow-up email to encourage
them to complete the survey.

149
Appendix G: Ethics
This study’s purpose is centered around addressing the underrepresentation of
marginalized groups and framed within transformative sequential mixed methods design
(Mertens et al., 2016); therefore, ethics are important to consider in the context of researching a
sensitive topic. How a researcher frames their research creates a perception of their ethical
viewpoint (Glesne, 2011). The choice to frame this research within the transformative worldview
establishes an ethical approach that acknowledges the marginalization of the underrepresented
group (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Informed consent allows participants to make informed
decisions regarding their participation, informs them that they may withdraw from the study at
any time, and describes any potential risks involved by participating in the study (Glesne, 2011).
Informed consent also communicates information regarding the confidentiality of participants’
information (Glesne, 2011). This includes general permission to record participants, but also the
expectation that permission was established each time recordings are taken (Rubin & Rubin,
2012). Additionally, information regarding the protection of personal data and safeguarding data
storage is also important to communicate (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Guidelines were given to each
participant prior to the study’s commencement. To verify the safety and wellbeing of the
participants, this study’s plan and protocols were submitted to the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).
It is important for researchers to develop trust with their research participants (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Due to my leadership role within SCSG, I employed a proxy, who is a
graduate of the doctoral program at University of Southern California and has completed CITI-
training, to conduct the in-person aspects of the research study, and all participants’ information
was labeled in such a way as to maintain the anonymity of the participants. Transcripts of

150
recordings were redacted by the proxy prior to releasing them to the researcher to eliminate
information that could be used to identify participants. At the beginning of the study, an email
communication was sent to the STEM teachers explaining basic information regarding the study,
my role as an investigator, and how anonymity and confidentiality be maintained. In addition,
through the recruitment process, information restating the protocol and privacy was included.
Participants were not coerced into participation by incentives. To encourage participation, each
interview participant received a $25 gift card.
Because this study was conducted by a single researcher, the data was interpreted through
my own worldview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As a White male and former science and
robotics teacher at SCSG, I am intricately tied to many aspects of this research. My experience
witnessing the lack of participation by URMs and the pattern of leaky STEM pipeline despite the
school’s many resources make me keenly aware of the subtle implicit practices that teachers
engage in to contribute to this phenomenon. Although I have these biases, I adhered to practices
that let the data guide my study and remain an openminded participant observer (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).

151
Appendix H: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
This implementation and evaluation plan is grounded in the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model proposes four levels of training evaluation:
reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Beginning with level four, the intended results, the
model works in reverse to first prioritize the expected outcomes of training. Along the path of
training evaluation, the model uses leading indicators to align organizational recommendations
to organizational goals. Accordingly, each level's criteria are met through three phases of
implementation: 1) planning for training as well as providing post-implementation support and
monitoring, 2) executing solutions along with accountability measures for training, and 3)
demonstrating value of the training throughout the process. The New World Kirkpatrick Model
connects solutions, goals, and employees to the process and need for training (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The guiding principles of SCSG affirm the organization’s commitment to equity and
inclusion. This commitment is especially important to improve conditions for URMs in STEM
and reach the organizational goal of increasing STEM participation from 12.5% to 25% by
URMs at SCSG. STEM course participation by URMs in middle and secondary school is
indicative of their efficacy for the field (Anderson & Kim, 2006; Foltz et al., 2014; Wang,
2013). This project explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting
STEM teachers’ capacity to implement culturally inclusive teaching practices. The proposed
solution, a multi-step training program with ongoing classroom peer support and coaching for
STEM teachers, should result in improved conditions for URMs and increase their confidence to
pursue STEM electives.

152
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 10 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal outcomes as a result of culturally
inclusive teaching practices by STEM teachers. If the internal outcomes are met as a result of
organizational support for STEM teachers’ practice of culturally inclusive teaching, then the
external outcomes should also be actualized.

153
Table 10: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Improved matriculation
into STEM college
programs by URMs from
SCSG.
1. The number of URMs who
graduated from SCSG who
choose a STEM major in
college.
1. Solicit data from the annual alumnae
survey.
2. Improved perception of
diversity, equity and
inclusion at SCSG by URM
students within STEM.
2. The number of URM students
who indicate agree to highly
agree on questions related to
equity and inclusion.
2. Solicit data from the annual student
survey.
3. Increased interest in
STEM by URMs applying
to SCSG.
3. The number of URMs who
indicate an interest in STEM
courses and activities.
3. Track the frequency of URM
applicants who select STEM electives as
areas of interest on their application.
4. Improved URMs’
perception of STEM.
4. Increased scores on the STAQ
survey.
4. Administer a survey (e.g, Simpson
Troost Attitude Questionnaire) to
measure URMs’ self-efficacy for STEM.
Internal Outcomes
5. Increased value and
outcome expectancy for CIT
by STEM faculty.
5a. The frequency of
applications to professional
development opportunities
related to CIT by STEM faculty.
5a. Track STEM teachers’ professional
development requests related to
equitable and inclusive practices
submitted to the Professional
Development Committee.
5b. The number of resource
requests (books, online tools)
related to equitable and inclusive
practices by STEM faculty.
5b. Track budget requests by STEM
departments.
5c. The number of times
discussions relating to equity
and inclusion occur during
department meetings for STEM
subjects.
5c. Document STEM department agenda
items and meeting minutes.
6. Increased confidence in
CIT by STEM faculty.
6a. The number of STEM
faculty who express confidence
in CIT.
6a. Solicit feedback during quarterly
check-ins by division directors with
STEM department members.
6b. The number of instances
when STEM faculty practice
CIT.
6b. Document evidence of CIT during
the yearly observation process by STEM
department heads.

154
Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders of focus are the STEM teachers at SCSG. As suggested by Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016), behaviors are directly related to the performance of the stakeholders and
the support given by the organization. The first critical behavior is that STEM teachers need to
set specific goals regarding their own CIT. The second critical behavior is that STEM teaching
teams must collaborate and integrate CIT into their lesson and unit planning. The third critical
behavior is that STEM teachers must apply training and coaching strategies by practicing CIT in
their classroom setting. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome
behaviors appear in Table 11.
Table 11: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. STEM teachers
setting individual goals
regarding CIT.
The number of
documented teaching
goals related to CIT via
training and coaching that
are specific, measurable,
and attainable.
STEM department heads
and the director of equity
and inclusion review
STEM teachers’ goals
related to equity and
inclusion.
During the yearly
STEM teacher self-
evaluation process
(first 30 days) and
quarterly thereafter.
2. STEM teaching
teams collaborating
and integrating CIT
into their lesson and
unit planning.
The number of completed
unit and lesson plans that
include CIT developed by
STEM subject teaching
teams.
STEM department heads
and division directors
review lesson and unit
plans.
Ongoing–Quarterly
(every 90 days)
during division-
department meetings.
3. STEM teachers
applying training and
coaching strategies
while practicing CIT in
their classroom.
Recorded application of
CIT practices on
observation reports.
STEM department heads
and the director of equity
and inclusion perform
classroom walkthroughs
and observe STEM
teachers.
Ongoing–During the
monthly classroom
observation cycle.

155
Required Drivers
In order to facilitate and evaluate level 3–behaviors, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
recommend the use of required drivers and systems of monitoring, reinforcing, encouraging, and
rewarding critical behaviors within the organization. Table 12 shows the proposed Level 3–
required drivers’ methods and timing as well as the supported critical behaviors for SCSG.
Table 12: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors
Supported (1, 2, 3)
Reinforcing
Job aid including terminology and references to CIT practices. Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Department meetings with STEM teachers and department heads to
initiate collaboration, goal setting, and timeframes related to CIT.
Bi-Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Collaboration and peer modeling of CIT during subject team
meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and peer modeling of CIT with the director of equity and
inclusion.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Division directors’ acknowledgement at department heads’
meetings and division meetings when exemplary practices of CIT
are implemented.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Head of School’s acknowledgement at all-employee meetings of
progress regarding equitable and inclusive practices by STEM
teachers.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Division director and department heads observe STEM teachers
integrating CIT via lesson–unit plans and instruction.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Director of equity and inclusion observes STEM teachers during
team planning meetings and instruction.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

156
Organizational Support
In order to facilitate and support the STEM teachers in achieving the organizational goal
of implementing CIT practices to improve URMs’ participation in STEM, SCSG must allocate
resources. Adequate resources in support of training is critical to program success (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). STEM teachers need continued professional training in CIT followed by
ongoing coaching and peer mentoring to improve their knowledge and practice their skills. This
results in allotting time and earmarking funds to pay for workshops, consultants, and resources.
As well, division directors and department heads must set aside time in the calendar for
professional development days and meetings to collaborate, plan, and reflect. Kotter (2007)
emphasizes the importance of institutionalizing the organizational change. In addition to direct
costs and tangible resources, SCSG must communicate its vision and goals for equity and
inclusivity and align policies and practices to institutionalize CIT.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Following completion of the recommended solutions, most notably training through one-
on-one coaching and the use of a job aid supporting culturally inclusive teaching practices, the
STEM teachers will be able to:
1. Recognize key terminology and strategies needed to practice CIT. (D)
2. Summarize the steps needed to develop a culturally inclusive classroom. (D)
3. Implement fundamental CIT classroom strategies. (P)
4. Explain how to access resources and information to enhance their CIT practices. (P)
5. Compare their existing curriculum and practices to CIT. (P)
7. Provide feedback on colleagues’ application of CIT skills. (P)

157
8. Plan and monitor their progress and CIT practices. (M)
9. Indicate confidence in their CIT practices. (Confidence)
10. Value the learning and practice of CIT. (Value)
Program
The learning goals outlined in the previous section will be accomplished through an
extensive training program that enhances previous equity and inclusion professional
development by introducing CIT to STEM teachers. The learners–STEM teachers–will gain
insight into the importance of cultural competence, equity, and inclusion as it relates to their
classroom practices and URMs’ success in STEM. The program has three phases: 1) An initial
professional development day prior to the start of school, 2) periodic one-on-one coaching during
the fall semester, and 3) a follow-up day-long workshop during the spring semester.
Through the guidance of a skilled CIT workshop team, the initial professional
development day will center on the construction of a self-generated job aid to highlight
terminology, strategies, and resources. During the six-hour session, STEM teachers will receive a
template to construct their own personal CIT reference for use in their classroom. STEM
teachers will learn about the importance of CIT, what CIT practices are, and how to plan and
prepare to be CIT practitioners. Additionally, the STEM teachers will learn how to collaborate
with their coaches in the next phase of training.
During the fall semester, STEM teachers will be assigned a professional CIT coach. One-
on-one coaching will assist STEM teachers in planning, implementing, and reflecting on their
practice. Three monthly in-person coaching sessions will begin two weeks after the initial
opening workshop. During each coaching session, the coach will collaborate with the STEM
teacher before, during, and after instruction for two lessons. This will enable coaches to see the

158
planning, implementation, and reflection phase and give feedback between lessons.
The spring follow-up workshop will allow all STEM teachers to collaborate and reflect with CIT
specialists after the fall semester cycle. At this time, the CIT workshop coordinators will
establish a professional learning community (PLC) framed around CIT for SCSG. This PLC will
use their experience to create an ongoing opportunity for peer coaching and sharing as STEM
teachers continue to build their knowledge and skills in subsequent years.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The demonstration of declarative knowledge is an antecedent to the application of
knowledge to solve problems. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate learning for both declarative
and procedural knowledge during the learning process. It is also important for STEM faculty to
value the training as a prerequisite to applying newly learned knowledge and skills. Additionally,
STEM faculty must be confident in their ability to succeed at applying their knowledge and skills
while teaching. Accordingly, Table 13 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these
components of learning.

159
Table 13: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks using multiple choice During the workshops
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair, think, share” and other
individual/group activities
Periodically during the opening initial
professional development workshop

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Demonstrating use of the job aids to successfully perform the skills During the one-on-one coaching sessions
Quality of the feedback from peers during group sharing During the workshops

Individual application of the CIT skills During the one-on-one coaching sessions
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey asking participants about
their level of proficiency before and after the training. .
Before the initial professional development
workshop and after the spring follow-up
workshop
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Instructor’s observation of participants’ statements and actions demonstrating
that they see the benefit of what they are being asked to do on the job.
During the workshops
During the one-on-one coaching sessions
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked to do on the job. During the workshops
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item.
Before the initial professional development
workshop and after the spring follow-up
workshop
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Survey items using scaled items

Between one-on-one coaching sessions
Discussions following practice and feedback.

During the workshops
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item.
Before the initial professional development
workshop and after the spring follow-up
workshop
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Discussions following practice and feedback.

During the workshops
Create an individual action plan.
During the initial professional development
workshop
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. During the spring follow-up workshop

160
Level 1: Reaction
The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model suggests that reaction related
to Level 1 should primarily rely on formative methods to measure the three components of
engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. Moreover, it is also beneficial to perform a
summative assessment of the training program after some time has passed to gain a better
understanding of the quality of a program once participants have had a chance to apply the
concepts they have learned (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 14 presents the detailed
methods, tools, and timing to measure components of Level 1.
Table 14: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation of participation during workshops During the initial professional development
workshop
Completion of self-generated job aid During the initial professional development
workshop
Observation of trainee during coaching sessions During the one-on-one coaching sessions
Observation by facilitators during spring follow-up workshop During the spring follow-up workshop
Attendance During the workshops
Course evaluation Two weeks after the spring follow-up
workshop
Relevance
Observations of engagement during workshops and one-on-one
coaching sessions
During workshops and coaching sessions

Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse checks with STEM teachers during discussions During the workshops and coaching
sessions
Observations of engagement during workshops and one-on-one
coaching sessions
During workshops and coaching sessions
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course.

161
Evaluation Tools
During and Immediately Following Program Implementation
Throughout the initial day-long CIT professional development workshop, the instructor
will administer both oral and written evaluation tools (see Appendix I). Evaluation tools will
help assess the participants’ engagement with the training program, the relevance of the training
to their teaching, and their satisfaction with training. Level 1evaluation will include both
observations and written pulse-checks to provide direct feedback. Level 2 evaluation will take
place during both the workshops and one-on-one coaching sessions. The evaluation tools will
utilize peer interactions and scenarios as well as a brief survey to assess knowledge, skills,
confidence, and commitment to apply CIT practices.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately two months after the conclusion of the spring follow-up workshop and
during the year-end faculty development days, the STEM teachers will receive an online Blended
Evaluation survey. The survey will contain scaled items (see Appendix J) measuring the
relevance and satisfaction of CIT training (Level 1), the STEM teachers’ confidence for and
commitment to applying CIT (Level 2), the STEM teachers’ application of training (Level 3),
and the STEM teachers’ perception of the results of the training (Level 3). This evaluation
survey will help assess the STEM teachers after they have completed training and applied their
knowledge and skills.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The level 4 goal of performance improvement by STEM faculty at SCSG will be
measured by their perception of their success after experiencing the CIT training and coaching
program. These indices will be measured two months after the completion of the spring wrap-up

162
workshop by distributing an end-of-year survey. The established professional learning
community (PLC for CIT) leaders will administer, analyze, and report the survey results during
the following school year’s opening meetings. Data will be presented and categorized by STEM
Cohorts: Cohort 1 includes math teachers, Cohort 2 includes science and engineering teachers,
and Cohort 3 includes technology and design teachers. Figure 12 shows sample results of the
survey for Level 4–Results.
Figure 12: Level 4 Sample Training Report
Level 4 Sample Training Report

Note. The data shows three indices reported by Cohorts 1-3. Higher values indicate higher self-reported
training success.

The Level 3 goal of the STEM faculty is to integrate CIT into their lesson planning and
teaching practices. Data will be collected during the end-of-year survey and presented during the
first STEM department meeting following the summer break. This will be used as a lead-in by
STEM department heads to discuss CIT goals for the school year as faculty will be completing
self-evaluations and planning their professional development at that time. Figure 13 shows the
percent of STEM faculty who have integrated CIT practices into their lesson planning versus
actual implementation of CIT practices while teaching.

163
Figure 13: Sample Percent of CIT Implementation and Teaching Practices
Sample Percent of CIT Implementation and Teaching Practices

Note. The figure shows the relationship between planning to implement CIT practices versus actual
implementation during teaching.

The Level 2 goal of improving STEM faculty knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, and
confidence in CIT practices will be assessed at the conclusion of the initial workshop, and at the
end of the spring wrap-up session using a course evaluation survey. The data will be
communicated by the PLC leaders during the closing year-end faculty meetings. Figure 14 shows
a line graph of sample data showing the trends in learning for STEM faculty during the training
program.
Figure 14: Sample CIT Training Program Learning
CIT Training Program Learning

Note. The reported survey results for Level 2–Learning based on the course evaluation results administered
at the conclusion of both the initial CIT workshop and the spring wrap-up workshop.

164
The Level 1 goal of improving relevance and satisfaction for the CIT training will be
evaluated both during fall and spring training workshops as well as during individual coaching
sessions. Data will be reported by the CIT program instructors to the senior leadership of SCSG
following the initial fall workshop and at the conclusion of the spring wrap-up workshop session.
The data will be displayed using a bar graph (see Figure 15 below) showing the overall
satisfaction and relevance both in the fall and spring.
Figure 15: Sample Level 1 Perceived Program Relevance and Satisfaction
Level 1 Perceived Program Relevance and Satisfaction

Note. The reported survey results for Level 1–Reaction based on the pulse-checks showing the relevance
and satisfaction of CIT training in the fall versus the spring.

Summary
This integrated implementation and evaluation plan utilizes the New World Kirkpatrick
Model to structure training and consistently monitor and assess whether training meets
expectations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By aligning evaluation to target each level of the
model, the organization’s performance goal of increasing underrepresented minority student
enrollment in STEM courses was shown to be effective. This indicates on-the-job performance
was aligned with Level 4–Results. As well, the Kirkpatrick Model was valuable in monitoring
and adapting training for the STEM teachers as they reached their performance goal of

165
increasing capacity for culturally inclusive teaching practices, and consequently, improving
conditions for URMs in STEM.
Above all, Level 3–Behavior–is essential to actualize the results of a training program,
but is often overlooked (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By identifying critical behaviors
needed by STEM teachers to engage in CIT, and the required drivers to support their behavior,
implementation of training was maintained. Through the Kirkpatrick Model, leadership can
monitor and make improvements to efficiently support training. This helps ensure the
organization’s investment in training is cost-effective, and therefore, generates a valuable return
on expectations (ROE). The success of this implementation and evaluation plan was enabled by
thoroughly executing Level 3 behaviors through one-on-one coaching and peer support with
prompt feedback.

166
Appendix I: Level 1 and Level 2 Sample Evaluation Instrument
Methods or Tools
Level 1 Item
Engagement

1. Observation of participation
during workshops
(Observed by instructor) The learner exhibited engagement with the information
presented during the initial professional development day by responding to the
instructors’ directions.
A. Strongly Agree. B. Agree C. Disagree. D. Strongly Disagree

2. Completion of self-generated
job aid
(Observed by instructor) The learner exhibited engagement with the information
presented during the initial professional development day by completing the self-
generated job aid exercise.
A. Strongly Agree. B. Agree C. Disagree. D. Strongly Disagree

Relevance
3. Brief pulse check during
workshops and one on one
coaching
(Administered by instructor or coach) The information presented is applicable to my
teaching.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

Customer Satisfaction
4. Brief pulse check during
workshops and one on one
coaching

(Administered by instructor or coach) I am satisfied with the CIT training program.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Level 2 Item
Declarative Knowledge
5. Knowledge checks through
“pair, think, share”
(Prompt provided by instructor) Discuss one key concept you have learned at this point
in the workshop.
Open-ended
Procedural Skills
6. Role playing through scenarios (Observed by coach) The learner is able to demonstrate situational CIT practices.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

Attitude
7. Brief pulse check during
workshops
(Administered by instructor) I believe it is important for me to apply the CIT practices I
am learning.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

Confidence
8. Brief Survey at the end of
workshops
(Administered by instructor) I feel confident about applying CIT practices.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Commitment
9. Brief Survey at the end of
workshops
(Administered by instructor) I am committed to applying CIT practices.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

167
Appendix J: Level 1, 2, and 3 Sample Evaluation Instrument
Level 1: Reaction Item
Relevance
1. End-of-Year-Survey (60 days
following Spring Wrap-Up
Workshop)
(Administered online by instructor) I have been able to integrate CIT skills
into my classroom practices.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Customer Satisfaction
2. End-of-Year-Survey (60 days
following Spring Wrap-Up
Workshop)
(Administered online by instructor) As I reflect on the CIT training, this
experience was a good use of my time.
Rating Scale: Strongly Disagree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Level 2: Learning Item
Confidence
6. End-of-Year-Survey (60 days
following Spring Wrap-Up
Workshop)
(Administered online by instructor) At this point in time, I feel confident in
my ability to implement CIT.
A. Strongly Agree. B. Agree C. Disagree. D. Strongly Disagree
Commitment
7. End-of-Year-Survey (60 days
following Spring Wrap-Up
Workshop)
(Administered online by instructor) I will continue to apply the knowledge
and skills I have learned through CIT training and coaching.
A. Strongly Agree. B. Agree C. Disagree. D. Strongly Disagree
Level 3: Behavior Item
Behavior
8. End-of-Year-Survey (60 days
following Spring Wrap-Up
Workshop)
(Administered online by instructor) I have been able to apply CIT practices
while teaching.
A. Strongly Agree. B. Agree C. Disagree. D. Strongly Disagree
Level 4: Results Item
Results Training
12. End-of-Year-Survey (60 days
following Spring Wrap-Up
Workshop)
(Administered online by instructor) I have already seen a positive impact on
BIPOC students since CIT training.
A. Strongly Agree. B. Agree C. Disagree. D. Strongly Disagree
13. End-of-Year-Survey (60 days
following Spring Wrap-Up
Workshop)
(Administered online by instructor) My efforts have contributed to the
success of the organization's initiative to improve equitable and inclusive
practices for BIPOC students in STEM.
A. Strongly Agree. B. Agree C. Disagree. D. Strongly Disagree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract There is a significant need to increase the qualified Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) workforce in the United States. Despite the need and efforts to close the gap between underrepresented minorities and the majority population in STEM, the disproportionality remains. Southern California School for Girls (SCSG, pseudonym), an all-girls school in Southern California with a growing diverse population, offered a unique opportunity to study factors that influence STEM teachers’ capacity to implement culturally inclusive teaching (CIT) as a way to promote underrepresented minority students’ in STEM. This mixed-methods study explored the STEM teachers’ knowledge and motivation as well as the organizational influences related to CIT. A census survey of all 28 STEM teachers, followed by nine interviews and a document analysis, showed that although efforts have been made to increase inclusivity and equity in STEM at SCSG, the STEM teachers need to develop more extensive knowledge of terminology, concepts, and practices associated with CIT. As a result of the findings, the organization is recommended to provide one-on-one coaching and peer support in equitable and inclusive teaching practices and provide time and resources to the STEM teachers to meet specific performance goals set by the organization.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Cultural proficiency to provide equity for African American and other students of color: an evaluation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Girls in STEM: the underrepresented trajectory in Tennessee: an innovation study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on persisting leadership demographics in a military organization: perspectives on diversity and inclusion from minority female officers

PDF

Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency

PDF

Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences

PDF

Administrators' role in supporting teachers through feedback

PDF

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

PDF

The impact of culturally responsive teaching on the suspension rate of African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

PDF

STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

PDF

Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Opening interpretations: visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, first-year studio faculty innovate for improvement

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Where are all the ""leadhers""? Female leaders' experiences in finance

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Fitts, Sean (author)

Core Title Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 01/25/2021

Defense Date 12/04/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag classroom,culturally,culture,Engineering,equity,inclusive,Knowledge,math,minority,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization,pedagogy,relevant,responsive,Science,STEM,student,sustaining,Technology,underrepresented,URM

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member), Wilcox, Alexandra (committee member)

Creator Email sean.fitts@gmail.com,sfitts@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-417126

Unique identifier UC11673129

Identifier etd-FittsSean-9242.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-417126 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FittsSean-9242.pdf

Dmrecord 417126

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Fitts, Sean

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA