Equity & Social Justice

Why Equity and Social Justice Matter in Science Education

Equity and social justice are not add-ons to science instruction—they are foundational to creating meaningful, inclusive, and rigorous learning environments. When students see their cultures, communities, and lived experiences reflected and valued in the science classroom, they are more likely to see themselves as capable of participating in and contributing to science. At the same time, centering equity and justice helps teachers and students examine how science and society are intertwined, including how scientific practices have been shaped by—and can help address—historical and ongoing injustices.

Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) provides a powerful framework for designing science units that are both intellectually ambitious and justice-oriented. By anchoring learning around phenomena that are locally or socially relevant, MBI opens space for students to ask not just “How does this work?” but also “Why is it this way?” and “What can be done about it?” These kinds of questions invite students to connect scientific reasoning with critical thinking about fairness, impact, and responsibility—helping them develop as both scientists and citizens.

Equity Approaches

We draw on four research-informed approaches to equity in science education. These approaches help teachers reflect not only on what students are learning, but also how and why they are learning it—and for whom science instruction matters. They serve as guiding principles throughout the process of designing Model-Based Inquiry units.

Equity Approaches: In the recent report Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades by the National Academic Press (NASEM, 2022, p. 24), the authors describe a spectrum of four different equity approaches that have and can be used to accomplish different equity aims for science education. They are:

By naming the Equity Approaches in the units we create, we can design for more equitable and inclusive science units and instruction that prepares students to be active and engaged citizens in a diverse world.

Finally, like acknowledged by others, we recognize that Approaches #1-2 are more often found in curriculum designed for the Framework and Next Generation Science Standards. We appreciate how these discourses support students opportunities to learn and in finding intersections between their interests, identities, and the disciplines of science. This is important, since this can support students to find success and identify with science. However, as researchers like Philip and Azevedo (2017) note, it is within Approaches #3-4 that educational systems and society that have proven oppressive and exclusionary will be interrogated, troubled, and changed. Given this, we also want to be sure we are working to center these particular Equity Discourses as part of our curriculum design and instruction. In connection to Approach #3, this might mean us as teachers working to develop our 'interpretive power' (Rosebery et al., 2015) of the diverse ways in which students, communities, and cultures orient to and make sense of the world. In connection to Approach #4, we believe that students and society will benefit if we can identify at least one or two units throughout the year where Approach #4 can be elevated as a central aim of instructional units, so that students see science as part of social justice movements that support their dreaming of and involvement in creating more just and thriving futures. 

References

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2022. Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26215.

Philip, T. M., & Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain. Science Education, 101(4), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286.

Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571-1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21267.

Examples of Equity Approach #1

This approach focuses on designing learning environments that actively support the full participation of all students in rigorous science learning. Participation is more than just being physically present—it means that students are intellectually engaged, that their thinking is taken seriously, and that they have meaningful opportunities to contribute to the work of the classroom. It also means identifying and addressing the barriers—both structural and instructional—that may limit access for some students. This approach recognizes that equitable participation doesn’t happen automatically—it’s something teachers must deliberately design for and continually support across the unit.

In the context of Model-Based Inquiry, this approach might include:

Examples of Equity Approach #2

This approach begins with the belief that all students come to science class with valuable knowledge, experiences, and cultural practices that can serve as rich resources for learning. Rather than treating these as unrelated to science—or as obstacles to be overcome—teachers design instruction that recognizes and builds on them. This means creating space for students’ everyday language, prior experiences, community knowledge, and ways of making sense of the world to play an active role in classroom science. This approach affirms that students’ ideas are not only valid, but necessary for deep and meaningful engagement in science. When teachers learn about and build on these resources, students are more likely to see themselves as capable sensemakers and contributors to scientific understanding.

In Model-Based Inquiry, this approach might involve:

Examples of Equity Approach #3

This approach invites students to investigate science not only as a body of knowledge, but as a human and social practice—shaped by values, interests, historical contexts, and systems of power. It asks students to think critically about how science is produced, who participates in it, whose knowledge is included or left out, and how scientific knowledge is used in society. Making the nature of science visible helps students understand that science is not neutral or purely objective—it is shaped by people, and it can be used to both reinforce and challenge inequities. By supporting students in exploring science as a human enterprise, this approach deepens their understanding of scientific practices and creates space for them to ask questions about fairness, credibility, and the diversity of knowledge systems.

In Model-Based Inquiry, this approach might be supported by:

Examples of Equity Approach #4

This approach positions science learning as a means for students to not only understand the world, but to imagine and work toward improving it. It supports students in using science to investigate issues that matter to their lives and communities—whether related to health, the environment, infrastructure, or justice. Rather than seeing science as disconnected from everyday experience, this approach helps students recognize that scientific knowledge can inform decision-making, advocacy, and action. This approach reflects a vision of science education where students are empowered to take action and see themselves as capable of using science to make a difference. It affirms that engaging with complex, real-world problems can not only deepen science learning but also cultivate students' sense of responsibility, solidarity, and possibility.

In Model-Based Inquiry, this approach can be supported by:

The following examples were created by students at Northern Arizona University. They are locally relevant examples of Approach #4 (i.e., Seeing science and engineering as part of justice movements).

The incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections have been disproportionately high in Native American populations. Native Americans are a high-risk group for COVID-19 because of a variety of healthcare disparities. Deaths from H1N1 infections were higher in Native Americans and most cases and deaths from the Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) occurred in Native Americans. Other infectious diseases, including HIV, hepatitis A and hepatitis C are more common. Diabetes, alcoholism and cardiovascular diseases, all risk factors for severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection. 

Driving Question: How do genetics, environmental, and social factors make Native Americans a high-risk group during a pandemic and vulnerability especially during COVID-19 pandemic, and what actions might be taken to mitigate harm causes by historical social injustice experienced by Native Americans?

Heat islands are urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas. Structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun's heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies.  In our city of Phoenix this phenomena is perhaps of even greater importance as temperatures in the summer often rise well above 100 degrees.  These high temperatures can quickly cause dehydration, heat exhaustion, or even death. 

Driving Question: Why are there heat islands in the Phoenix area, who are most affected by them, and what can be done about it?

During the winter months, the air quality in southwest Phoenix (the community I live and teach in) is worse than other wealthier communities in the northeast. Southwest Phoenix has a diverse, lower income population as well industrial businesses. Houses are more dense here than other areas of the city. In the winter, many homes burn wood to heat their homes, people burn trash, and fireworks are common. Additionally, pollution from transportation, industry, and forest fires contribute to the poor air quality.Warm air rises, so in the hot months the air along with much of the pollution rises above the city into the atmosphere. In the winter the weather is cooler. Cool air stays close to the ground and does not mix with the atmosphere, trapping the pollution in the Valley. You can see a yellow-brown haze over the city. Local winds also contribute to more air pollution in the southwest Valley. This area is lower in elevation than the rest of the Valley and the cool polluted air settles here. 

Driving Questions: Why does Laveen have worse air quality in the winter months than other areas of Phoenix? How does air pollution disproportionately negatively affect the residents of Laveen and how can we decrease the impact of air pollution in our community?