Effectiveness of a Course in Advancing Students’ Understanding of Barriers to Learning and Participation of Underutilized Groups in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)

Abstract

A course was created at a large private R1 university in the northeast U.S. to explore Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in STEM in response to and to fulfill a university-wide DEIA requirement for undergraduates. To assess the effectiveness of the course, open-response pre- and post-tests were designed that measured students’ understanding of barriers to learning and participation across four underutilized groups in STEM: (1) women, (2) racial minorities, (3) people with disabilities, and (4) people raised in lower socioeconomic households. Written responses on the first and last day of class were analyzed for 69 unique students in three successive cohorts (Fall 2022, 2023, and 2024) and disaggregated by student-reported demographic data. A common codebook was developed that could be broadly applied to all four underutilized groups with overarching categories of individual/self; cultural/societal; and institutional/educational/career, with codes and subcodes specific to each category. Additionally, codes distinct to each underutilized group also emerged. As intended, students on average cited more total and unique barrier codes in the post-test than in the pre-test, confirming that the course had deepened their understanding of the multifaceted challenges and opportunities within educational systems and the broader culture that impact STEM inclusivity. When exploring STEM barriers for women, women reported more unique codes in the pre-test than men, but men showed higher gains from pre- to post-test. Similarly, White and Asian students showed greater gains than racial minority students when identifying STEM barriers for racial minorities. Students without disabilities reported a doubling in unique STEM barrier codes in the post-test. In these three groups, codes related to academic and workplace discrimination were commonly cited. Students who reported being from a low socioeconomic household were limited in this study, though these individuals included more unique codes in their pre-test responses on average. Students in this group commonly cited barriers related to access to opportunity. In general, we found that STEM students acquired significant understanding of barriers to STEM participation in the four underutilized groups of focus after completing a dedicated DEIA course. Additionally, learning gains were often greater in the majority (or privileged) demographic.

1. Introduction

For the past 20 years the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS/NAE/IOM, 2007) have raised and revisited concern about America’s competitiveness in the global economy. These reports, familiarly referred to as “Gathering Storm,” predict that the U.S. is continuing to lose its privileged position as a leader in twenty first century science and innovation. A primary recommendation of the original report was to encourage more U.S. citizens to pursue careers in mathematics, science, and engineering. Progress towards complete utilization of the U.S. talent pool is monitored by the National Science Board through publication of the Science and Engineering Indicators with particular attention to the historic underrepresentation of women, racial minorities, and people with disabilities (NCSES, 2023, including changes between 2011 and 2021). In recent years STEM degree recipients have become increasingly diverse in terms of both sex, race, and ethnicity. However, many groups within the U.S. remain underrepresented among STEM degree recipients when compared to the overall demographics of people aged 20–34 years in the U.S. population. These “missing millions” disadvantage the U. S. against international competitors.

Over the time for which data are available, women have made significant gains in earning baccalaureate degrees in social, behavioral, and life sciences (65% of degrees earned). However, they continue to be severely underrepresented in engineering and computer and information sciences (24–22% of degrees earned compared to 50% of the population) and only constitute 34% of the STEM workforce. Blacks, Hispanics, Native American and Alaskan Native people (underutilized racial minorities in STEM fields) collectively account for 37% of the U.S. population yet only earn 26% of STEM bachelor’s degrees. Furthermore, between 2012 and 2021, while there was some improvement for Hispanic students, the percentage of STEM bachelor’s degrees earned by Black and American Indian or Alaskan Native students either decreased or increased by a relatively small amount.

Approximately 9% of the U.S. population reports one or more disabilities as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau [specifically the American Community Survey (ACS), the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the Current Population Survey (CPS)]. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES, 2023) surveys regarding disability reveal that 13% of college students are now self-reporting a diagnosed disability. Despite the increase in the number of STEM workers with a disability, the proportion of these workers in the STEM workforce was unchanged from 2011 to 2021 at 3%.

The cost of higher education has increased in recent decades, as has the percentage of students who borrow to finance their education and the total amount of student debt (Ma & Pender, 2022). Concern over the cost of higher education has grown among policymakers and the public in general because it poses a barrier for many individuals who cannot afford these expenses. In academic year 2019–2020, first-time, full-time undergraduate students attending 4-year institutions faced an average net price of attendance—tuition, fees, and living expenses minus grant aid—of $14,200 at public institutions, and $28,100 at private nonprofit institutions (in constant 2020–2021 dollars, NCES, 2022). To pay these costs, students used federal, state, local, and institution grants and took out student loans (NCES, 2022). Students’ ability to repay their student loan debt after leaving higher education is a major concern for both borrowers and lenders. In 2020, about 4 years after completing their bachelor’s degrees, the median amount borrowed among 2015–2016 bachelor’s degree recipients was $41,000.

The barriers to complete utilization of the U.S. talent pool in the STEM enterprise have been well documented, including, most importantly, proven strategies for reforming STEM education in America’s schools, colleges, and universities which would close the achievement gap between majority and underutilized groups (Drew, 2011) and decrease attrition from STEM programs (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Central to underrepresentation is the need to address STEM culture and climate (Carlone & Johnson, 2007, 2012; Griffin, 2019). STEM culture has developed through exclusionary norms creating an unwelcome climate perceived as “chilly” by women, “hostile” by racial minorities, “inaccessible” by people with disabilities and generally “unaffordable”. A federal interagency report written by the National Science and Technology Council (2021) documented the barriers to diversity and inclusion in STEM including peer-to-peer interactions (Watkins & Mazur, 2013). In a study by Huber et al. (2023), peer classroom connectedness evidenced positive and statistically significant relationships with academic self-efficacy, STEM major belonging, and university belonging (but not interest in STEM or course grade) in women students. Additionally, in regression analyses that controlled for earlier levels of the outcome variables, peer classroom connectedness in just one STEM course was associated with greater feelings of major belonging four months later in the following semester.

Knowing that classroom climate is a major factor in the retention and success of underutilized demographics in STEM, and that peer classroom connectedness impacts belonging, a new course was created aimed at promoting STEM culture transformation through empowering all learners to act as change agents (transformation of self) that, in turn transforms the peer classroom culture. The premise of this course maps onto the larger theoretical framework of transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1991). The course entitled “Mind the Gap: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility (IDEA) in STEM” was created, using culturally responsive pedagogy (Vielma, 2024), at a large private R1 university in the northeast U.S. to advance students’ knowledge and understanding of the exclusionary culture of STEM fields and to promote their action agency as future STEM practitioners in transforming the culture in which they learn and work. “Mind the Gap” includes a range of assessments and learning activities to achieve the course learning objectives, including reflective essays on science identity and action agency, small group discussions on relevant media (e.g., podcasts, videos, scientific articles) shared in class, and a final paper and presentation focused on a topic of the student’s choice related to STEM barriers (syllabus will be provided upon written request to the co-authors). A longitudinal study has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the course in empowering students as STEM change agents. As a starting point, in an earlier publication, we documented students’ reflections on their socialization into STEM and their observations of the figured world of higher education STEM contexts (Wheatly et al., 2025). That study found that students can recognize and reflect critically on various forms of identity and capital that are involved in their socialization into STEM. Additionally, students can describe, connect, and critique many aspects of the figured world of science presented in their journey towards STEM qualifications and careers.

A primary learning objective of the course is for students to recognize the structures and systems that have perpetuated a lack of representation in the STEM fields, including the historical and ideological theories of race, class, gender, and ability that have dominated the development, practice, and culture of the STEM fields, allowing students to contextualize these issues beyond their own personal experience. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of this course in advancing students’ understanding of barriers to learning and participation across four underutilized demographics in STEM: (1) women, (2) racial minorities, (3) people with disabilities, and (4) people raised in lower socioeconomic households. In summary, we found that STEM students acquired significant understanding of barriers to STEM participation in the four underutilized groups of focus after completing a dedicated DEIA course. Additionally, learning gains were often greater in the majority demographic.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics Statement

This study was determined to be exempt under the Syracuse University Institutional Review Board (no. 22-221). Informed consent was obtained from all participating students on the first day of class for each cohort.

2.2. Participants and Demographic Information

This study was conducted in three successive cohorts of “Mind the Gap: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility (IDEA) in STEM” (Fall 2022, 2023, and 2024). Across the three successive cohorts, we had 98.6% (n = 69/70) of students complete all necessary open-response questions (n = 19/20; 95% in Fall 2022, n = 23/23; 100% in Fall 2023, and n = 27/27; 100% in Fall 2024). In each cohort, graduate enrollment ranged from 0 to 3 students; therefore the majority of respondents were undergraduates.

As part of the post-test students completed on the final day of class, students also completed a short demographic survey (see questions in

Table A1. Demographic information compiled across Fall 2022, 2023, and 2024 student cohorts. All information was self-reported by students in the demographic portion of the post-test. Note: The one student who indicated their gender identity was not listed self-described as “She/they genderfluid.” The one student who indicated their race/ethnicity was not listed self-described as “Romani/Ashkenazi Jewish.” N = 69 students.

What is your current gender identity?		Did you receive a Federal Pell Grant as part of your financial aid package?
Agender	0
Genderqueer or gender nonconforming	1	Yes	19
Man	19	No	38
Non-binary	1	Prefer not to disclose	4
Trans-man	1	No response	8
Trans-woman	0
Two-spirit	0	Do you identify as a veteran or active member of the U.S. Armed Forces Reserves or National guard?
Woman	46
An identity not listed	1	Yes	1
Prefer not to disclose	0	No	68
What is your race/ethnicity? Select all that apply.		What is the highest level of education completed by your parents (mother, father, or both) or guardians?
Asian American or Asian	10
African American or Black	9	Less than high school	2
Hispanic/Latine	8	High school diploma or GED	11
Middle Eastern or North African	2	Some college	7
Native American/First Nations or Alaskan Native	0	2-year degree	2
Pacific Islander	0	4-year degree	19
White or Caucasian	43	Professional degree or doctorate	21
Race, ethnicity or origin not listed	1	Prefer not to disclose	0
Prefer not to disclose	0	No response	7
Have you ever been diagnosed with any disability or impairment?		Which term best describes your social class identity?
		Wealthy	3
Yes	17	Upper-middle or professional	22
No	51	Middle-class	23
Prefer not to disclose	1	Working-class	10
		Low income or poor	5
Are you an international student?		Prefer not to disclose	2
Yes	7	No response	4
No	62

). Starting from standard categories required in federal reporting (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, IPEDs), and consideration of examples used in the National Survey of Student Engagement, the demographic survey questions were tailored to the goals of this specific study as recommended in Frederick (2020), using evolving terminology from relevant communities and paying attention to formatting (order of response options, multi-select format, write-in options, and skipping). Pell Grant eligibility was used as a proxy for low income.

A summary of self-reported demographic information across the three cohorts, as well as the eight questions included in the demographic survey, are available in Table A1. Of note is that the student population enrolled in the “Mind the Gap” course across the three cohorts was reflective of enrollment in the Biology and Forensic Science programs at the institution where this research was conducted. At this R1 university, undergraduates can select from approximately 150 DEIA courses to fulfill the DEIA institutional requirement and opting into this class suggests interest and/or prior knowledge of the topic.

2.3. Description of Pre- and Post-Tests

For the 2022, 2023, and 2024 cohorts, students completed the pre-test in class on the first day of the course and the post-test in class on the final day of the course. Pre- and post-tests were administered in, and data was downloaded from, Blackboard—the institution’s learning management system. Students took approximately 20 min to complete the pre-test and 35 min to complete the post-test. Pre- and post-tests included the same 14 open-response questions on attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about four underutilized groups in STEM fields: (1) women (2) racial minorities (defined as Black, Hispanic, Native American and Alaskan Native) (3) people with disabilities (defined as both visible and invisible) and (4) people raised in lower socioeconomic households (defined as having incomes below $48,000). These demographic categories were selected and defined based on data gathered and reported by the National Science Foundation on the science and engineering workforce (National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021) and the National Center for Educational Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System that defines low income as a family’s taxable income for the preceding year less than 150% of poverty level established by the Census Bureau ($48,500 for a family of four at the start of this study).

While the full pre- and post-tests included 14 questions each, we focused on four of these questions for the purposes of our study:

Q1.

Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by women in STEM.

Q2.

Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by Black, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaska Native people in STEM.

Q3.

Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by people with visible and invisible disabilities in STEM.

Q4.

Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by people raised in lower socioeconomic households (annual incomes below $48,500) in STEM.

2.4. Data Analysis

Student responses for each cohort were downloaded from Blackboard. Data was organized by question, and each individual student was assigned an ID number before data was de-identified so pre- and post-paired responses could be tracked, although data was ultimately reported as pooled pre- and post-responses across participants. Next, we conducted thematic analysis to inductively code students’ pre- and post-test responses on Questions 1–4 (Q1–4) into emergent themes (Creswell, 2012) in Excel. Emergent themes were used to develop a rich description of the perceived barriers for each underutilized demographic group of interest. Coding units were individual students’ responses to Q1, Q2, Q3, or Q4 on the pre- or post-test (i.e., individuals’ responses about the same barrier on the pre- and post-tests were coded separately). Responses could also be dual-coded if they included multiple themes from the established codebook.

Authors AH and MW first completed an initial coding of student responses for barriers experienced by women, during which a preliminary codebook was developed based on emergent themes in the pre- and post-data across all three cohorts. We then met to discuss how to make the codes and subcodes more accurate and clearer and to come to consensus on any coding disagreements (Creswell, 2012). As coding is a very iterative process, we repeated this cycle several times before we fully came to consensus and a final codebook and coding scheme were agreed upon. We also selected at least one exemplary quote for each code and subcode in the final codebook.

We used the final codebook for barriers experienced by women as the initial codebook for the remaining three questions, as a preliminary reading of students’ written responses suggested many of the themes across questions were overlapping. We then iteratively developed the final codebook and coded student pre- and post-responses for barriers experienced by racial minorities (Q2), followed by barriers experienced by people with disabilities (Q3), and finally barriers experienced by people raised in lower socioeconomic households (Q4).

3. Results

Multiple common (i.e., overlapping) themes emerged across the four underutilized groups (Q1: women, Q2: racial minorities, Q3: people with disabilities, and Q4: people raised in lower socioeconomic households). The codebook describing common themes across these four groups is presented in

Table 1. Common themes across four underutilized groups in STEM. Note: This subcode only emerged for women and people raised in lower socioeconomic households.

Over-Arching Category	Theme	Subcode	Definition	Exemplar Quote
Individual/Self	Imposter syndrome		Student expresses that [underutilized individuals] actively feel that they do not belong in STEM fields and feel like an outsider (for multiple reasons). Can lead to self-selecting against opportunity in STEM.	“Their inclusion is often an afterthought, so it is not well thought out and does not always provide what they need. This can make people with disabilities feel like they don’t belong in STEM.” (Fall 2022, post-test, people with disabilities)
	Stereotype threat		Individuals risk confirming negative stereotypes about [their underutilized group] by believing and propagating these stereotypes (e.g., feeling inferior, decreased confidence in STEM). Can lead to self-selecting against opportunity in STEM.	“Females experience the feeling of being inferior to man and overall thought of being less competent.” (Fall 2023, post-test, women)
Institutional/Educational/Career-based	Inequitable recognition		Student expresses that [underutilized groups] in STEM receive inequitable recognition of their achievements and successes.	“We also know that a woman who did contribute to STEM (a woman discovered the DNA strand) often had their work stolen or discredited.” (Fall 2023, pre-test, women)
	Underrepresentation in STEM/Lack of role models		Fewer [individuals from underutilized groups] in STEM leads to a lack of role models who are [from that underutilized group], ultimately leading to less community support and decreased representation of their voices and ideas in STEM.	“These students also deal with the lack of representation or lack of role models within the STEM fields as there are so few.” (Fall 2022, post-test, racial minorities)
	Access to opportunity		Student expresses the idea that [individuals from underutilized groups] have less access to various forms of opportunity during their education, in their career, or in their community.
		Fewer educational and career opportunities in STEM	Fewer opportunities exist for [underutilized groups] in STEM in higher education and their careers. This includes the risk of losing more [individuals from underutilized groups] over time in the “STEM pipeline.” This also includes the idea that [individuals from underutilized groups] experience limited upward mobility in their career trajectories (e.g., tenure), and have fewer leadership opportunities compared to their [utilized counterparts].	“[People from lower socioeconomic households] may lack ‘educational capital’ that would provide them with unwritten rules associated with education…and advancement in their early career in STEM (e.g., knowledge of norms in graduate or undergraduate school applications).” (Fall 2022, post-test, people raised in lower socioeconomic households)
		Wage gap and biased hiring practices	Existence of a wage gap for comparable STEM jobs between [underutilized groups and their utilized counterparts]. This includes the idea that [individuals from underutilized groups] are not hired at the same rates as [their utilized counterparts] and experience biased hiring practices.	“When applying to jobs and internships, [people with disabilities] are more likely to be questioned about their disability and cost of accommodations, rather than about their skill and qualifications.” (Fall 2022, post-test, people with disabilities)
		Fewer resources available in STEM careers and higher education	[Individuals from underutilized groups] have access to fewer resources compared to [their utilized counterparts] in STEM, including both physical (e.g., offices, labs) and financial (e.g., grants, awards) resources.	“Not only is access to education in STEM difficult but the tools needed to be in STEM are expensive, for example, technology…It seems like it would be nearly impossible to get a degree without access to technology, especially considering the remote nature of education due to the pandemic.” (Fall 2022, pre-test, people raised in lower socioeconomic households)
Cross-category themes	Intersectionality		Student mentions that barriers for underserved groups in STEM likely intersect with other identities (e.g., race/ethnicity, disability, SES, women)	“Oftentimes these people belong to other disadvantaged groups like racial minorities or people with disabilities.” (Fall 2022, post-test, people raised in lower socioeconomic households)
	Personal anecdotes		Student includes a personal anecdote/story/example to further explain their response	“For example, one of my friends is a Latina majoring in engineering. Throughout our years at [our university], she has voiced her frustrations in how she is one of very few women (of color) in her major…How her professors dismiss and minimize the discrimination she faces as a first generation Latina woman.” (Fall 2022, pre-test, women)
	Pop culture reference		Student includes a pop culture reference in their response (e.g., TV show, movie, book)	“I think of the movie Hidden Figures, where women of color were working for NASA and did not have access to bathrooms, and who were treated with a lack of respect due to their identity.” (Fall 2022, pre-test, racial minorities)

, while the frequency of occurrences for each of these common codes and subcodes is presented in

Table 2. Frequency of occurrences of common themes across four underutilized groups in STEM (N = 69 students). Each student who completed the assessment answered each of the four questions. Q1. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by women in STEM. Q2. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by Black, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaska Native people in STEM. Q3. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by people with visible and invisible disabilities in STEM. Q4. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by people raised in lower socioeconomic households (annual incomes below $48,500) in STEM. Note that code frequencies for Access to opportunity are the sums of its three subcodes (Fewer educational and career opportunities in STEM, Wage gap and biased hiring practices, and Fewer resources available in STEM careers and higher education). Note: This subcode only emerged for women and people raised in lower socioeconomic households.

Over-Arching Category	Theme	Subcode	Women	Racial Minorities	People with Disabilities	People from Lower Socioeconomic Households
Individual/Self	Imposter syndrome		Pre: 6 Post: 8	Pre: 9 Post: 9	Pre: 6 Post: 15	Pre: 2 Post: 4
	Stereotype threat		Pre: 4 Post: 8	Pre: 1 Post: 13	Pre: 0 Post: 0	Pre: 0 Post: 2
Institutional/Educational/Career-based	Inequitable recognition		Pre: 16 Post: 8	Pre: 13 Post: 8	Pre: 4 Post: 2	Pre: 2 Post: 2
	Underrepresentation in STEM/Lack of role models		Pre: 21 Post: 33	Pre: 17 Post: 42	Pre: 4 Post: 10	Pre: 0 Post: 9
	Access to opportunity		Pre: 40 Post: 43	Pre: 43 Post: 37	Pre: 28 Post: 21	Pre: 78 Post: 94
		Fewer educational and career opportunities in STEM	Pre: 12 Post: 18	Pre: 22 Post: 28	Pre: 9 Post: 12	Pre: 29 Post: 33
		Wage gap and biased hiring practices	Pre: 19 Post: 18	Pre: 12 Post: 6	Pre: 7 Post: 4	Pre: 4 Post: 9
		Fewer resources available in STEM careers and higher education	Pre: 5 Post: 5	N/A	N/A	Pre: 45 Post: 52
Cross-category themes	Intersectionality		Pre: 4 Post: 5	Pre: 11 Post: 14	Pre: 2 Post: 6	Pre: 1 Post: 4
	Personal anecdotes		Pre: 4 Post: 1	Pre: 8 Post: 2	Pre: 8 Post: 1	Pre: 2 Post: 0
	Pop culture reference		Pre: 0 Post: 0	Pre: 1 Post: 1	Pre: 0 Post: 2	Pre: 0 Post: 0

.

Codebooks describing the distinct, unique themes that emerged within each of the four underutilized groups (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) are presented in

Table A2. Distinct emergent themes for barriers against women in STEM across all participants (N = 69). Note: Socialization in a patriarchal society can also be defined as “Normalized culture of exclusion from STEM based on gender roles.” Further, limited accommodations could occur at a current or potential place of employment. Differential treatment could include power differentials between a principal investigator and a student, a professor and a department chair, etc. Preconceived ideas include the idea that women are taken “less seriously” than men. Innate biases can be both implicit and explicit.

Over-Arching Category	Theme	Subcode	Definition	Exemplar Quote	Counts
Cultural/Societal	Socialization in a patriarchal society		Student expresses the idea that women are raised and socialized differently than men in our (western) culture and thus are explicitly or implicitly excluded from STEM.		Pre: 7 Post: 16
		Diminished interest and confidence in STEM	Socialization in a patriarchal society leads to diminished interest and confidence regarding one’s abilities in STEM.	“The barriers for women’s participation begin before school; socialization in our patriarchal society imparts messages to young women that dissuade them from pursuing STEM.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 3 Post: 4
		Gender roles reinforced through childhood experience	Early exposure to STEM toys and learning activities in K-12 during childhood is gender-based.	“Girls are given toys that reinforce gender roles such as dolls to teach motherhood and beauty standards, whereas boys are given toys like cars and robots that promote curiosity about systems and mechanics.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 3 Post: 9
	Gender bias and sexism in society		Student expresses the idea that our society propagates sexism and biases regarding women’s roles and abilities.		Pre: 4 Post: 2
		Innate abilities of women	Societal gender biases focus on women’s intellectual abilities being less than men’s, the idea that women are more emotional and less rational than men, and the expected domestic role of women (e.g., childcare).	“Women are stereotypically believed to be more emotional rather than rational so some people use this bias to say that means they will not be able to achieve as much in STEM fields.” (Fall 2022, pre-test)	Pre: 4 Post: 10
		Devaluing women’s perspectives and ideas	Historical inequality and hegemonic masculinity have led to sexism in the form of devaluing women’s ideas and perspectives (e.g., thoughts of women are lesser than men).	“I generally understand that hegemonic masculinity and sexism are barriers to women’s participation in different spheres of society and the environment because they systematically perpetuate the devaluing of women’s perspectives and ideas.” (Fall 2022, pre-test)	Pre: 2 Post: 7
Institutional/Educational/Career-based	Educational and Workplace Discrimination		Student expresses that women experience some form of discrimination or bias in academic/educational settings or during their career.		Pre: 92 Post: 110
		Limited accommodations and understanding for women’s health in STEM	There is a lack of accessibility and accommodations for pregnant women, women who plan to become pregnant, and/or women employed in STEM with children. This also encompasses the idea that the built environment in STEM does not accommodate for the needs of women.	“[Women in STEM are] not being given accommodations for pregnancy, childcare, or even period care.” (Fall 2023, post-test)	Pre: 12 Post: 19
		Preconceived ideas about women in STEM	People in STEM hold preconceived ideas about women’s competency in STEM fields. This includes the idea that women must work harder to compensate for professional assumptions about their competence, and that women are less successful in math-based fields and more successful in life sciences fields.	“In education, women are thought to perform lower in the mathematics-based sciences and are often pushed away from fields like computer science, mathematics, and physics because they are considered the harder sciences.” (Fall 2022, pre-test)	Pre: 37 Post: 37
		Differential treatment of women versus men in STEM	Women are treated differently than men in STEM fields and careers. This encompasses women being disrespected, excluded, marginalized, harassed, and judged based on appearance or likeability more than men. This also includes the idea of power differentials.	“There exists this cold shoulder [STEM] culture of kind of ‘just leave [women] alone’ instead of trying to be more open to new types of people joining.” (Fall 2023, pre-test)	Pre: 43 Post: 54

,

Table A3. Distinct emergent themes for barriers against racial minorities (Black, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaska Native; BIPOC) in STEM across all participants (N = 69). Note: Systemic racism can occur across various settings. This code includes the idea that discrimination against racial minorities is widespread in society and can encompass policies, practices, and politics in a society that propagates bias and discrimination against racial minorities, which further influence access to healthcare and more prevalent mental/physical health issues among racial minorities. These biases can be implicit or explicit. Differential treatment can also encompass racial bias in the workplace, where racial minorities are judged on their appearances more than white people (e.g., seen as unprofessional due to hair, style, dialect).

Over-Arching Category	Theme	Subcode	Definition	Exemplar Quote	Counts
Cultural/Societal	Normalized culture of exclusion from STEM based on race		Student expresses the idea that BIPOC are raised, socialized, and treated differently than white people in our (western) culture, and thus are explicitly or implicitly excluded from STEM.		Pre: 18 Post: 36
		Diminished interest and confidence in STEM	Socialization in a white society leads to diminished interest and confidence regarding one’s abilities in STEM.	“As a black man I feel as if barriers in STEM begin at a young age. Grade school was the beginning of my interest in the STEM field through events and teacher interest. A lot of the time these are not offered in schools of color or poorer schooling regions due to redlining.” (Fall 2024, post-test)	Pre: 3 Post: 13
		Limited opportunities and resources in early (K-12) education	Early exposure to STEM toys and learning activities in K-12 during childhood is gender-based.	“[There are] systematic barriers that don’t allow for them to get involved with STEM as a child or stay involved as they grow older.” (Fall 2024, post-test)	Pre: 14 Post: 21
	Institutional/Systemic Racism		Student expresses the idea that our society propagates racism and biases regarding BIPOC’s roles and abilities. This includes a lack of community-based resources and systemic inequalities that impact socioeconomic status. This also includes the idea that societal racial biases focus on BIPOC intellectual abilities being less than whites, and in many cases BIPOC athletic ability being stronger than whites. Historical inequality and white privilege have led to racism in the form of devaluing BIPOC ideas.	“Black, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaska Native people tend to hit barriers that are created by racism…This can make it harder for Black, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaska Native people to succeed as they are held back by society.” (Fall 2022, pre-test)	Pre: 39 Post: 50
Institutional/Educational/Career-based	Educational and Workplace Discrimination		Student expresses that BIPOC experience some form of discrimination or bias in educational settings or during their career.		Pre: 64 Post: 71
		Preconceived ideas about BIPOC in STEM	People in STEM hold preconceived ideas about BIPOC competency in STEM fields, which may influence how BIPOC are treated in their education and careers compared to whites. This includes the idea that BIPOC have to work harder to compensate for professional assumptions about their competence, and that BIPOC are less successful in math-based fields and more successful in athletics or physical activity.	“Racist ideologies make assumptions that [BIPOC] are inferior and ‘stupid.’” (Fall 2023, post-test)	Pre: 29 Post: 33
		Differential treatment of BIPOC vs. whites in STEM	BIPOC are treated differently than whites in STEM fields and careers. This encompasses BIPOC being disrespected, excluded, marginalized, harassed, and judged based on appearance or likeability more than whites. This also includes the idea of power differentials and microaggressions.	“Teachers [may believe BIPOC] students are less capable than they actually are or act surprised that they are doing so well.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 34 Post: 35
		Code switching	The idea that BIPOC must adopt “white” behaviors and norms in the workplace (e.g., speaking, mannerisms, dress, hair) to “fit in” and limit workplace discrimination.	“[BIPOC in STEM have] to adopt professional white conduct.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 1 Post: 3
	Lack of trust in STEM fields/professions		BIPOC are less trusting of STEM fields and professions in general because of historical mistreatment of BIPOC in STEM.	“[There is] a general distrust in ethnic minority communities for scientific research and other science related endeavors (especially medicine) due to a history of racism and exploitation.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 2 Post: 5

,

Table A4. Distinct emergent themes for barriers against people with disabilities (PwD) in STEM across all participants (N = 69). Note: This code includes the idea that discrimination against PwD is widespread in society based on disability status and can encompass policies, practices, and politics in a society that propagates bias and discrimination against PwD compared to able-bodied people. Societal biases focus on disability as a handicapping condition and fail to appreciate the abilities. These biases can be implicit or explicit. Differential treatment can also encompass PwD being pitied, treated like a victim, or being perceived as “brave.” Limited accommodations also include the idea that the built environment in STEM does not accommodate for PwD, such as a lack of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in the classroom, and that STEM is a very visual field in general. As presently instructed, STEM is over-reliant on visual senses which can place PwD at a disadvantage. This code also includes the emotional tax of requesting accommodations for PwD or other mental health strains/barriers associated with having a disability.

Over-Arching Category	Theme	Subcode	Definition	Exemplar Quote	Counts
Cultural/Societal	Normalized culture of exclusion from STEM based on ableism		Student expresses the idea that PwD are raised, socialized, and treated differently than able-bodied people in our (western) culture, and thus are explicitly or implicitly excluded from STEM.		Pre: 51 Post: 79
		Diminished interest and confidence in STEM	Socialization in an ableist society leads to diminished interest and confidence regarding one’s abilities in STEM.	“[PwD] also aren’t given the individual help needed, which lowers their likelihood to graduate, let alone pursue STEM majors.” (Fall 2023, post-test)	Pre: 1 Post: 5
		Limited opportunities and resources in early (K-12) education	There are fewer opportunities for PwD to succeed in K-12 classes that prepare students for college.	“Our society…makes it difficult for minority groups, such as the visible and invisible disabled community, to have access and equal opportunity to pursue the STEM field.” (Fall 2024, pre-test)	Pre: 14 Post: 15
		Limited accommodations in early (K-12) education	Few or no accommodations exist for PwD to succeed in K-12. This includes learning accommodations, school infrastructures, and limited teacher preparation in working with students with disabilities.	“[PwD] have to take the same classes [as able-bodied students] without the accommodations they need like speech to text.” (Fall 2024, post-test)	Pre: 33 Post: 52
	Institutional/Systemic Ableism		Student expresses the idea that our society propagates ableism and biases regarding disability roles and abilities and is inherently inaccessible. Society often wrongly associates physical disabilities with one’s cognitive abilities. Historical inequality and marginalization of PwD have led to them being treated as inferior and a burden on society. This includes a lack of community-based resources and systemic inequalities that impact socioeconomic status.	“Most of the time [PwD] are just forgotten about, a lot interferes with [the] requirements for them to be involved in comfort and not pain. Or [PwD] are often made fun of for being different.” (Fall 2023, post-test)	Pre: 31 Post: 36
Institutional/Educational/Career-based	Educational and Workplace Discrimination		Student expresses that PwD experience some form of discrimination or bias in educational settings or during their career.		Pre: 104 Post: 130
		Preconceived ideas about PwD in STEM	People in STEM hold preconceived ideas about the competency of PwD in STEM fields, which may influence how they are treated in their education and careers compared to able-bodied people. This includes the idea that PwD have to work harder to compensate for professional assumptions about their competence.	“[STEM] projects PwD as less competent or less intelligent than their able-bodied peers.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 33 Post: 36
		Differential treatment of PwD vs. able-bodied people in STEM	PwD are treated differently than able-bodied people in STEM fields and careers. This encompasses PwD being disrespected, excluded, marginalized, harassed, judged based on disability, and being pitied. This also includes the idea of power differentials.	“Students with disabilities are often tokenized and praised as being brave which can negatively affect their mental health.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 27 Post: 34
		Limited accommodations and understanding for disability in general	There is a lack of accessibility and accommodations for PwD, and limited understanding of disability (invisible or not) in STEM. This also encompasses the idea that the built environment in STEM does not accommodate for PwD.	“I think STEM is a very visual field, at least as it presently practices, so visual impairments probably take a heavy toll on one’s ability to engage.” (Fall 2022, pre-test)	Pre: 43 Post: 59
	Lack of trust in STEM fields/professions		PwD are less trusting of STEM fields and professions in general because of significant interaction with the medical profession and technology which exposes them to skepticism.	“[There is a] lack of strong support by the health care system [for PwD].” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 0 Post: 2

and

Table A5. Distinct emergent themes for barriers against people raised in lower socioeconomic households in STEM (SES = socioeconomic status) across all participants (N = 69). Note: In terms of cultural/societal barriers, enrichment activities that promote interest in STEM (travel, time in nature, museums, summer programs, etc.) may not be available to people from low SES backgrounds. Limited opportunities may include things like fewer AP courses being offered in low SES schools, and that lower SES people are often less familiar with the unwritten rules of STEM culture including applying for college and scholarships, and forming professional connections and networks. This code includes the idea that discrimination against low SES people is widespread in society based on wealth status and can encompass policies, practices, and politics—for example, a lack of community-based resources and systemic inequalities that impact low SES people, which further influences access to healthcare and more prevalent mental/physical health issues among those living in poverty. Lower SES people have access to fewer resources in their communities, or resources are more inaccessible for lower SES (personal versus mass transportation options), including limited access to healthcare/nutrition, adequate housing, informal science learning opportunities (like museums), and other important resources. Such factors can directly/indirectly impact success/learning in college. Additionally, society can wrongly associate low SES with one’s cognitive abilities. Prioritizing finances, time, etc., also encompasses low SES students working to support their families (e.g., providing childcare or earning money, especially if parents are absent or also working).

Over-Arching Category	Theme	Subcode	Definition	Exemplar Quote	Counts
Cultural/Societal	Normalized culture of exclusion from STEM based on wealth		Student expresses the idea that lower SES people are raised, socialized, and treated differently than higher SES people in our (western) culture, and thus are explicitly or implicitly excluded from STEM.		Pre: 44 Post: 63
		Diminished interest and confidence in STEM	Socialization in a wealthy society leads to diminished interest and confidence regarding one’s abilities in STEM. Enrichment activities that promote interest in STEM are not available.	“Children [from low SES households] also don’t receive the same opportunities that can spark and/or nurture interests in STEM such as science museums or summer camps.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 6 Post: 11
		Limited opportunities and resources in early (K-12) education	Poorer school districts are often found in areas with low SES populations, and STEM curriculum is inaccessible due to prior education (e.g., school district funding, access to test prep/tutors). Lower SES people are often less familiar with the unwritten rules of STEM culture.	“When taking the same classes [students from low SES households] miss out on opportunities such as tutoring or supplies.” (Fall 2024, post-test)	Pre: 25 Post: 31
	Institutional/Systemic Wealth Bias in Society		Student expresses the idea that our society propagates bias against lower SES roles and abilities. Society often wrongly associates low SES with one’s cognitive abilities. Lower SES have access to fewer resources in their communities, or resources are more inaccessible for lower SES. These include transportation, healthcare, nutrition, education, etc.	“[Barriers include] lack of resources, violence in the community, and lack of insurance coverage.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 28 Post: 37
Institutional/Educational/Career-based	Educational and Workplace Discrimination		Student expresses that lower SES individuals experience wealth discrimination or bias in educational settings or during their career.		Pre: 15 Post: 10
		Preconceived ideas about lower SES people in STEM	People in STEM hold preconceived ideas about the competency of people with low SES, which may influence how they are treated in their education and careers compared to higher SES people. This includes the idea that people from lower SES backgrounds are less successful in math-based fields and more successful in trades	“People raised in lower socioeconomic households may be assumed to be less intelligent or less qualified by colleagues who were given access to more opportunities than they were or went to more elite schools than they did…” (Fall 2022, pre-test)	Pre: 3 Post: 3
		Wealth bias in the STEM pipeline	People with lower SES are treated differently than others in STEM fields and careers. This encompasses low SES individuals being disrespected, excluded, marginalized, harassed, and judged based on appearance. This also includes the idea of power differentials.	“There are also certain expectations of dress and family history that one may not be able to present for themselves in the professional atmosphere due to financial difficulty.” (Fall 2022, post-test)	Pre: 9 Post: 5
	Prioritizing finances, time, family support, and education		People with lower SES must balance higher education, going into debt, working to support their families, and unpaid work like internships or volunteer opportunities. Low SES students may also need to consider alternative educational pathways. These decisions lead to higher emotional burden regarding financial insecurity and persisting/succeeding in STEM. Parents often have limited formal education and are unable to provide STEM learning opportunities or support.	“The main barrier is the cost of education. Such students either decide against education or end up in heaps of debt just to gain education. The debt can lead to a low socioeconomic situation undermining the desired effect of education.” (Fall 2022, pre-test)	Pre: 32 Post: 38

, respectively.

The average number of themes (or codes) that students cited on the pre- and post-tests for each underutilized group is presented in

Table 3. Total and unique code counts across Questions 1–4, pooled across all student participants (N = 69). Note: “Unique codes” indicates codes that individuals cited only on the pre-test or only on the post-test, but not both.

	Ave No. Codes on Pre-Test	Ave No. Codes on Post-Test	Ave No. Unique Codes on Pre-Test	Ave No. Unique Codes on Post-Test
Q1. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by women in STEM.	2.95	3.72	1.54	2.29
Q2. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by Black, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaska Native people in STEM.	3.37	4.35	1.58	2.58
Q3. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by people with visible and invisible disabilities in STEM.	3.49	4.47	1.45	2.40
Q4. Please describe what you know about the barriers experienced by people raised in lower socioeconomic households (annual incomes below $48,500) in STEM.	3.01	3.84	1.15	1.89

. The average number of unique themes (i.e., codes that individual students mentioned in the pre-test or post-test, but not both) for each underutilized group is also presented in Table 3.

Throughout the text of the manuscript, we will use bold font to denote overarching categories, italicized font to denote codes/themes, and underlined font to denote subcodes/subthemes. This format is not used in the tables.

3.1. Common Barriers to STEM Participation

Common barriers identified for all four underutilized groups in STEM (Table 1) could be categorized under two overarching categories of Individual/Self and Institutional/Educational/Career-based. Under Individual/Self, students identified imposter syndrome and stereotype threat as common barriers for all four underutilized groups. Essentially, if individuals from any underutilized group feel unwelcome in STEM environments or internalize that they do not belong, these could act as barriers to their participation and perseverance in STEM.

Under the category Institutional/Educational/Career-based, students identified three overarching themes across all four underutilized groups: inequitable recognition, underrepresentation in STEM/lack of role models, and access to opportunity (Table 1). Three subcodes emerged under access to opportunity, including fewer educational and career opportunities in STEM, wage gap and biased hiring practices, and fewer resources available in STEM careers and higher education, the latter which only emerged as a less frequent barrier for women (Pre: n = 5, Post: n = 5; Table 2) and a much more frequently cited barrier for people raised in lower socioeconomic households (Pre: n = 45, Post: n = 52; Table 2). While student mentions of each barrier varied across the four underutilized groups and from pre- to post-test, the most frequently cited barrier across all four underutilized groups on both pre- and post-tests was access to opportunity—particularly, the fewer educational and career opportunities that these underutilized groups have in STEM due to factors such as their upbringing, education, or workplace discrimination (Table 2). Interestingly, the existence of a wage gap and biased hiring practices was mentioned most frequently as a barrier for women, though students broadly discussed this as a barrier for the other three underutilized groups as well. Across the four underutilized groups, students cited wage gaps and biased hiring practices inconsistently from pre- to post-tests (i.e., code counts stayed approximately the same for women, decreased for racial minorities and people with disabilities, and increased for people from low socioeconomic households). We observed a similar trend of inconsistent patterns for inequitable recognition (i.e., code counts stayed approximately the same for people with disabilities and people from low socioeconomic households, and decreased for women and racial minorities) This could be due to biased hiring practices and lack of recognition for women and racial minorities being more visible and present in the media, though the lack of clear coding trends makes it challenging to develop meaningful conclusions for these themes. The increase in frequency of occurrences of common themes from pre- to post-test was greatest for imposter syndrome in people with disabilities, stereotype threat for racial minorities, and underrepresentation/lack of role models across all four underutilized demographics.

Finally, three common codes emerged under the overarching Cross-Category Themes: intersectionality, personal anecdotes, and pop culture references (Table 1). Intersectionality—or the idea that an individual’s multiple social identities are interacting rather than separate, independent entities—was most often mentioned as a barrier for racial minorities (Table 2). Students would often discuss how the socioeconomic status or sex of a racial minority might further heighten barriers for them to participate in STEM. We also kept track of students sharing personal anecdotes or experiences in their responses, which interestingly they did more frequently on the pre-tests than the post-tests (Table 2). We predict this was due to students relying more on their personal experiences regarding STEM barriers in the pre-test and more on content learned from the course in the post-test. While rare, we also noted when students made pop culture references in their responses about barriers for underutilized groups, though this theme only emerged for racial minorities and people with disabilities (Table 2).

3.2. Distinct, Unique Barriers to STEM Participation

For each underutilized group in STEM, distinct barriers emerged under the over-arching category of Cultural/Societal. The theme of normalized culture of exclusion from STEM was distinctly expressed based on gender, race, ability, and wealth. For each underutilized demographic, there were significant increases in the counts recorded in the post-test compared with the pre-test. In each case, corresponding subcodes described diminished interest and confidence in STEM as well as limited educational opportunities. A second theme of institutional/systemic bias was distinctly expressed as sexism, racism, ableism, and wealth bias in society. Overall mentions of this theme were higher for racial minorities, people with disabilities, and people raised in lower socioeconomic households than they were for women. Students’ responses identified innate physical and cognitive abilities as barriers, as well as a predilection for non-STEM roles for two of the groups (care work/domesticity for women; athleticism for racial minorities).

While the over-arching category of Institutional/Educational/Career-based barriers presented themes that were common to all four underutilized groups in STEM (above), distinct emergent themes around educational and workplace discrimination were identified. Subcodes within this theme were distinctive to women (limited accommodation and understanding of reproductive life stages), racial minorities (code switching or adopting white behaviors and norms), and people with disabilities (lack of accessibility in the built environment). A subcode common to all four groups that was differentially expressed was preconceived ideas about competency in STEM which subsequently led to differential treatment. A second theme emerging under Institutional/Educational/Career-based barriers was lack of trust in STEM fields and professions, which emerged for two groups (racial minorities and people with disabilities), based largely on historical mistreatment that has led to mistrust and skepticism. A theme that emerged for people raised in lower socioeconomic households was the need to prioritize finances, time, family support and education, leading to a higher emotional burden regarding financial insecurity resulting often in seeking alternative educational pathways.

Average total code counts for each of the four underutilized groups demonstrated an approximately 30% increase from pre- to post-test (Table 3). The average number of unique codes (codes that individuals mentioned on the pre- or post-test, but not both) showed pre- to post-test gains of 49% for Q1 (women), with even greater gains for Q2 (racial minorities, 63%), Q3 (people with disabilities 66%) and Q4 (people from lower socioeconomic households, 64%). The interpretation of these data is that the course is effective in broadening students’ understanding of barriers to STEM experienced by these four underutilized groups.

3.3. Demographic Analysis

Across all three cohorts (women: n = 46, men: n = 19), we found that students who identified as men showed consistently higher gains in average number of codes and unique codes cited on the post-test compared to the pre-test when responding about barriers for women in STEM compared to students identifying as women. When discussing barriers for women in STEM, men on average cited 2.35 codes on the pre-test and 4.16 codes on the post-test, while women cited on average 3.23 code on the pre-test and 3.67 code on the post-test. Similarly, men on average cited 0.94 unique codes on the pre-test and 2.68 unique codes on the post-test, while women cited on average 1.78 unique codes on the pre-test and 2.21 unique codes on the post-test. It seems intuitive that women have more initial knowledge about the barriers against women in STEM based on personal experiences in the field. Likewise, men would have less knowledge about barriers against women but would stand to gain more knowledge about this underutilized group over the duration of the course.

Across all cohorts, students who identified as racial minorities were less represented than women (racial minorities: n = 21; White/Asian: n = 47). When discussing barriers for racial minorities in STEM in the pre-test, racial minority students cited about the same number of total codes (racial minority: n = 3.7; White/Asian: n = 3.4) and unique codes (racial minority: n = 1.4; White/Asian: n = 1.6) on average compared to White/Asian students. In the post-test, White/Asian students cited more total codes on average (racial minority: n = 4.1; White/Asian: n = 4.39) although the gains were not as pronounced as for the barriers for women. Unique codes cited by minority and majority students on the post-test were identical (racial minority: n = 2.6; White/Asian: n = 2.6).

Students who identified as having disabilities were represented in the overall participant group (students with disabilities: n = 17; students without disabilities: n = 52), as were students who identified as originating in lower socioeconomic households (low socioeconomic household: n = 7; middle/high socioeconomic household: n = 62). The pre- and post-test averages and gains for students with and without disabilities were very similar for total and unique codes. Students from lower socioeconomic households cited higher total (lower: n = 3.36; middle/high: n = 2.96) and unique (lower: n = 1.76; middle/high: n = 1.04) codes in the pre-test. However, students from middle/high socioeconomic households showed greater gains in total codes in the post-test (lower: n = 3.61; middle/high: n = 3.87).

4. Discussion

The present study has shown that a course on inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility in STEM appears to be effective in broadening students’ understanding of barriers to learning and participation across four underutilized demographics: (1) women, (2) racial minorities, (3) people with disabilities, and (4) people raised in lower socioeconomic households.

From students’ written responses, we were able to develop a set of themes for barriers common to all underutilized groups. Broadly these fell under the overarching categories of Individual/Self (imposter syndrome and stereotype threat) and Institutional/Education/Career-Based barriers (inequitable recognition, underrepresentation in STEM, and access to opportunity). A vast literature exists regarding equity issues in STEM for each of the underutilized groups addressed in this study. Prior studies have found that women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, and people from lower socioeconomic households are more likely to report discrimination in STEM and are less likely to feel like they belong (Ong et al., 2011; Fisher et al., 2019; J. J. Lee, 2016; A. Lee, 2022). However, there are few published studies comparing perceptions of students from majority (e.g., “privileged”) groups in STEM with those of students from underutilized groups. Dancy et al. (2020) assessed undergraduates’ awareness of White and male privilege in STEM through conducting a large-scale study where college STEM seniors and STEM “leavers” were interviewed and asked whether the experience of being a STEM major was different for people of different races and genders. They found that White men were generally unaware of the impacts of race or gender on the pursuit of a STEM degree, and that women of color overwhelmingly reported that both race and gender impacted their experiences as a STEM major. Furthermore, Dancy et al. (2020) concluded that students were less likely to perceive race as having an impact on the experiences of students in STEM compared to gender. Students who acknowledged race and gender impacts did not always attribute these to cultural or systemic factors, but in cases where they did, they related the impact to being a demographic minority (e.g., intimidation, feeling pressure to work harder, not belonging) or discrimination (e.g., cultural assumptions implying the superiority of White people and men) (Dancy et al., 2020). Differing levels of social and/or cultural capital were cited as an explanation of why some races are more represented than others, with students often conflating race with social class. A common theme across categorizations was that women and students of color work harder than men and White people, either because they are perceived as harder workers or as a response to sexism and racism that they encounter (Dancy et al., 2020).

In addition to the identification of common barriers, closer analysis for each underutilized group in STEM revealed distinct emergent barriers under the over-arching category of Cultural/Societal. Within this category the theme of normalized culture of exclusion from STEM was distinctly expressed based on gender roles (for women), race (for racial minorities), ability (for people with disabilities) and wealth (for people raised in lower socioeconomic households). In each case, corresponding subcodes resulted in diminished interest and confidence in STEM as well as limited educational opportunities. A second barrier was institutional/systemic bias, which was distinctly expressed as sexism, racism, ableism, and wealth bias in society.

While the over-arching category of Institutional/Career-based barriers presented themes that were common to all four underutilized groups in STEM (above), distinct emergent themes around educational and workplace discrimination were also identified that were specific to each underutilized group. A subcode common to all four groups that was differentially expressed was preconceived ideas about competency in STEM, which subsequently led to differential treatment of individuals in each underutilized group. One example from the literature focuses on students with disabilities. As A. Lee (2022) explains: “…[T]hose with disabilities are often viewed as deficient or inferior to other people, to justify their unequal and/or discriminatory treatment [in STEM]. What is more, discrimination against women and minorities with disabilities has been legitimized by conceptualizing their impairments in certain functions from a pathological perspective” (p. 1297). A second emergent theme under Institutional/Educational/Career-based barriers was lack of trust in STEM fields and professions, which emerged for two groups (racial minorities and people with disabilities). A theme specific to people raised in lower socioeconomic households was the need to prioritize several life/career decisions based on reduced finances. The need for paid work competes with time for unpaid internships, and a lack of time and money leads to alternative educational pathways. The cost of time is a frequently mentioned characteristic of students from low socioeconomic households pursuing STEM degrees (Amstutz et al., 2010; Major & Godwin, 2018; Varma, 2009).

Access to opportunity was resoundingly cited as a primary barrier across all underutilized groups. Yet imposter syndrome was mostly quoted as a barrier for people with disabilities, and stereotype threat was primarily mentioned for racial minorities. After course completion, students had a better appreciation for the normalized culture of exclusion resulting from societal barriers. After the course, students could cite more examples of institutional/systemic bias for all groups apart from women. Students completing the course were effectively able to recognize common barriers to STEM success as well as barriers that were unique to each underutilized group.

Research has shown that peers can play a critical role in STEM choice and persistence (Stefani, 2024). Peer mentors were shown to play an academic role in a pre-health college program (Heim & Holt, 2022). Studies have shown that peers interacting with one another could reduce the “coldness” of the science classroom, increase engagement and self-efficacy, and provide greater opportunities for learning (whether that be of course content or scientific communication skills), indicating the multitude of pathways through which engagement with peers in the classroom may affect retention and performance in STEM (Watkins & Mazur, 2013). Huber et al. (2023) highlighted an under-researched extra-person factor—perceptions of how connected participants and their classroom peers are to each other—and assessed its impact on understanding women’s underrepresentation within STEM. In both concurrent and longitudinal correlation analyses, peer classroom connectedness evidenced positive and statistically significant relationships with academic self-efficacy, STEM major belonging, and university belonging (but not interest in STEM or course grade) (Huber et al., 2023). Additionally, Huber et al. (2023) found that peer classroom connectedness in just one STEM course was associated with greater feelings of major belonging four months later in the following semester. The relationship between peer classroom connectedness and major belonging (an important predictor of women’s persistence in STEM) suggests that fostering positive relationships among students in STEM classrooms may be an important factor for STEM instructors to consider when designing their curricula and managing their classrooms.

The ability of peers to affect the success of underrepresented classmates can be improved through a better understanding of the educational barriers that underrepresented students encounter. Students from privileged groups often lack a comprehensive understanding of the structural and systemic barriers that their minoritized classmates face (Dancy et al., 2020). Our findings reinforce this thinking. When asked about barriers to success and retention for women, women students reported more codes in the pre-test, but men students showed greater code count gains in the post-test. In the post-test, White/Asian students cited more total codes on average than racial minority students, although this gain was less pronounced than observed for barriers for women. This trend was also evident in Q4, with students raised in lower socioeconomic households expressing higher code counts in the pre-test than students raised in middle/high-class families. Also, middle/high-class respondents demonstrated greater gains in total codes cited on the post-test. We did not observe any obvious trends in the responses of students with and without disabilities on Q3.

Peers’ lack of understanding can have significant negative consequences for the academic environment, including social network exclusion, reinforcement of stereotypes, disengagement, and ineffective teamwork. The approach used in this study suggests we move beyond individual bias to focus on larger institutional issues, challenging the long-standing emphasis in STEM on “fixing” deficits in the underrepresented demographic rather than addressing systems that perpetuate inequality.

In interpreting our findings, we want to acknowledge some limitations of the current study. First, this study was conducted at a large private R1 institution, and the demographic composition of students in the “Mind the Gap” course was limited primarily to undergraduates in Biology and Forensic Science majors. Furthermore the socioeconomic status of the students participating in the study was skewed by institutional type and geography. Thus, findings from the current qualitative study may not be generalizable to undergraduate students at other institutions nor to other STEM fields. Second, students self-selected to enroll in this class out of approximately 150 available options and therefore may have had a better understanding or interest in the topic compared to the overall population of students at our institution, which could bias our findings. Finally, gains made in the post-test could have been attributable to multiple factors beyond the “Mind the Gap” course, including other courses students took concurrently and sociopolitical events covered in the media during that time. A final caveat is that we used the number of barriers cited as a proxy for breadth of understanding or awareness of the barriers. Depth of understanding was not assessed, and would require additional follow-up assessments like student interviews or written reflections.

Overall, our study demonstrated that undergraduates benefit from a course in diversity and inclusion aimed to advance their understanding of the barriers to underutilized students in STEM. Greater knowledge gains were evident in the majority demographic at the end of the course, partially due to underutilized students beginning the course better informed by their personal experiences in STEM. While the rapidly changing political landscape makes it difficult to provide broad recommendations for implementing similar “DEIA in STEM” courses at other institutions, we suggest that even integrating small lessons or activities focused on DEIA in STEM—for example, highlighting diverse historical figures in STEM—can impact students’ awareness of barriers in STEM for underutilized groups. Returning to the framework of transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1991), the next step in this study is to measure participants’ action agency at the start and end of the course to determine if students who now have broader understanding of the barriers to success of peers are able to recognize and articulate concrete actions they are taking or can take to lessen the barriers for underutilized groups to participate and persist in STEM.