Schooling in the 21st century has been particularly impacted by the movement of people, whether voluntary or involuntary. The European Commission (2023) anticipates over 130 million displaced people worldwide by the end of 2024, leading to previously unseen levels of diversity in the classroom. As stated in the ECER 2024 call, this “reality of mass migration and its impact on how we think of ourselves, our borders, and our identity” requires educators to reflect critically on their work and consider concrete ways in which they can teach all students equitably regardless of culture, language, and/or dis/ability (we use “dis/ability” to show that “disability” is a social construction that is in opposition to “ability,” not something that exists within an individual person). 

Globally, we find ourselves in an age of uncertainty, but educators have been grappling with culturally relevant and inclusive curricula for decades. Culturally relevant pedagogies act as a response to changing student needs and have provided space for teachers to “link principles of learning with deep understanding of (and appreciation for) culture” (Ladson-Billings, 2014), as students have better learning outcomes when academic materials are made relevant to their lives (Gay, 2000) and their cultures and linguistic practices are maintained (Paris, 2012). European scholars have recognized the need for supporting teachers to work with diverse populations (Krulatz et al., 2018) and called for increased efforts by teacher education programs (Author, 2023; Subasi Sing & Akar, 2021) and school leaders (Brown et al., 2022) to “translate policies into practice” (p. 602) by preparing teachers to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Inclusive educators have also built upon these assets-based pedagogies by affirming diversity of ability and creating curricula that aim to remove barriers in schools rather than attempting to change and assimilate students (Baglieri et al., 2011). 

Yet the literature suggests that STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) teachers are often the most reluctant to adopt culturally relevant teaching (Barton, 2003; Colina Neri, Lozano, & Gomez, 2018; Gutierrez, 2013) and that inclusive pedagogies are not well integrated into science education (Stinken-Rösner, et al., 2020). Though STEM teachers agree with an inclusion of cultural and racial topics in academics, “they often question their relevance to the hard sciences” (Colina Neri et al., 2018). Instead, many believe cultural relevance is more appropriate for the humanities classroom and pride themselves on the objectivity believed to be inherent to science and mathematics (Schultz et al., 2023). As a result, “there is little research to date focusing explicitly on how to organize culturally relevant pedagogy in [STEM] classrooms” (Suad Nasir et al., 2008, p. 224). Similarly, Stinken-Rösner and colleagues (2020) have argued that “a dialogue between domains of inclusive pedagogy and specific subjects rarely occurs” (p. 30). They propose inclusive science education as a “new theoretical approach” (p. 40). There is clearly work to be done in developing STEM curricula accessible to and by diverse student populations.

In line with the theme of creating more inclusive educational communities, the purpose of this paper is to develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which pre-service STEM teachers in a clinically rich, social justice-oriented teacher residency program create curricula that affirm and leverage diversity to support all students’ STEM learning. We do this by asking, (1) How are STEM teaching residents conceptualizing culturally relevant and inclusive curriculum design? and (2) How are they enacting these conceptualizations through curricular choices? This inquiry will suggest opportunities for STEM teachers to incorporate culturally relevant and inclusive pedagogies, as well as address challenges that arise that can be addressed by teacher educators and policy makers. 

This study draws upon DisCrit (Annamma et al., 2013) as a theoretical framework. DisCrit addresses the “interdependent constructions of race and dis/ability in education and society“ (p. 1). Although this framework was developed within the specific racial context of the United States, it also has applications in the European context, where students are also often, “simultaneously raced and dis/abled” (p. 5) although not always in the same ways. Research conducted using DisCrit seeks to provide assets-based counternarratives in which knowledge is generated by disabled people of color, not just about disabled people of color (Annamma et al., 2013). This study takes place within the context of a clinically rich urban teacher residency program that draws upon culturally relevant and inclusive education as guiding frameworks. DisCrit, then, is a useful lens for understanding how residents conceptualize and enact culturally relevant and inclusive curricular design, and encourages researchers to view culturally relevant and inclusive education as fundamentally intertwined rather than separate. Participants included 20 total residents working toward certification in secondary science or math. Fourteen of those residents pursued dual certification in a STEM field and special education. Eleven identified as white; 3 as Hispanic or Latinx; 1 as Black; 1 as Asian; 2 as “two or more” racial identities; and 2 did not disclose. Information about disability was not systematically collected by the program, although some residents did disclose having a disability. Data included participants’ final portfolios, in which they compiled artifacts that demonstrated their commitments to inclusive and culturally relevant pedagogy through, for example, unit plans, philosophies of education, examples of feedback on student work, etc. We engaged in document analysis (Bowen, 2009) of the 20 portfolios using DisCrit to guide our analyses. We coded the data both deductively, using the principles of DisCrit, and inductively, looking for themes in the data and for tensions within themes, ways in which different residents might conceptualize or enact the same ideas differently (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).

Preliminary data analysis indicated residents’ conceptualizations of culturally relevant and inclusive teaching largely made reference to the importance of interdependence in the classroom community. This took the form of centering student voice, prioritizing relationships, and learning with and from one another. As residents reflected on the teaching they had observed prior to enacting their own, one articulated noticing that “a teacher-centered curriculum discouraged students’ active participation and did not promote mathematical discourse.” He “also realized that those students with learning disabilities and those whose English was not their native language were isolated from the rest of the class.” This critical awareness of historically marginalized communities and students led him and other residents to commit to co-creating with students a space where all learners felt supported. They did so through the development of community norms (e.g., “embracing collaboration,” “asking for help,” and “being respectful”) and relationship building. Residents regularly employed heterogeneous group activities (e.g., discussion boards, group readings). While these allowed teachers to make curriculum accessible for all students, they also required students to communicate with one another through comments and questions directed at peers rather than the teacher. Other community members were also pulled into class topics, such as when one resident designed an assignment requiring students to interview others (classmates, visitors to class, family members) about scientific topics and then react to what was shared. This worked to build scientific discourse in a way that involved a variety of actors and emphasized interdependence. This example is but one of the ways “educationalists … have always been at the forefront of efforts to respond to societal changes” (ECER, 2024). Through this study, we hope to more deeply understand how STEM educators are responding to current sociopolitical, economic, and cultural contexts in a way that promotes equity and justice.

Annamma, S.A., Connor, D.J., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1-31. Author. (2023). Barton, A. C. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. Teachers College Press. Brown, M., Altrichter, H., Shiyan, I., Rodriguez Conde, M. J., McNamara, G., Herzog-Punzenberger, B., Vorobyeva, I., Vangrando, V., Gardezi, S., O’Hara, J., Postlbauer, A., Milyaeva, D., Sergeevna, N., Fulterer, S., Gamazo Garcia, A., & Sanchez, L. (2022). Challenges and opportunities for culturally responsive leadership in schools: Evidence from four European countries. Policy Futures in Education, 20(5), 580-607. Colina Neri, R., Lozano, M., & Gomez, L. M. (2018). (Re)framing resistance to culturally relevant education as a multilevel learning problem. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 197-226. European Commission. (2023). “Forced displacement: Refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons (IDPs).” https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/humanitarian-aid/forced-displacement_en Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gutierrez, R. (2013). Why (urban) mathematics teachers need political knowledge. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 6(2), 7-19. Krulatz, A., Steen-Olsen, T., & Torgersen, E. (2018). Towards critical cultural and linguistic awareness in language classrooms in Norway: Fostering respect for diversity through identity texts. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 552-569. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. Schultz, M.; Close, E.; Nissen, J.; & Van Dusen, B. (2023). Enacting culturally relevant pedagogy when “mathematics has no color”: Epistemological contradictions. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. Suad Nasir, N., Hand, V., & Taylor, E. V. (2008). Culture and mathematics in school: Boundaries between “cultural” and “domain” knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond. Review of Research in Education, 32, p. 187-240. Stinken-Rösner, L., Rott, L., Hundertmark, S., Baumann, Th., Menthe, J., Hoffmann, Th., Nehring, A. & Abels, S. (2020). Thinking inclusive science education from two perspectives: Inclusive pedagogy and science education. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning, 3, 30–45. Subasi Singh, S., & Akar, H. (2021). Culturally responsive teaching: Beliefs of pre-service teachers in the Viennese context. Intercultural Education, 32(1), 46-61.