Cultivating inclusivity in introductory undergraduate STEM course syllabi

Course syllabi are key entry points for facilitating change in campus culture. The content and presentation of syllabi, including language choice, text selection, assignment design, and required technologies, play a role in student (dis)enfranchisement. On the surface, syllabi may appear as simple lists of due dates and reading assignments. However, as dynamic and evolving documents, they have the power to signal instructor expectations, frame classroom interactions, and highlight pedagogical approaches. Syllabi also offer an opportunity to show students the role that inclusivity can play in classrooms.

Current levels of retention in STEM degree programs for marginalized and minoritized students, including women, students of color, and queer and non-binary students, are alarmingly low. The same students face feelings of isolation, "chilly" academic environments, low levels of retention in majors like computer science, mathematics, and engineering, and other barriers to academic and social success (Hughes, 2018; Funk and Parker, 2018; Stout and Wright, 2016; Chang et al. 2014; Ashford et al. 2017). To understand the role of syllabi in creating equitable classroom environments and reversing persistent trends in retention rates, our research team conducted an analysis of syllabi from various departments and programs at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), while also seeking input from undergraduate students.

Through our research, we sought to address several critical questions: What is the purpose of a syllabus? How does it impact the classroom? How can our students better see themselves in it and what impact would it have on them? By examining the ways in which syllabi can foster or hinder inclusivity and equity, we hope to provide recommendations for syllabus design that will promote student learning and well-being at the collegiate level. Our findings suggest that a surprisingly small percentage of faculty include indicators of their attention to inclusivity in their syllabi; in contrast, we surveyed a representative sample of our undergraduate students and found that they note and even lament such absence. In this article, we contend that revising syllabi to prioritize inclusivity is a key step towards engaging minoritized student populations and women, thereby fostering inclusivity within STEM disciplines.

The literature review examines the syllabus as a multifunctional document that communicates learning objectives, expectations, and classroom ethos, moving beyond a simple contract (Parkes & Harris, 2002; Slattery & Carlson, 2005; Soonpaa, 2018). Scholars emphasize that well-crafted syllabi positively shape student perceptions and self-regulated learning, balancing rigor with a hospitable environment (Littlefield, 1999; Thompson, 2007; Chen et al., 2023). The review highlights identity safety cues (ISCs)—including inclusivity statements, pronouns, accessibility information, inclusive language, and anti-discrimination policies—as tools that can enhance belonging and academic success for stigmatized groups (Maimon et al., 2021; Chaney et al., 2016; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Recent shifts toward trauma-informed, student-centered, and anti-racist feminist pedagogies emphasize compassionate, flexible syllabus language, reflexivity, and social justice framing, particularly post-COVID-19 (Munro, 2022; Carello & Butler, 2015; Thomas et al., 2019; Primiano et al., 2020; Richmond et al., 2019; Fuentes et al., 2021; Davis, 2020; Jones et al., 2020; Zanotti, 2021; Taylor et al., 2019; Zidani, 2021). In STEM, the review critiques assumptions of neutrality and colorblindness, arguing that syllabi can reproduce or challenge oppressive structures (Harding, 1992; Prescod-Weinstein, 2020; Levya et al., 2022; Parson, 2016). It positions the STEM syllabus as a vehicle to foster mentoring, active learning, and community, advancing a “rightful presence” by legitimizing diverse identities and redistributing classroom power (Savaria & Monteiro, 2017; Calabrase Barton & Tan, 2019). Recommendations include designing syllabi with diversified content, explicit inclusivity, and empathetic, decolonial approaches to better support diverse learners.

Design: Mixed-methods study at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) combining (1) systematic analysis of course syllabi and (2) an undergraduate student survey to benchmark faculty practices against student perceptions.

Syllabi dataset and sampling: Collected 163 syllabi from introductory undergraduate (1000- and 2000-level) courses across six academic years (2016–2017 through 2021–2022). Targeted 200 syllabi proportionally by department based on 2020–2021 enrollments across WPI’s four schools (Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Business, Global), ultimately achieving coverage from 15 of 21 departments/programs. Excluded non-departmental/special interest programs (e.g., PE, ROTC/AFROTC). Some departments were underrepresented (e.g., Biology, Computer Science, Mathematical Sciences) and others had slightly more than target (e.g., Business, Chemical Engineering, Data Science).

Anonymization and coding: All syllabi were anonymized (removal of instructor and course identifiers) and renamed using a standardized code (e.g., MA 23). A separate metadata sheet logged course-level details (course code/title, term/year, instructor gender/title at time of teaching). A rubric (Appendix 1) guided coding. Each syllabus was independently reviewed by two faculty coders (no pair reviewed >15 syllabi; reviewers avoided their own departments). Discrepancies were resolved via discussion, especially regarding what constituted an inclusivity statement.

Focal rubric items (binary coding):

• Instructor pronouns present (1) vs absent (0).
• Inclusion of materials authored by women and gender minority scholars (1) vs absent (0). Coders inferred author gender from public sources (names, photos, pronouns on professional pages/Wikipedia), acknowledging limitations of inference (Wood et al., 2020).
• Presence of inclusivity statements (1) vs absent (0), whether as a labeled section or distributed language across the document.

Student survey: IRB-approved (23-0201). Administered online via Qualtrics to undergraduates in Fall 2022 (2-week window), prioritizing students in 1000- and 2000-level courses. Collected 145 responses total (n varies by question due to partial completions). Demographics: overrepresentation of women relative to WPI’s overall undergrad population; 77% first-year/sophomore; majority Engineering majors, then Arts & Sciences and Business, mirroring institutional distributions.

Survey instrument: Students provided up to three keywords on the purpose of a syllabus and rated syllabi importance to learning. For ISCs—pronouns, inclusivity statements, and inclusion of women/gender minority authors—students rated importance (yes/no/not sure; for inclusivity statements: very/somewhat/not important/not sure) and gave open-ended rationales. Clarifying examples were provided (e.g., pronoun examples; definition/examples of gender minority; sample inclusivity statement). Qualitative responses were thematically analyzed by multiple researchers; word normalization was applied for the keyword question to enable frequency analysis.

Analysis: Quantitative descriptive statistics for prevalence in syllabi and survey responses; qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended comments; cross-tabulations by self-identified gender where reported (e.g., for pronoun and author-inclusion items).

• Overall importance and purpose of syllabi (student perspectives):

  • 77% (n=145) consider syllabi important for their learning; 7% not important; 16% unsure.
  • Most-cited purpose keywords: “grading” (46 mentions), “expectations” (37), “information” (34), followed by “schedule” (24), “organization” (21), “policies” (20). Themes: information/policies (~41%), scheduling/planning (~25%), grading/expectations (~28%).

• Instructor pronouns on syllabi:

  • Syllabi analysis (n=163): 9.8% included instructor pronouns; all instances were in Arts & Sciences syllabi.
  • Student survey (n=132): 75% say pronouns should be included; 10.6% say not important; 14.4% unsure.
  • By student gender: 100% of gender minority, 86% of women, and 62% of men rated pronouns as important.
  • Comfort impacts (n=130): 40% felt more comfortable sharing their pronouns when instructors listed theirs; 56% unaffected; <5% less comfortable/unsure.

• Inclusivity statements (IS) on syllabi:

  • Syllabi analysis (n=163): 33.7% included an IS.
  • Student survey (n=129): 36.4% very important; 34.9% somewhat important; 17.8% not important; 10.9% unsure (total 71.3% view IS as important).
  • Qualitative insights: Students value authentic, course-specific statements and accountability; skeptical of boilerplate or performative language.

• Inclusion of women and gender minority authors in course materials:

  • Syllabi analysis (n=163): Only about 20% included such authors; fewer than half explicitly identified author gender. Departmental variation: Biology & Biotechnology 66.7%; Biomedical Engineering 50%; Humanities & Arts 48.4%; Social Science & Policy Studies 22.2%; Business 12.5%; none in remaining departments sampled.
  • Student survey (n=130): 62.3% say inclusion is important; 15.4% not important; 22.3% unsure. By gender (n=128 with gender listed): men 45% important/28% not/27% unsure; women 78% important/3% not/19% unsure; gender minorities 100% important.
  • Qualitative insights: Inclusion broadens perspectives, challenges stereotypes, and provides role models; those rating it unimportant often framed STEM as objective/neutral and focused only on content.

• Overall pattern: Strong misalignment between student expectations and faculty practices across all three inclusivity indicators (pronouns, IS, diverse authorship).

The study’s findings reveal a consistent gap between student expectations for inclusive syllabus practices and actual faculty implementation at a STEM-focused institution. Students widely perceive syllabi as central communication tools that shape their learning by clarifying expectations, schedules, and policies. Importantly, students also view syllabi as vehicles for signaling inclusive classroom climates.

Pronouns: Minimal inclusion of instructor pronouns on syllabi contrasts with strong student support, particularly among women and gender minority students. Students reported that pronoun inclusion normalizes respectful identity practices, reduces misgendering, and signals allyship—enhancing comfort for many without meaningful drawbacks. These results support the literature on identity safety cues (ISCs) and inclusive communication as foundational to belonging.

Inclusivity statements: Only one-third of syllabi included IS, yet over 70% of students endorsed their importance. Students valued statements that are authentic, course-specific, and actionable, and saw them as both aspirational and a basis for accountability. This aligns with research suggesting that trauma-informed, student-centered, and anti-racist syllabus language can foster trust and belonging when coupled with congruent instructional practices.

Women and gender minority authors: Low representation on syllabi—especially in many STEM departments—conflicts with a majority of students (and virtually all gender minority students) who value diverse authorship for its role in expanding perspectives, challenging norms, and providing role models. This directly contests assumptions of STEM neutrality, mirroring literature critiquing colorblind and gender-neutral framings that mask structural inequities.

Overall, the findings address the research questions by showing that syllabus design substantively impacts students’ perceptions of inclusivity and that students desire explicit, visible cues—pronouns, inclusivity statements, diverse authorship—across disciplines. The significance for the field lies in demonstrating concrete, low-cost syllabus interventions that can enhance belonging and potentially support retention among marginalized groups in STEM, provided that statements and signals are backed by consistent classroom practices.

Syllabi act as foundational, multifaceted communication tools that can either support or hinder inclusive learning environments. This study demonstrates pronounced gaps between student expectations and current faculty practices regarding three inclusion-focused syllabus elements: listing instructor pronouns, incorporating inclusivity statements, and including works by women and gender minority authors. Implementing these elements—authentically and in alignment with classroom practices—can promote belonging, reduce marginalization, and potentially strengthen retention of underrepresented students in STEM.

Future research directions include: examining accessibility dimensions (e.g., material cost, multimodal formats such as text-to-speech/audio), assessing racial and ethnic inclusivity and its intersections with gender, and evaluating the effectiveness of different forms and placements of inclusivity statements and ISCs across disciplines. Longitudinal and multi-institutional studies could further test causal links to academic outcomes and retention.

• Single-institution study at a private STEM-oriented university (WPI), which may limit generalizability.
• Syllabi restricted to introductory (1000-/2000-level) courses and to six academic years; not all departments were equally represented, and the target of 200 syllabi was not reached.
• Author gender identification for syllabus materials relied on public information (names, photos, pronouns), which has acknowledged limitations and risks of misclassification.
• The COVID-19 period overlapped with part of the sampling window and may have influenced syllabus content and teaching practices.
• Student survey participation was voluntary with some demographic imbalance (e.g., overrepresentation of women) and varying completion rates across questions; institutional gender data available only in binary form during the period referenced.