Journal of Diversity and Equity in Educational Development

The STEM Equity Learning Community (SELC) Project

The STEM Equity Learning Community (SELC) Project was designed with these dynamics in mind, responding to the need for instructors to critically engage with course-level equity data in a supportive, collaborative environment. To help address persistent deficit-based beliefs and systemic inequities, the SELC Project brought together students, instructors, institutional researchers, and staff to examine inequities in STEM courses and develop equity-minded practices. A central feature of the SELC experience was the use of equity data, which allowed teams to explore long-term patterns in course outcomes and interrogate how these trends reflected structural barriers rather than individual student shortcomings. The SELC Project drew from the book From Equity Talk to Equity Walk (McNair et al., 2020), which defines equity-mindedness as an approach that requires honest assessment of the systemic conditions that shape student success. From May 2023 to May 2024, nine public research universities participated in the pilot SELC Project, each assembling a team composed of a facilitator, an institutional researcher, two students, and at least four instructors (Table 1). These teams engaged in a structured process to analyze equity reports, examine equity traps, and formulate actionable recommendations to promote departmental- and institutional-level change. The SELC Project was created and coordinated by the SEISMIC Collaboration, a multi-institutional research organization focused on improving equity and inclusion in introductory STEM courses (SEISMIC, n.d.).

Course equity data

To help SELCs understand the experiences of student groups in their courses, institutional researchers used publicly available code to create customized course equity reports. These reports were central to the SELC experience, allowing teams to examine at least three years of student success data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, income level, and first-generation status (Farrar et al., 2023). A key feature was the Systemic Advantage Index (SAI), which captures intersectional patterns of privilege by assigning one point for each social advantage—being male, white, continuing-generation, and from a mid- to high-income background (Castle et al., 2021). These identities are strongly correlated with persistence and academic success, and student groups with higher SAI scores consistently earn higher grades in high-enrollment introductory STEM courses (Castle et al., 2024). The reports also highlighted grade anomalies, comparing a student’s course grade to their overall GPA to identify grade penalties or boosts and examine how these patterns varied across demographic groups. Most introductory STEM courses showed grade penalties, with the steepest penalties affecting students with lower SAI scores, underscoring how structural privilege translates into academic advantage.

Using historical, disaggregated data in this way is critical for challenging assumptions that teaching and learning spaces are neutral. These reports reveal long-term, systemic patterns rather than isolated incidents and provide evidence that inequities are embedded in course design and institutional culture. The SELC curriculum was therefore designed to help teams recognize these structural patterns and discuss ways to address them at the instructor, course, and institutional levels.

The SELC curriculum

We created multi-role learning communities that centered collaborative reflection, student voice, and equity-minded teaching. By building relationships across roles, the SELCs fostered a sense of shared responsibility and collective momentum. These spaces helped identify and shift deficit narratives and build collective ownership for change. As the Equity-Based Teaching Collective (2024) emphasizes, such communities are a key lever for institutional transformation.

By engaging with course equity data, SELC members were able to confront equity traps such as the student-deficit mindset and begin reframing disparities as systemic rather than individual problems. Facilitators played a key role in reinforcing this message, drawing connections to STEM education research to highlight the widespread nature of these patterns. Importantly, SELC members were introduced to complementary readings and discussions that deepened their understanding of equity in higher education and prepared them to interpret course equity reports through an equity-minded lens.

The SELC experience offered instructors a rare opportunity to engage deeply with equity in a supportive, cross-role learning community. Through structured conversations, instructors were able to process difficult data, challenge deficit-based assumptions, and feel less isolated in their equity work. Through analysis of course equity data and reflection on inclusive teaching practices, instructors developed a clearer understanding of how systemic inequities show up in their courses—and what they could do to address them. Students were able to provide their perspectives and insights into the data, while also giving instructors feedback on possible interventions they wanted to implement in their classes. For many instructors, the learning community model helped shift their mindset from “What am I doing wrong?” to “What can we change together?”

The SELCs met eight times throughout the year to deepen their understanding of equitable STEM teaching and learning, and to develop recommendations for departmental- and institutional-level change (Table 2). In the first meeting, teams discussed and reflected on course equity data in small groups of instructors and students. These discussions helped instructors connect their course outcomes to broader structural inequities and gain insights from their student partners about the possible stories behind the data. In subsequent meetings, SELC members often read articles about topics including inclusive teaching (Pearson, et. al., 2022; Russo-Tait, 2022; Sathy & Hogan, 2019), responded to discussion posts, and explored resources such as the Center for Urban Education’s Racial Equity Tools (Center for Urban Education, n.d.). During meetings, SELCs also participated in activities such as responding to skepticism, countering deficit-minded statements, and discussing a variety of possible inclusive teaching strategies, and other interventions that could increase student success.

The SELCs also hosted a student panel, inviting students from their institution to share their experiences in STEM courses—including what hindered their success in STEM courses and their major, and how they felt supported in these environments—and explore what inequities may have been present.

Finally, there were an additional five “inter-SELC” meetings, where SELCs connected across institutions and roles. They shared challenges, opportunities, communication strategies, and lessons learned. These meetings not only built a great sense of community, but reminded teams that they were not alone in noticing inequities in their courses. These activities were key to helping instructors, students, and staff understand the importance of equity-mindedness and giving them the tools to engage in productive conversations with reluctant or skeptical colleagues, leaders, and peers.

Each SELC was given an Action Plan Worksheet to support their development of recommendations for departmental and/or institutional change to present to campus leadership. SELCs used equity data to identify gaps and guide action, and were prompted in their action plan worksheets to identify inequities in the data they wished to focus on, brainstorm equity-minded explanations for what they had noticed, identify a target audience for a presentation, identify existing campus resources that could be used to help address inequities, and develop recommendations to share with campus leadership (The SELC Project, n.d.).

Recommendations made to campus leadership varied based on local context, resulting in a plethora of rich ideas for addressing inequities in STEM courses.

Impact of the program

The SELC Project led to clear improvements in participants’ access to equity data, confidence in using it, and intentions to make equity-minded changes. Before the program, 56% of faculty reported no or low familiarity with disaggregated student-level dashboards (Tarchinski et al., 2025). By the end, participants were significantly more likely to report access to relevant demographic and performance data (χ² (1, N = 113) = 9.6, p < .01), showing that SELCs helped faculty navigate institutional systems and integrate equity data into reflective practice (Tarchinski et al., 2025).

Participants also valued the SELC model, with 90% finding the program as beneficial as expected or more, highlighting the importance of a collaborative space for discussing inequities and processing difficult data (Tarchinski et al., 2025). SELCs fostered shared agency, with 97% agreeing their contributions were valued, and 100% affirming that student input was respected. Facilitators echoed these sentiments, reporting the experience as professionally valuable and recommendable (Tarchinski et al., 2025).

SELCs supported the movement from awareness to action. Eighty percent of participants described concrete plans to address equity concerns at multiple levels: 36% at the course level, 39% departmentally or institutionally, and 22% by expanding colleagues’ use of equity data (Tarchinski et al., 2025). Early institutional impact was visible: campus presentations of SELC findings reached receptive audiences positioned to act on equity recommendations. Student perspectives were particularly influential, with 88% reporting that these contributions strengthened data interpretation and team recommendations (Tarchinski et al., 2025).

SELC teams offered a range of recommendations to address the inequities they identified. Many proposed expanding the use of undergraduate teaching assistants to strengthen peer support in large courses, as students often feel more comfortable seeking help from fellow undergraduates. Others recommended tools to improve faculty–student communication, such as paired perception surveys that highlight mismatches in expectations.

SELCs also urged institutions to invest in equitable teaching infrastructure, provide faculty development opportunities, support nontraditional course structures, recognize equity-focused teaching in evaluations, and fund course redesigns with student input, including active learning spaces and testing centers.

These outcomes demonstrate that SELCs build capacity for equity-mindedness, increase engagement with disaggregated course data, and lay the groundwork for systemic change in STEM education.

Conclusion

Our experience with the SELC Project reinforces what research has shown: equity gaps in STEM persist not because we lack effective teaching strategies but because systemic barriers limit their implementation. Individual instructors cannot drive transformation alone—institutions must create the conditions for equity-based teaching to take root and scale.

The SELC Project demonstrated that when instructors are supported in examining equity data within a collaborative learning community, they are more empowered to act. Instructors, students, and educational developers working together can challenge deficit mindsets, surface institutional barriers, and co-create more inclusive learning environments. As SELCs continue to evolve, they represent a scalable model for advancing equity-mindedness across institutions—one that bridges individual action and collective responsibility in meaningful ways.

At a time when equity-focused work in higher education faces increasing scrutiny and resistance, we believe it is more important than ever to offer practical, data-informed strategies for advancing inclusion in the classroom. The SELC Project offers one such path rooted in evidence, driven by collaboration, and focused on student success.