ELEVATE-US-UP: Designing and Implementing a Transformative Teaching Model for Underrepresented and Underserved Communities in New Mexico and Beyond

Abstract

This paper presents the development, implementation, and outcomes of the ELEVATE-US-UP (Engaging Learners through Exploration of Visionary Academic Thought and Empowerment in UnderServed and UnderPrivileged communities) teaching methodology, an equity-centered, culturally responsive pedagogical framework designed to enhance student engagement, academic performance, and science identity among underrepresented learners. This framework was piloted at Northern New Mexico College (NNMC), a Hispanic- and minority-serving rural institution. ELEVATE-US-UP reimagines science education as a dynamic, inquiry-driven, and contextually grounded process that embeds visionary scientific themes, community relevance, trauma-informed mentoring, and authentic assessment into everyday instruction. Drawing from culturally sustaining pedagogy, experiential learning, and action teaching, the methodology positions students not as passive recipients of content but as knowledge-holders and civic actors. Implemented across upper-level environmental science courses, the method produced measurable gains: class attendance rose from 67% to 93%, average final grades improved significantly, and over two-thirds of students reported a stronger science identity and a newfound confidence in their academic potential. Qualitative feedback highlighted increased perceptions of classroom inclusivity, community relevance, and instructor support. By centering on cultural context, student voice, and place-based application, the ELEVATE-US-UP framework offers a replicable and scalable model for educational transformation in underserved regions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Depending on the region, higher education in the United States is shaped by varying degrees of entrenched and persistent inequities that disproportionately affect students from historically marginalized, underserved, and underrepresented communities (Rana 2024; Taylor and Cantwell 2018). These inequities manifest in multiple forms: unequal access to resources, disjointed educational pipelines, lack of cultural representation in curricula, and structural biases that often push underrepresented students to the margins (Barbatis 2010; Fernandez-Bou et al. 2021). In regions like New Mexico, these disparities are particularly pronounced due to the consequences of rural isolation, historical colonization, systemic poverty, and longstanding racial and ethnic discrimination (Pruitt and Flores 2021).

New Mexico represents a spectrum of diverse communities. However, many of these communities have been historically underserved by the U.S. educational system (Sanchez and Martinez 2018). Native American and Hispanic students form a large portion of the student population, yet their experiences in education systems are often marked by structural disadvantages and exclusion (Cech et al. 2019; Martinez et al. 2023a). Institutions that predominantly serve these communities, such as tribal colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), and rural community colleges, operate under substandard leadership and limited financial and infrastructural support, often resulting in strained faculty capacity and capabilities and outdated facilities (Garcia 2019; Perna et al. 2014). Despite their essential role in providing access to higher education for these populations, such institutions rarely afford the systemic investments needed to fulfill their mission effectively.

The educational challenges in New Mexico are ongoing and present a serious problem in the socioeconomic development of the state (Adelsheim 2000; Oakes et al. 2020). According to the National Center for Education Statistics1, the state consistently ranks near the bottom on virtually every major education indicator, including high school graduation rates, standardized test scores, and college enrollment and completion (Oakes et al. 2020). The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2022 Kids Count Data Book ranks New Mexico 50th in child well-being, with substantial deficiencies in early literacy, numeracy, and school retention (The Annie E. Casey Foundation 2022).

The consequences of early academic struggles are visible in postsecondary education. Only 26% of fourth-grade students in New Mexico score at or above proficient in reading, and just 21% do so in mathematics (The Annie E. Casey Foundation 2022). These gaps grow over time, resulting in disproportionately low college matriculation and completion rates. The New Mexico Higher Education Department2 reports that only 53% of first-time, full-time students at public colleges complete a degree or certificate within six years, far below the national average.

Multiple structural barriers reinforce this crisis: chronic underfunding of K-12 and postsecondary education, lack of access to college-preparatory curricula, understaffed schools, high student mobility, and limited academic and emotional support services. In rural and Indigenous communities, many students must travel long distances just to attend school, and basic educational necessities, such as internet access, science laboratories, and textbooks, are either inadequate or altogether absent. Rural New Mexican students, many of whom are Native American or Hispanic, often attend high schools that lack advanced coursework in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) or Advanced Placement (AP) offerings, leaving them underprepared for college-level science courses (Gándara and Contreras 2009; Tienda and Mitchell 2006; Turner et al. 2022).

While material disparities contribute strongly, the psychological and cultural barriers confronting students are equally profound. Students from marginalized communities frequently navigate institutions that were not designed with them in mind. Underprivileged and disadvantaged students must navigate prejudices that permeate classrooms and curricula, fostering a persistent sense of academic and social alienation (Yosso 2005). Indigenous and Latino students, in particular, often enter higher educational institutions unprepared and experience educational environments that are not optimized to meet their academic needs (Halabieh et al. 2022).

Intergenerational trauma, a psychological legacy of forced relocation, cultural genocide, and systemic disenfranchisement, remains an underappreciated yet deeply influential factor. Research has shown that Indigenous students often carry the burdens of historical trauma into their academic lives, affecting not only their self-perception but also their trust in educational institutions (Heart and Chase 2016). As a result, educational institutions that fail to acknowledge and address these realities inadvertently perpetuate cycles of alienation and underachievement (Ladson-Billings 2006).

The inadequacies of attempted traditional STEM education in smaller colleges and post-secondary institutions further compound these challenges, as they do not account for students’ disadvantaged educational and socioeconomic backgrounds. Dominated by lecture-based, content-heavy instruction without adequate context, many STEM courses are grounded in pedagogical models that privilege prior preparation, memorization, and abstraction over inquiry and application (Freeman et al. 2014), which is not afforded to underprivileged and underserved communities. These methods presume a baseline of academic preparation and a set of cultural norms often alien to first-generation or low-income students.

Mainstream science education frequently neglects the contextual knowledge that underrepresented students bring with them. From personal teaching experience, we can state that students from agricultural, Indigenous, and rural backgrounds often possess experiential understandings of environmental processes that remain unrecognized in academic science settings. As a result, the classroom becomes a space where valuable cultural and local knowledge is not only devalued but often excluded altogether.

Shifting away from typical academic equilibrium in conjunction with active learning and constructivist approaches offers a potential alternative. Meta-analyses in STEM pedagogy show that these methods significantly improve learning outcomes, particularly for underrepresented students (Kindelan 2022; Theobald et al. 2020). Inquiry-driven models that emphasize problem-solving, collaboration, and real-world application have consistently been shown to reduce performance gaps and increase persistence in STEM fields (Estrada et al. 2016; Krajcik and Blumenfeld 2006).

Educational researchers and social theorists have increasingly called for science education to be reimagined as a tool of empowerment and community transformation. Drawing from Paulo Freire’s concept of education as a practice of freedom (Freire 2020) emphasis on engaged pedagogy, this perspective sees science as a domain that must be contextualized within students’ cultural and social realities.

Culturally sustaining pedagogies aim to affirm and extend students’ cultural competencies, rather than assimilate them into dominant norms (Paris and Alim 2017). These approaches recognize that science education should not be divorced from the lived experiences of students, particularly those whose communities face environmental and public health disparities. For example, place-based science education initiatives in the American Southwest have explored water access, land stewardship, and climate change adaptation, providing content that is both intellectually rigorous and culturally resonant (Cajete 2016; Moreno and Valdez 2007).

Experiential education is central to this reimagined vision. Learning environments that incorporate contextual learning and understanding, as well as self- and external validational relevance, into academic material enable students to see the relevance of science in their own communities. This approach not only supports knowledge acquisition but also fosters civic engagement and a sense of agency (Espino 2016; Gay 2018).

1.2. Catalyst for Change

Several key motivations led to the inception of this study. New Mexico remains one of the lowest-performing states in the U.S. when it comes to educational outcomes, with chronic issues in student achievement, equitable access to quality instruction, and consistent school attendance (U.S. Department of Education 2011). These disparities are neither new nor incidental; they are the result of long-standing structural and policy failures that disproportionately impact Indigenous students, low-income families, and students with disabilities. The landmark consolidated lawsuit Yazzie/Martinez v. State of New Mexico (2018) (Greyeyes et al. 2023) affirmed what communities and educators have known for decades: persistent challenges remain in meeting New Mexico’s constitutional obligation to provide a sufficient and equitable education to all students3.

The ruling by Judge Singleton declared that the state’s education system was not meeting the constitutional requirement of providing all students with the opportunity to be college and career ready. Notably, the court emphasized that New Mexico’s most vulnerable populations, Native American, Hispanic, low-income, and special education students, were not receiving the resources, culturally responsive pedagogy, or support services necessary for academic success. This ruling catalyzed new urgency to investigate and implement transformative, community-based educational practices that go beyond compliance and aim toward justice, inclusion, and cultural sustainability. Progress since the 2018 ruling has been limited, which motivated this study and a concrete action at the ground level to contribute to both short- and long-term positive change, whose implications might go well beyond Northern New Mexico. Since the 2018 ruling, the State of New Mexico has made only limited progress, with some efforts characterized by stakeholders as superficial or symbolic, in fulfilling the court’s mandates. Concerns about ongoing gaps in compliance have been raised in multiple public reports and community forums. For instance, a 2024 motion filed by the Yazzie-Martinez plaintiffs highlighted the state’s failure to develop a comprehensive remedial plan, citing persistent educational disparities and inadequate support for at-risk students (Romero 2025). Additionally, a 2025 factsheet by the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty (See Note 3) detailed systemic issues such as high turnover within the Public Education Department and insufficient funding for essential student programs. Community forums, including those hosted by the Institute for American Indian Education, have also stressed the need for meaningful engagement with tribal leaders and stakeholders to address these ongoing challenges (Martinez et al. 2023b). Key developments and ongoing concerns include:

• Absence of a fully detailed compliance plan: Although the State has released reports and budget allocations, it has not yet delivered a court-ordered, actionable plan that details how it will systematically address each area of deficiency identified in the ruling.
• Minimal changes in educational outcomes: As of 2023, New Mexico remains at or near the bottom nationally in math, reading, and graduation rates. Disparities in achievement and access continue to disproportionately affect the very student groups named in the lawsuit.
• Underfunding of at-risk student programs: Despite increased state education budgets in recent years, advocates argue that the funding mechanisms do not equitably direct resources to districts with the highest needs.
• Incomplete implementation of the Indian Education Act (IEA): The state has yet to fully operationalize the IEA’s goals, including tribal consultation, integration of Indigenous languages and history into the curriculum, and meaningful accountability systems for Native education outcomes.

On top of that, New Mexico continues to face a significant teacher shortage (who are generally grossly underpaid and overworked), particularly in high-poverty and rural districts, undermining efforts to ensure equitable access to qualified educators. In 2023, the Center on Law and Poverty, which represents the Yazzie plaintiffs, reported that the state had still not complied with most of the court’s orders, and called for judicial enforcement (e.g., Martinez et al. 2023b). Frustration has grown among families, educators, and tribal leaders over the State’s slow and fragmented response to a ruling that was meant to be a turning point for public education in New Mexico.

Among the most alarming indicators of this systemic failure is student attendance. Data from the New Mexico Public Education Department (PED)4 show that chronic absenteeism continued to rise in the 2022–2023 school year; 40.2% of students were chronically absent, a dramatic increase from previous years. Indigenous students have been especially impacted, with absenteeism rates often exceeding 50% in rural and reservation-based schools. Chronic absenteeism is strongly correlated with academic underperformance, higher dropout rates, and lower long-term socioeconomic outcomes. This crisis in attendance reflects deeper issues of student disengagement, cultural disconnects within the curriculum, and the absence of community-rooted support that affirm students’ identities and lived experiences.

The statistics place New Mexico near the bottom nationally, and the performance gap is even wider for Native American and Hispanic students, who comprise the majority of the state’s school-age population. Only 41% of first-time freshmen complete a college degree (Smith 2019). To illustrate the extent of the problem, graduation rate of first-time students at some institutions in New Mexico is as low as 9% (Smith 2019), and in 2019, the state ranked 47th in the country in college completion rates. The persistent achievement gap has been well-documented in national and state reports, and it calls into question the efficacy of traditional, top-down education policies and direct teaching methodologies that have historically neglected local communities.

1.3. A Modest Proposal for Change

First, it must be stated upfront that this study emerged not from a preplanned research agenda, but from an urgent and deeply felt need to catalyze change and develop actionable solutions in response to the persistent and systemic educational challenges outlined above. To address the interlocking structural, cultural, and pedagogical challenges facing underserved students in small rural postsecondary institutions in New Mexico and beyond, this study introduces the ELEVATE-US-UP method—short for Engaging Learners through Exploration of Visionary Academic Thought and Empowerment in UnderServed and UnderPrivileged communities. Developed and piloted through spontaneous and needs-driven improvement in teaching methodology at a rural, minority-serving institution in Northern New Mexico College, this framework reimagines science education as a culturally responsive, inquiry-driven, and community-grounded practice while firmly remaining focused on delivering the full scope of syllabus-defined course material.

The motivation behind this work is both empirical and moral. As New Mexico enters a new phase of educational accountability, there is a pressing need for more solution-oriented, data-driven, community-informed frameworks that demonstrate how education can be reimagined in ways that are culturally affirming, locally relevant, socially just, and grassroots-driven. This paper emerged from hands-on teaching experience and offers such a model, rooted in lived realities and informed by interdisciplinary literature, that centers historically underserved learners, not as deficits to be remediated, but as knowledge-holders whose educational journeys and untapped potential matter to the future of the state.

The paper describes in detail the design, implementation, and impact of the ELEVATE-US-UP method and is organized as follows: Section 2 elaborates on its theoretical foundation, design principles, and deployment in environmental science classrooms and labs. Section 3 presents qualitative and quantitative data on student outcomes, including academic performance, engagement, and identity formation. Section 4 discusses these results in the broader context of educational equity, policy reform, and pedagogical innovation. Finally, Section 5 outlines recommendations for scaling this framework and suggests directions for future research. In presenting this work, we aim not only to contribute to the literature on culturally responsive science pedagogy but also to offer a pragmatic, evidence-based model for transforming education in communities where the stakes are high and the potential for meaningful impact is immense.

2. Methods

This study evolved spontaneously and was conceived within the context of regularly scheduled upper-level environmental science courses at Northern New Mexico College (NNMC), a small, rural, public college in Española, New Mexico, designated as both a Hispanic-serving institution and a minority-serving institution (MSI). The student population at the institution is predominantly composed of Hispanic (72.83%), Native American (8.91%), and mostly low-income first-generation students (Poudyal and Sanchez 2025). The region’s geographic isolation (Figure 1), economic constraints, and limited infrastructure present unique challenges that demand pedagogical innovation grounded in equity and responsiveness.

Born out of pressing necessity, the ELEVATE-US-UP method was designed and implemented at NNMC to support students in unlocking their full academic potential in the face of persistent systemic barriers. It is focused on encouraging students to pursue their academic and intellectual curiosity, knowledge, and passion while fostering a sense of belonging and non-exclusion. Simple schematics of the method are illustrated in Figure 2.

The primary aim of this study was to answer two key research questions: (1) To what extent does the ELEVATE-US-UP model improve student attendance and academic performance? and (2) How does the model influence students’ science identity and perceptions of inclusion? Based on these questions, we explored the following hypotheses: (H1) Students exposed to the ELEVATE-US-UP framework will show improved attendance and grades compared to previous cohorts (e.g., Freeman et al. 2014; Theobald et al. 2020); (H2) Participants will report increased engagement, a stronger science identity, and greater perceived relevance of course content. These questions and hypotheses informed the selection of both quantitative and qualitative instruments and aligned with the study’s mixed-methods design.

Before we further delve into the ELEVATE-US-UP methodology, we note that this pedagogical framework was implemented as part of a deep commitment to teaching excellence, albeit following routine instructional improvement aimed at increasing student engagement, academic performance, and science identity. To support clarity and reproducibility, this study provides specifies both data sources and analytic procedures. All activities and assessments used to evaluate the outcomes of the methodology were part of standard pedagogical practice, and no interventions extended beyond the scope of normal educational instruction. Aggregated student performance metrics (attendance, final grades) and anonymous feedback collected through standard course evaluations were used for analysis. No individually identifiable student data were collected, stored, or reported.

In particular, the quantitative data, including attendance records and final course grades, were extracted from official course rosters and anonymized prior to analysis (

Table 1. Parameters used in analysis.

Course Type	Average Number of Students Per Class, Fall 2024	Average Number of Students Per Class, Spring 2025	Average Attendance, Fall 2024 (%)	Average Attendance, Spring 2025 (%)	Grade Improvement (%)
Freshman Courses	10	4	66	75	6.24
Senior Courses	7.5	9	69	93	7.30

). Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d, which is appropriate for small-sample educational contexts (discussed below). Qualitative data were collected through anonymous student reflections, end-of-semester surveys, and structured instructor observation logs recorded weekly throughout the term. Qualitative responses were analyzed using grounded theory methodology (Charmaz 2008).

Prior to the implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP method, traditional pedagogical approaches in the environmental science curriculum (instructor-recorded statistics) yielded suboptimal results, low attendance rates (averaging 67%), disengaged classroom environments, and wide disparities in academic performance between students from different demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Nevertheless, these numbers were on par with statewide performance, where in the 2022–2023 school year, almost 40% of students in New Mexico were chronically absent (New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee 2024).

In response, the ELEVATE-US-UP method was developed to reimagine science instruction through a culturally sustaining, inquiry-driven framework designed to affirm student identities, amplify engagement, and support academic achievement. This method of teaching has been in inception for a long time; its contours emerged many years prior (see Secco and Sukara (2016)), but concrete outlines started crystalizing in 2024, while we tried to address chronic attendance issues and high rates of course dropouts. The method seeks to embed students’ lived experiences and community knowledge into the teaching of science to catalyze both intellectual and social transformation.

The development of the ELEVATE-US-UP method is grounded in multiple intersecting educational theories:

(a)

Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP): Anchored in the work of Brown (2019), Gay (2013), Ladson-Billings (2014), and Paris and Alim (2017), CRP informs the method’s emphasis on cultural relevance, student agency, and academic rigor.

(b)

Trauma-informed education: Recognizing the intergenerational trauma affecting many students, the method incorporates principles from trauma-informed pedagogy (Brunzell et al. 2016), promoting psychological safety and trust in learning spaces.

(c)

Experiential and constructivist learning: Drawing on Kolb (2007)’s experiential learning cycle, the method emphasizes active inquiry, reflection, and real-world application to support meaningful knowledge construction.

(d)

Action teaching: Building on, e.g., Plous (2012), the method integrates socially relevant scientific discourse to inspire critical consciousness and civic engagement.

(e)

Community cultural wealth theory: Informed by Yosso (2005), this theory underscores the need to recognize and leverage the cultural assets and knowledge systems that underserved students bring into the academic space.

Comparable studies have informed the method’s design and data collection protocols. For example, Hurtado et al. (2009) demonstrated that structured undergraduate research experiences and collaborative pedagogy increase engagement and retention among underrepresented students. Similarly, Estrada et al. (2016) emphasized the role of science identity and mentorship in supporting persistence in STEM disciplines. These models serve as an intellectual foundation and have been adapted and integrated into the structure of ELEVATE-US-UP.

The developed methodology requires that each class begin with an exploration of a cutting-edge and forward-thinking scientific idea either derived from recent scientific literature or cutting-edge scientific publications. Topics include a wide range of scientific concepts, including, but not limited to, artificial intelligence, climate engineering, space travel (Alcubierre drive), extraterrestrial resource extraction, nanomaterials, and ethical dilemmas in synthetic biology. These themes serve as gateways into core scientific principles, allowing students to engage deeply with both content and context while directly reflecting on the self-implications of cutting-edge scientific concepts. By anchoring abstract concepts in local realities and ethical considerations, the ELEVATE-US-UP method cultivates curiosity, encourages critical thinking, and connects science to students’ lived experiences.

Furthermore, the framework integrates personalized mentorship, formative feedback loops, and restructured assessments that emphasize synthesis over recall. Students are evaluated on their ability to critically engage with scientific material, apply concepts to real-world issues, and reflect on the broader implications of their learning. This shift from traditional exams to authentic assessments mirrors best practices in equity-focused pedagogy (Wiggins 1990).

Specifically, the ELEVATE-US-UP framework is composed of five core components:

• We emphasize again that each lecture begins with the presentation of a “visionary science catalyst”, a cutting-edge or ethically complex scientific concept. These topics are selected to spark curiosity, provoke discussion, and bridge science with ethical, societal, and cultural dimensions. This strategy mirrors methodologies used in action teaching and has parallels in case-based learning approaches used in medical and public health education (Prince 2004).
• Following the initial, seemingly random scientific topic recap, classroom discourse transitions to bringing those scientific themes in a local context focusing on specific issues and implications that can be directly related to student experiences and perception of the world. This mirrors techniques from place-based education (Gruenewald and Smith 2008), which have been shown to increase engagement by connecting curricula to students’ communities and ecosystems. For example, water rights disputes or agricultural resilience strategies in New Mexico are used as a lens through which environmental science is taught. This reinforces not only relevance but also cultural legitimacy (Cajete 2000).
• Instructional strategies prioritize active participation and collaborative learning. The method utilizes think-pair-share, in-class peer-to-peer discussion moderated by the instructor, and problem-based learning modules to engage classroom discourse. Classroom discussion participation data were recorded by the instructor during each session using structured observation logs. These logs tracked both the number of students actively contributing and the nature of their contributions, which were categorized based on the level of cognitive engagement demonstrated—namely, factual, interpretative, or reflective. While individual instructors assessed the quality of each contribution, consistency was maintained by focusing on key indicators of subject matter comprehension and depth of reasoning within the discussion context. These mirror strategies are employed in inquiry-based learning (Hmelo-Silver et al. 2015) and culturally relevant cooperative learning models (Johnson and Johnson 1999). Regular use of reflective prompts and feedback tools further supports adaptive pedagogy and equitable participation.
• However, faculty involved in the implementation of this teaching methodology must be committed to offering structured, individualized mentorship outside of class hours. This included regular check-ins, assistance with academic planning, and referrals to mental health or financial aid services. The advising model draws heavily on intrusive advising and learning community research (Kuh 2008; Tinto 2012). Comparable programs such as the Meyerhoff Scholars Program have demonstrated the power of intentional mentorship and academic support in elevating the performance of underrepresented students in STEM (Maton et al. 2000).
• Assessment is reimagined as a multidimensional process emphasizing critical thinking and real-world application. Instead of traditional multiple-choice exams, students complete open-response tasks, community-based research projects, and position papers. For example, students were asked to connect climate change and its environmental and social impacts to water scarcity, wildfire risk, and inadequate infrastructure in the Southwest, particularly in Northern New Mexico. These reports were evaluated rigorously based on scientific reasoning, while also incorporating and honoring traditional knowledge and local wisdom throughout the assessment process. These align with authentic assessment practices that simulate professional scientific work and have been advocated in science education reform literature (Wiggins 1990).

The ELEVATE-US-UP framework was implemented across one first-year-level (freshman) course (ENVS 1110) and two upper-level courses: Environmental Ethics (ENVS 3320), where the focus was on the intersection of science and ethics, and Environmental Physical and Chemical Processes (ENVS 2201), with teaching methodology described above in some detail. Along with ENVS 2201, a companion laboratory course (ENVS 2201) was taught consecutively. For lab-specific learning outcomes, lab modules were comprehensively and intentionally restructured to emphasize hands-on, contextually relevant experimentation and followed the same learning pathways as lecture with some additional modifications. Some examples of activities included are given below:

• Building voltaic cells using local soil and plant materials to explore emergency power generation while the discussion encompassed the context and implications of the Baghdad battery.
• Testing local water samples for pH, heavy metal content, and microbial indicators, linked to discussions on environmental justice and public health.
• Conducting small-scale diffusion experiments while simultaneously discussing mathematical derivation and atmospheric pollution and connecting it to local and regional environmental vulnerabilities.
• Performing the heat transfer and material properties lab, while discussing the constraints of how life originated on Earth.
• Conducting laboratory exercise on understanding the impact of chemical pollution on plants and animals, mitigation, and solutions while discussing the ethical paradigm that would prevent it.

Similar lab-based models that integrate civic and cultural context, such as those employed in the Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) initiative, have demonstrated improved learning outcomes and increased student agency (Middlecamp et al. 2006). Implementation took place over spring 2025 academic semesters and involved collaboration and idea sharing with several faculty members and external academics and collaborators with years of experience in culturally responsive pedagogy and experiential learning through workshops, peer coaching, and reflective teaching circles. This model aligns with faculty development research that links collaborative instructional planning and peer support to improved implementation fidelity and student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017).

With respect to the analysis of results obtained in this study, we employed a mixed-methods research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate the impact of the ELEVATE-US-UP teaching framework. This was done specifically to enhance the quality of assessment while mitigating the initial challenges of small class sizes and a constrained timeline. This was motivated further by the fact that the mixed-methods approach aligns with best practices in educational research as outlined by Creswell and Plano Clark (2023) and is further supported by recent developments in instructional design research in higher education (Battista and Torre 2023), ensuring both methodological validity and practical reproducibility in similar classroom contexts. Specifically, a mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the impact and success of the ELEVATE-US-UP method on the following:

• Quantitative data: Attendance logs, assignment and exam scores, final grades, and course completion rates were collected and compared with pre-intervention cohorts (Table 1). Comparisons used Cohen d parameter analysis mitigating the effect of small-size sample calculations following best practices in educational impact research (Creswell and Plano Clark 2023).
• Qualitative data: Student experiences were documented through end-of-semester surveys, anonymous feedback forms, and reflective essays. Faculty maintained observation logs and recorded emergent themes across the semester. Faculty maintained observation logs and color-coded rubrics and recorded emergent patterns across the semester. Specifically, the rubrics were initially developed not as formal evaluative instruments, but as diagnostic tools to monitor student engagement, interest, participation, and conceptual understanding of the taught subjects, both before and after the implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP methodology. Taking advantage of the small classes, rubrics were immediately anonymized using random numbers assigned to each student. Each student’s qualitative performance was recorded weekly using a simple three-color system: red for no observable improvement, yellow for moderate progress, and green for significant growth. This system enabled instructors to visualize learning trajectories over time and reflect critically on the evolving impact of pedagogical interventions. Cumulative rubric data were reviewed at the end of the semester to assess trends in participation, comprehension, and instructional efficacy. Responses were analyzed through open and axial coding processes typical of grounded theory methodology (Charmaz 2008).

Student identities were anonymized for the purpose of this manuscript. Students who participated in this single-blind research project were not aware of it to ensure unbiased academic performance and academic evaluation.

To evaluate the effect and outcomes in a quantitative manner, we apply Cohen’s d (Cohen 1988), which is appropriate when the sample size is small:

$$d={\displaystyle \frac{{\overline{x}}_1-{\overline{x}}_2}{s_p}}$$

(1)

where ${\overline{x}}_1,{\overline{x}}_2$ are the means of two groups (here, this year’s and last year’s average grades and average attendance), and $s_p$ is pooled standard deviation. The expression for $s_p$ is

$$s_p=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(n_1-1\right)s_1^2+\left(n_2-1\right)s_2^2}{n_1+n_2-2}}}$$

(2)

Here, $n_1,n_2$ represent the average number of students in senior and freshman courses across semesters (before and after implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP methodology), while $s_1\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}{s}_2$ denote the standard deviations of the class grades or attendance percentages for each group, respectively.

In the context of this study, the use of Cohen’s d is especially appropriate because class sizes at Northern New Mexico College are typically small (fewer than 10 students per classroom), and conventional statistical significance testing (e.g., t-tests) can be underpowered or misleading in such cases. Effect size measures such as d provide a more interpretable and stable index of the magnitude of the observed differences, independent of sample size.

To carry out the analysis, average student grades and average attendance rates were compiled for each course section offered in the semesters prior to the implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP method (fall 2024) and after its application (spring 2025). Pooled standard deviations for both metrics were calculated using the equation above, with raw standard deviations obtained from course gradebooks and attendance records. Where needed, average student numbers per semester were used to weigh the contributions of each group.

Effect size interpretations followed conventional thresholds, where d ≈ 0.2 is considered a small effect, d ≈ 0.5 a medium effect, and d ≥ 0.8 a large effect (Cohen 1988). This benchmark allowed us to directly assess whether observed improvements in grades and attendance were not only statistically relevant but also pedagogically meaningful. In the present study, we found large to very large effect sizes in both performance and attendance indicators, supporting the conclusion that the intervention had a strong positive impact.

This approach has the added advantage of being both transparent and replicable. Even though inferential statistics may be constrained by small samples, the use of d enables meaningful comparison over time and across course levels. Moreover, the calculation of d for both grades and attendance provide a dual measure of both academic success and student engagement, which are central goals of the ELEVATE-US-UP model.

3. Results

The implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP method yielded compelling academic outcomes and a shift in attitudes toward the importance of higher learning and academia. Through a systematic mixed-methods analysis, we observed marked improvements in student attendance, academic achievement, engagement, and identity development. These outcomes were particularly notable among historically marginalized student populations, suggesting that culturally responsive and contextually embedded pedagogical models can meaningfully close equity gaps in STEM education. The findings are presented below in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

Quantitative attendance data showed a dramatic increase following the implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP framework. Prior to the intervention, attendance in the previously taught upper-level Environmental Science courses averaged 67% per lecture for senior courses. Post-implementation, the attendance rate rose to a mean of 93% (Figure 3), with several sections achieving 100% participation over multiple consecutive weeks. This increase aligns with evidence from active learning studies suggesting that pedagogical relevance significantly predicts student attendance (Freeman et al. 2016).

Classroom engagement, as measured by participation in structured activities (e.g., individual and group discussions), showed similar gains. In pre-intervention observations from similar courses taught in previous semesters, only less than 10% of students actively contributed during sessions. After implementation, this figure increased to 81%, based on coded instructor logs.

Student academic performance improved substantively across all assessment categories. The average course grade rose from a pre-intervention mean of 72.4% (C+) to 88.3% (B+). One contrast emerges from the grade distribution; in the previous semesters, the grade distribution was more Gaussian, while post-ELEVATE-US-UP implementation, the distribution was binomial, reflecting perhaps the learning aptitudes of class participants. However, small sample sizes (generally, classes have <10 students) do not allow for more comprehensive statistical analysis.

To mitigate the problem of small classes and assess the magnitude of change in student performance and engagement following the implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP teaching method, we calculated Cohen’s d for both average grades and class attendance in freshman- and upper-year courses. These effect sizes provide a standardized measure of the difference between pre- and post-intervention semesters and are particularly suitable for small-sample educational contexts where traditional significance testing may lack power.

The results (

Table 2. Cohen’s d parameter for grades and attendance, calculated for both freshman and senior classes.

Course Type	Cohen’s d for Grades	Cohen’s d for Attendance
Upper Year	0.93	3.75
Freshman Year	0.96	1.61

) demonstrate consistently large effect sizes for academic performance (grades) across both course levels, with Cohen’s d = 0.96 for freshman-year courses and 0.93 for upper-year courses. According to conventional interpretation guidelines (Cohen 1988), values above 0.8 are considered large, suggesting a substantial improvement in student academic outcomes following the introduction of the new pedagogical model.

Even more striking are the effect sizes for attendance, which reflect student engagement and commitment to coursework. In the upper-year courses, Cohen’s d for attendance was 3.75, indicating an extremely large effect, well beyond what is typically observed in educational settings. Freshman-year courses also showed a very large effect on attendance, with d = 1.61. These results suggest that the ELEVATE-US-UP methodology was not only effective in improving student performance, but also dramatically increased their presence and participation in class activities.

Overall, the magnitude of change reflected in these effect sizes underscores the practical and pedagogical significance of the intervention. The improvements observed are not merely statistical artifacts, but represent meaningful gains in educational equity, student motivation, and instructional effectiveness. These results support the hypothesis that a culturally responsive and student-centered methodology, when implemented thoughtfully in small, underserved classroom environments, can yield substantial and measurable improvements in student outcomes.

Analysis of performance on higher-order thinking tasks, defined as application, analysis, and synthesis-based assessments, showed a particularly notable increase. On authentic assessment components, such as the community-based environmental risk comprehension reports, average rubric scores improved by 33% over baseline. These gains are consistent with findings from Theobald et al. (2020), who documented greater improvement for underrepresented students in courses emphasizing inquiry and problem-solving.

One of the most impactful outcomes observed was the strengthening of students’ scientific identity, particularly among first-generation and Native American students. Reflective essays and structured survey instruments (adapted from Estrada et al. 2011) were used to measure the dimensions of science identity: recognition by others, competence/performance, and interest. Prior to the intervention, only less than 10% of students strongly verbally agreed with the statement “I could see myself as a scientist.” Toward the end of the courses, this figure rose to 69%, with qualitative responses emphasizing a newfound confidence in engaging with complex scientific topics.

The class survey also indicated increased perceptions of classroom inclusivity and instructor support. Over 90% of students agreed that the course content “reflected real issues relevant to my community,” and 100% felt that “their voices were respected in class discussions.”

The core aim of the ELEVATE-US-UP method was to link academic content to community impact. In discussions conducted toward the end of the course, 81% of students reported a willingness to participate actively in at least one community-based project as part of their learning journey and knowledge application toward community improvement. These course-motivated follow-up activities will not only reinforce learned scientific concepts but also serve to operationalize civic engagement. Qualitative feedback revealed that students view these projects as a way to connect classroom learning with real-world problem-solving, echoing the civic agency outcomes documented in the service-learning literature (Saavedra et al. 2022).

Anonymous course evaluations reflected high levels of student satisfaction. When asked to rate the statement, “How concerned was Professor that students were learning the material?” 100% selected “strongly agree” or “agree.” Demonstrating the importance of well-thought-out and structured interconnected homework directly related to course material, when students were asked, “How helpful were the homework and assignments to your understanding of the material? 100% answered affirmatively. Comments from students frequently referenced and praised the emotional and intellectual accessibility of the course.

On one of the questions on the course evaluation, “Any areas where Instructors did particularly well? a representative answer is quoted: “Everything. He is the best professor I have ever had. Great professor!!!.” Another representative answer was: “He did a great job explaining lectures in detail and correlating them to our assigned textbook chapters. He also opened the floor for conversation after discussing interesting/thought-provoking topics to get peer collaborative thinking going.” Finally, the answer that encapsulates sentiments from most students can be directly quoted: “Professor is hands down one of the best if not the best instructor I have ever had at NNMC. He has great ideas on how to improve the college more and help students prepare for the workforce. I have been working at [anonymized] for [anonymized]+ years and taking classes at NNMC for a long time. He truly cares and taught a lot that students know if they would like to advance in their career. His delivery and instruction is top notch and highly comparable to high end schools. I hardly fill out surveys for teachers or classes therefore me writing and filling out this evaluation says how highly I think of him. I believe more classes just like his and with as many examples and teaching as his should be taught at Northern. Everything he has taught us and said is how managers in my workforce think. I am on many [anonymized] panels, and the importance of what Professor teaches is not just for the moment of the class but to prepare us for the workforce. He forces us to think critically about which is an attribute we are always looking for in the hiring process.” These testimonials underscore the psychosocial transformation that can accompany inclusive, culturally anchored pedagogies. Furthermore, students in the ELEVATE-US-UP group have expressed a desire to enroll in a graduate school subsequently following their graduation. This finding is consistent with the identity-driven engagement literature (Carlone and Johnson 2007).

4. Discussion

The findings presented in this work confirm that embedding a novel pedagogical approach such as ELEVATE-US-UP, cultural relevance, mentorship, and community linkage into STEM instruction can produce meaningful academic and affective gains. The results substantiate the method’s value not just as a pedagogical innovation, but as a model for systemic transformation in equity-centered science education. Nevertheless, it is important to expand this study to large institutions with much larger sample sizes and different demographic profiles. Moreover, in the age of a short attention span driven by a digital age and social media dependence, it is expected that this method can be expanded on a much broader and general scale beyond its intended purpose to improve the learning experience of underprivileged and underserved communities.

In terms of quantitative investigation, the results of Cohen’s d analysis offer compelling evidence that the ELEVATE-US-UP teaching methodology has had a substantial impact on both academic performance and student engagement. With effect sizes exceeding the threshold for a “large” effect in all categories, the data suggest that even in small classroom settings, meaningful and quantifiable changes can be observed and attributed to thoughtful pedagogical innovation.

In both freshman- and upper-year courses, the effect sizes for grades were 0.96 and 0.93, respectively, well above the conventional benchmark of 0.8 for a large effect. These values indicate that the new teaching model resulted in a nearly one-standard-deviation improvement in average student performance. Importantly, these gains were consistent across course levels, suggesting that the methodology is adaptable and effective for students at different stages of their academic journeys. In small cohorts, such improvements are particularly meaningful because even modest increases in individual student success can shift the overall classroom dynamic toward deeper learning and higher achievement.

The effect sizes for attendance were even more dramatic. The upper-year course attendance effect size (3.75) is exceptional and reflects an almost transformational increase in student presence. Likewise, the freshman-year attendance effect size (1.61) is indicative of a strong shift in classroom engagement. These findings align with qualitative observations during the intervention: Students were more participatory, punctual, and involved in discussions and collaborative work. Since class attendance is often closely linked with student motivation and perceived relevance of course content, these results suggest that the ELEVATE-US-UP method successfully fostered a learning environment that students found meaningful and supportive.

Furthermore, in the context of underserved and underprivileged student populations, large effect sizes in both cognitive (grades) and behavioral (attendance) domains point to more than just instructional efficacy; they also imply increased student belonging, trust, and academic identity formation. This is especially relevant in minority-serving institutions, where students often face systemic barriers to full academic participation. The ELEVATE-US-UP approach, rooted in cultural responsiveness, trauma-informed practice, and experiential learning, appears to have successfully reduced these barriers and helped unlock students’ potential.

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that these large effect sizes were achieved in courses with fewer than 10 students, a setting where statistical significance is difficult to establish through traditional inferential tests. By focusing on effect size, this study not only avoids the limitations of p-value dependence in small samples but also offers practically significant evidence that the teaching method is both powerful and scalable in similarly constrained educational environments.

The outcomes presented in the previous section emphasize the transformative potential of the ELEVATE-US-UP method in addressing systemic inequities in STEM education. Rooted in culturally responsive, innovative and adapting pedagogy, experiential learning, and trauma-informed practice, the method responds directly to structural and affective barriers that disproportionately impact historically underserved students. These gains, both quantitative and qualitative, must be contextualized within the broader literature on educational outcomes. Most importantly, these gains can be achieved through community-anchored instruction at the grassroots level.

Unlike conventional reforms that focus narrowly on content delivery or technology integration, ELEVATE-US-UP reconceptualizes the classroom as a relational and responsive space. It is aligned with frameworks such as Ladson-Billings’ (1995) culturally relevant pedagogy and Paris and Alim’s (2017) culturally sustaining pedagogy, which emphasize affirmation of student identities, critical consciousness, and academic excellence. Furthermore, it mirrors principles of justice-centered science pedagogy (Tzou et al. 2021), which challenge hegemonic norms in STEM and reposition students as knowledge co-investigators and then co-constructors.

Comparatively, models like the Meyerhoff Scholars Program (Maton et al. 2000) and the BUILD initiative (Estrada et al. 2016) have also demonstrated significant gains in retention and persistence of underrepresented students in STEM through identity-centered mentorship and research exposure. However, ELEVATE-US-UP expands this paradigm by embedding civic engagement and local relevance directly into course content, linking science education not only to academic success but also to place-based empowerment and community transformation.

The dramatic improvements in attendance and participation, particularly among students previously disengaged, signal a paradigm shift. Students are not merely passive recipients of knowledge; they are activated participants in a collective, inquiry-driven enterprise. This aligns with Paulo Freire’s notion of “dialogical education” (Freire 1970), where the pedagogical encounter becomes a site of mutual transformation. Studies such as Gutiérrez et al. (2017) and Edelson et al. (2021) confirm that when students see the classroom as an extension of their community and cultural life, they engage more meaningfully with academic content. ELEVATE-US-UP’s opening of lectures with ethically provocative scientific ideas mirrors pedagogies that integrate socio-scientific issues to promote student agency and ethical reasoning in STEM (Zeidler et al. 2005).

Perhaps the most profound impact of the intervention was on identity development. The substantial increase in students’ self-identifying as potential future scientists supports an assertion by Carlone and Johnson (2007), that identity, not just competence, is a critical determinant of persistence in STEM fields. Importantly, the method fostered recognition by others (via community-engaged projects and instructor validation), performance (through authentic assessments), and interest (via culturally relevant content). When compared to interventions like STEM BUILD at the University of Maryland, which focused on community-based research experiences (Estrada et al. 2016), ELEVATE-US-UP similarly amplifies identity through purpose-driven inquiry, but distinguishes itself by embedding identity work into day-to-day pedagogy, not just extracurricular programs. This embeddedness makes it more scalable and sustainable in resource-limited institutions.

The implementation of structured, personalized mentorship is a cornerstone of ELEVATE-US-UP. This component resonates with research on “high-impact practices” (Kuh 2009), which identify academic advising, undergraduate research, and community-based learning as vital to retention and achievement. The intrusive advising model used mirrors findings from Tinto (2012), who advocates for relational engagement to disrupt dropout trajectories. Comparable mentorship models, such as the Posse Program (Hofacker 2022), have emphasized the significance of cohort-based mentoring for underrepresented students. ELEVATE-US-UP mirrors these relational strategies but adapts them to the classroom level, extending them to individual mentoring relationships, thus reaching students more directly within their academic experience.

One of the most innovative aspects of the method is its integration of community-engaged learning. By linking scientific inquiry to real-world challenges, students saw their coursework as socially consequential. This aligns with the SENCER model (Middlecamp et al. 2006) and mirrors the service-learning outcomes reported by Holsapple (2012), who found increased civic engagement and academic motivation among students involved in community-oriented science education. Studies by Saltmarsh et al. (2009) and Eyler (2002) also affirm that civic engagement pedagogies result in measurable increases in critical thinking, leadership, and personal efficacy, key goals of ELEVATE-US-UP. The program’s emphasis on local relevance uniquely positions it within the broader spectrum of experiential pedagogies by turning regional environmental challenges into platforms for scientific learning.

The outcomes of this study suggest urgent implications for institutional leaders and policy makers. First, quality in learning outcomes must be embedded not only in mission statements but also in instructional design, evaluation metrics, and resource allocation. ELEVATE-US-UP provides a scalable template for doing so.

Professional development literature consistently underscores that transformation in pedagogy requires systemic support, time, and institutional incentives (Desimone and Garet 2015). The faculty collaboration and reflection embedded in ELEVATE-US-UP mirror the effective learning communities identified in recent meta-analyses (Vescio et al. 2008). Institutional policies must formalize such support to ensure continuity. Additionally, emerging models such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offer complementary frameworks that, like ELEVATE-US-UP, advocate for multiple means of representation, engagement, and assessment (Meyer et al. 2014). Integrating UDL principles could enhance the method’s inclusivity across even more diverse learner profiles.

Despite its promising outcomes, ELEVATE-US-UP is not without limitations. First, the study’s scope was limited to a single institution and three courses with a relatively small student count, which may constrain generalizability. Second, while we observed strong correlations between the method and outcomes, causal attribution was limited without a randomized controlled design. Third, sustained implementation requires faculty labor (advising, mentoring, counseling) and institutional investment (project materials, etc.), which may not be readily available in all contexts. However, similar constraints have been acknowledged in other high-impact programs like the University of Colorado’s Learning Assistant model (Otero et al. 2010), which also relies heavily on faculty buy-in and structured planning. These parallels suggest that while resource intensiveness is a challenge, it is a common feature of transformative pedagogy. Institutional will and aligned funding structures remain critical success factors.

ELEVATE-US-UP adds to a growing body of work that reimagines what science education can and should be. It challenges the notion that excellence and equity are mutually exclusive, showing instead that academic rigor is best achieved when students are affirmed, empowered, and connected to their communities.

The findings from ELEVATE-US-UP are both promising and unexpected. They demonstrate that by centering student voice, cultural relevance, and experiential learning, it is possible to disrupt cycles of exclusion and underachievement. The method not only improves academic outcomes but also fosters identities, relationships, and commitments that last well beyond the classroom. In doing so, ELEVATE-US-UP moves us closer to a vision of science education that is not just about preparing future scientists, but about preparing citizens, leaders, and changemakers who see themselves reflected in the pursuit of knowledge and empowered to shape the world with it.

Another significant obstacle to academic progress in underserved and underprivileged communities must be noted here. Through years of classroom experience and close engagement with students from Indigenous, underserved, and underprivileged communities in New Mexico and other regions of the country, we have repeatedly encountered a pervasive psychological barrier: learned helplessness. This condition, first described by Seligman (1972), manifests when individuals, after repeated exposure to adverse conditions or systemic failure, come to believe that their actions have little or no impact on outcomes. In educational contexts, it often appears as resignation, withdrawal, or a deeply internalized belief among students that academic success is beyond their reach. Among students who have faced generational poverty, under-resourced schools, and culturally unresponsive pedagogy, this mindset can become deeply entrenched. It is not a reflection of intellectual capacity, but a product of accumulated educational trauma and systemic neglect. Instructors working with these populations must learn to recognize the signs of learned helplessness, such as persistent disengagement, chronic absenteeism, or reluctance to attempt challenging tasks, and actively work to counter it with affirming, scaffolded, and culturally responsive approaches. Strategies may include consistent validation, reframing failure as growth, integrating community knowledge into coursework, and building trust through mentorship. Without addressing learned helplessness, even the most innovative pedagogical models risk being undermined by invisible psychological roadblocks. Thus, tackling this issue is not ancillary but essential to any serious effort to improve educational outcomes in historically marginalized communities.

Finally, while culturally responsive, community-anchored teaching strategies like the ELEVATE-US-UP framework can significantly improve classroom-level outcomes, their broader impact is constrained by systemic dysfunctions entrenched and enabled by political and institutional fabric. While the creation of the New Mexico State Ethics Commission5 in 2020 represents a step forward, it faces significant challenges in terms of jurisdictional scope, funding, and enforcement power (Hinckley Kelley 2019). Furthermore, political influence and patronage remain pervasive, particularly in rural and tribal communities, where state oversight is often distant or inconsistent. The long-term failure to meaningfully implement the Indian Education Act (Sanchez and Martinez 2018) is emblematic of how systemic neglect, often reinforced by administrative inertia, undermines even well-intentioned policy frameworks.

The consequence is not only a demoralized public sector workforce but also a student population forced to navigate educational systems shaped more by political maneuvering than educational excellence. In such environments, even the most innovative classroom methods can be neutralized by inadequate institutional support, leadership instability, pressures on the preservation of leadership positions, or misallocation of resources. Thus, while classroom-level innovations like ELEVATE-US-UP provide a critical foundation for re-engaging marginalized students, meaningful transformation in New Mexico’s educational outcomes will remain limited without parallel efforts to address longstanding systemic barriers that hinder institutional accountability and the restoration of public trust.

5. Conclusions

The ELEVATE-US-UP (Engaging Learners through Exploration of Visionary Academic Thought and Empowerment in UnderServed and UnderPrivileged communities) method offers a compelling, evidence-based framework for transforming science education in underserved and underrepresented communities. Its demonstrable impacts on student attendance, academic performance, scientific identity, and community engagement affirm the power of pedagogy that is culturally responsive, inquiry-based, and rooted in lived experience.

Unlike one-size-fits-all educational reforms, ELEVATE-US-UP draws on a multidisciplinary theoretical base, culturally sustaining pedagogy, experiential learning, and community-based science to foster inclusive and equitable learning environments. It centers on students as co-investigators and co-creators of knowledge, not merely consumers, and positions science education as a mechanism of personal and collective empowerment.

This work underscores a broader principle increasingly echoed in the educational literature: equity and excellence are not oppositional goals but mutually reinforcing. As recent studies by Frey et al. (2022), Estrada et al. (2016), and Gutiérrez et al. (2017) indicate, students from historically marginalized communities thrive when instruction honors their cultural identities, affirms their intellectual agency, and connects learning to meaningful real-world contexts. ELEVATE-US-UP operationalizes these ideals with precision, intentionality, and documented success. The significance of this method extends beyond the participating institution. It offers a scalable model for science instruction that aligns with national calls from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine6 (National Academy of Sciences 2011) for equity-centered STEM education. Its emphasis on place-based learning, authentic assessment, and civic engagement speaks to a new paradigm of educational innovation, one in which pedagogy is not only about knowledge transfer but about cultivating purpose, identity, and agency.

While the results of the ELEVATE-US-UP implementation are promising, additional research is necessary to assess its broader applicability, sustainability, and long-term impacts. Future studies should explore the following dimensions:

• Longitudinal impact studies: To fully understand the transformative potential of this method, longitudinal studies are needed to track students’ academic persistence, degree completion, STEM career entry, and continued civic engagement post-graduation. Such research would offer critical insights into the durability of identity development and the role of culturally responsive pedagogy in shaping life outcomes.
• Cross-institutional replication: The method should be piloted at other minority-serving institutions, including tribal colleges and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), as well as at non-MSI settings. Cross-institutional studies would allow for comparative evaluation and refinement, identifying key variables that influence scalability and context-specific adaptation.
• Disciplinary expansion: Although developed within the environmental sciences, the core pedagogical principles of ELEVATE-US-UP are applicable across STEM and non-STEM disciplines alike. Future implementations should examine its effectiveness in fields such as chemistry, engineering, public health, education, and the humanities. Such interdisciplinary applications would validate the method’s versatility and offer broader institutional pathways for equity innovation.
• Faculty development research: Sustainable implementation requires instructor buy-in, training, and reflective practice. Research should examine faculty learning curves, resistance points, and the institutional support necessary for successful adoption. Studies that investigate professional learning communities and peer-mentorship models could inform strategic capacity building.
• Policy integration and systems change: ELEVATE-US-UP also invites inquiry into the systemic conditions that enable or constrain equity-centered teaching. Research on how to embed these practices into accreditation standards, grant funding structures, and institutional policies will be critical for scaling impact. Policy studies can help identify the levers through which equity can become embedded in the very fabric of higher education.
• Mixed-methods and participatory approaches: Future evaluations should continue to employ mixed-method designs that capture both statistical outcomes and nuanced lived experiences. Incorporating participatory action research (PAR) models, where students and faculty co-investigate the pedagogical process, would further democratize knowledge production and elevate student voice in shaping the educational future.

The ELEVATE-US-UP method demonstrates that equity in education is not an abstraction; it is a daily, deliberate practice grounded in empathy, rigor, and responsiveness. It requires seeing students in their full humanity and designing learning environments that reflect, honor, and challenge them. This approach reaffirms that culturally responsive science education is not just about diversifying who enters the lab, it is about rethinking the lab itself. We conclude with a call to educators, researchers, and policymakers: Let us move beyond reform-as-usual toward unusual reform. Let us invest in models that elevate voice, cultivate belonging, and empower students to shape both their futures and the futures of their communities. ELEVATE-US-UP is one such model, rooted in place, grounded in equity, and driven by the radical belief that every student, regardless of background, deserves a rigorous, relevant, and humanizing education. With successful and widespread implementation of the ELEVATE-US-UP method, the “US” will morph to encompass both community and country at large.