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:

Approach #1: Increasing opportunity and access to high-quality science and engineering learning and instruction. This approach focuses on designing learning environments where every student can meaningfully participate in science. It involves removing barriers to engagement and providing the tools, scaffolds, and supports that allow all students to engage in science practices, reasoning, and modeling. This includes attending to students’ diverse linguistic and learning needs, honoring multiple ways of showing understanding, and holding high expectations for every learner.
Approach #2: Emphasizing increased achievement, representation, and identification with science and engineering. This approach begins from the view that students’ lived experiences, cultural practices, and everyday language are valuable intellectual resources for learning science. It asks teachers to design learning experiences that actively elicit and build on these resources—rather than ignoring or replacing them. Phenomena can be selected that connect to students’ communities, local environments, or daily lives. Classroom conversations can highlight diverse ways of knowing, including Indigenous knowledge systems, multilingualism, or family-based understandings of the natural world.
Approach #3: Expanding what constitutes science and engineering. This approach encourages students to critically examine how science works—who participates in science, whose knowledge is included or excluded, and how science is connected to systems of power. Teachers can help students explore the historical and social contexts of scientific knowledge, challenge myths of objectivity or neutrality, and examine how scientific practices have shaped and been shaped by society. In MBI units, this might mean asking questions not only about how a phenomenon works, but about how science has approached that phenomenon and with what consequences.
Approach #4: Seeing science and engineering as part of justice movements. This approach invites students to use science as a tool to understand and address issues of injustice. It goes beyond critical analysis to support action—whether through designing solutions, advocating for change, or imagining alternative futures. In practice, this might involve anchoring a unit in a socially relevant phenomenon, developing driving questions that include justice-oriented goals, or positioning students as community problem-solvers. Science learning becomes a way for students to engage with real-world problems that matter to them and their communities.

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:

Using public records like the Summary Table, Hypotheses List, or Gotta-Have Checklist to support shared understanding and provide visible entry points for all students to build on class ideas.
Structuring group work intentionally, ensuring that every student has a clear role and opportunity to contribute to discussions, modeling, and investigations.
Building classroom norms that encourage risk-taking, value multiple ways of expressing understanding (e.g., gestures, drawings, home languages), and treat uncertainty as part of the learning process.
Providing scaffolds such as sentence frames, modeling templates, or visual supports that help students engage in science practices—especially modeling, explanation, and argumentation—even if they are still developing fluency with academic language.
Revisiting and revising ideas over time, making space for students who may need more time or multiple modalities to process and contribute to complex ideas.

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:

Selecting phenomena that are familiar, locally relevant, or connected to issues students care about. This helps students see the relevance of science and draws on their background knowledge from home, community, or previous experiences.
Eliciting students’ initial ideas in everyday language—through drawings, conversations, or other accessible formats—and treating those ideas as serious starting points for reasoning and discussion
Encouraging multiple ways of knowing, including Indigenous knowledge systems, cultural perspectives, or lived experiences, particularly when they offer different insights into a phenomenon.
Using culturally responsive instructional materials, such as case studies or stories that reflect students’ communities and identities.
Positioning students as knowledge holders by incorporating activities where students share expertise or interview family and community members as part of their inquiry.

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:

Designing driving questions that raise both scientific and social questions—for example, not just “How does this work?” but also “Why does it affect some people more than others?” or “Who decides what counts as valid evidence?”
Selecting phenomena that reveal unequal impacts or access, such as water pollution, heat islands, or air quality—allowing students to explore how scientific knowledge interacts with social and environmental systems.
Discussing the history of science to uncover how certain voices and ways of knowing (e.g., Indigenous, Black, or non-Western knowledge systems) have been excluded or appropriated.
Bringing other knowledge systems into conversation with Western science, particularly Indigenous knowledge systems that offer different, place-based ways of understanding natural phenomena and relationships. This expands students’ view of what science can be and who creates it.
Critically analyzing data—for instance, comparing data sets across neighborhoods, communities, or countries to reveal systemic patterns, rather than treating data as neutral facts.
Reflecting on students’ own roles in science—encouraging them to see themselves as potential contributors to how science is done and who it serves.

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:

Anchoring the unit in a phenomenon that highlights a social or environmental injustice, such as unsafe drinking water, wildfire impacts on vulnerable communities, or disparities in urban heat exposure.
Developing driving questions that move beyond explanation to include social critique and possibility, such as “What causes this to happen, and what can be done about it?”
Engaging students in the design of justice-conscious solutions, such as creating community education campaigns, proposing engineering solutions, or using data to inform local decisions or policy proposals.
Involving students in community-oriented investigations, including place-based science walks, mapping exercises, or interviews with local residents or decision-makers.
Supporting student agency by making space for them to identify issues they care about and take part in developing and sharing evidence-based responses.

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).

HS-LS3-1: Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits

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?

MS-ESS3: Human Impacts on Earth Systems

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?

5-ESS2: Earth's Systems

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?

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse