International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education 3030831213, 9783030831219

Citation preview

Springer International Handbooks of Education

Mary M. Atwater  Editor

International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education

Springer International Handbooks of Education

The Springer International Handbooks of Education series aims to provide easily accessible, practical, yet scholarly, sources of information about a broad range of topics and issues in education. Each Handbook follows the same pattern of examining in depth a field of educational theory, practice and applied scholarship, its scale and scope for its substantive contribution to our understanding of education and, in so doing, indicating the direction of future developments. The volumes in this series form a coherent whole due to an insistence on the synthesis of theory and good practice. The accessible style and the consistent illumination of theory by practice make the series very valuable to a broad spectrum of users. The volume editors represent the world's leading educationalists. Their task has been to identify the key areas in their field that are internationally generalizable and, in times of rapid change, of permanent interest to the scholar and practitioner. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6189

Mary M. Atwater Editor

International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education With 93 Figures and 55 Tables

Editor Mary M. Atwater Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA Institute of African American Studies College of Arts and Sciences University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA

ISSN 2197-1951 ISSN 2197-196X (electronic) Springer International Handbooks of Education ISBN 978-3-030-83121-9 ISBN 978-3-030-83122-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education is an academic dream of the editor. In 1998, it became the desire of the editor that multicultural science education would become an accepted part of the discipline of science education. In 2022, with the publication of this international handbook, multicultural science education has become a global conversation within the science education field. This international handbook would not be possible without the intellectual guidance of an excellent group of section editors. These exceptionally talented scholars and research mentors are Wesley Pitts, Alejandro Gallard Martínez, Silvia Lizette Ramos de Robles, H. Prentice Baptiste, Gillian Bayne, Melody Russell, and Seth Chaiklin. The section editors wrote an introduction to each of their parts. Their goal was to briefly share with the readers the focus of the part and the names of the chapter authors/co-authors. Each of the 61 chapters in this international handbook represents an important contribution to the research knowledge about how culture influenced the history, theory, and methods of multicultural science education research, science learning, science teaching, science curricula, science teacher education, higher education, and science education policy. This research spans across K-12, postsecondary, and profession careers in science education. This international handbook concludes with a chapter on the future of multicultural science education. As chapter authors/ co-authors were invited to write chapters, the section editors and I worked with the authors and co-authors sometimes to develop and mostly refine the included chapters. The section editors’ goal was to ensure that individually the chapters provided in-depth examinations of the state of research on topics related to that part. The goal was to guarantee that the chapters reflected what we knew about multicultural science education research around the world. Chapter authors/co-authors were charged with providing a comprehensive review of research findings of their topics, sometimes critiquing the research literature in terms of conceptual or methodological rigor, and proposing a future research agenda. We are appreciative of the time, effort, and engagement that the authors/coauthors have dedicated to their important scholarly contributions. Many had very difficult challenges to overcome with the pandemic; a few contracted COVID-19 and were restored to good health, others dealt with the death of loved ones, while others v

vi

Preface

with the day-to-day living with a pandemic. We hope that these chapters in this international handbook provide a foundation for the present and next generation of researchers on the important issues related to multicultural science education. Athens, USA June 2022

Mary M. Atwater

Acknowledgments

The editor wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Professor Prentice H. Baptiste, New Mexico State University, in reviewing chapters that were not in his part, providing feedback, and then recommending those chapters to Springer for publication consideration. The editor chose him to review her two written chapters because she knew he would be critical of her writing and provide her excellent feedback to enhance the chapters. Hence, he did read the editor’s two chapters, provided feedback, and determined when they were ready to recommend the chapters to Springer for publication consideration. I thank him very much for “call beyond duty” contribution as a section editor. Carla Buss is the Curriculum Materials & Education Librarian at the University of Georgia’s Curriculum Materials & Education Library that located requested books and articles for the editor. Jason Matherly is the Coordinator in Curriculum Materials Library at the University of Georgia that located requested books and articles for the editor. Ahra Bae, Anna Herdliska, Shaugnessy McCann, and Cigdem Yurekli were students in the ESCI 8210 course during the fall 2020, University of Georgia that sought to locate the earliest article published on culture in a science education research journal. Michelle Butler, Director, Executive Administration/Governance/Awards/Nominations, National Science Teaching Association (NARST) in locating information about the date that the Strand 11: Cultural, Social, and Gender Issues began to be used for proposals at the NARST conferences and/or finding minutes of the Executive Board to determine when the motion was passed to establish Strand 11. Dat Le, Science Supervisor for Arlington Public Schools and Member of the Board of Directors, National Board of Professional Standards for providing details about the National Board of Professional Standards. The editor of this international handbook wishes to thank the chapter authors and co-authors who have shared their expertise by contributing thought-provoking chapters, in which they revised them based upon section editors’ feedback, and worked diligently to craft chapters that met the International Handbook standards. The editor gratefully acknowledge the hard work of the section editors who reviewed the chapters written by authors and co-authors and provided meaningful feedback and wrote the introduction to each part of the International Handbook. vii

viii

Acknowledgments

Professor Wesley Pitts appreciatively acknowledges Dr. Maria Greene, Adjunct Faculty, Lehman College, Science Education, and Dr. Nicole Grimes, Science Educator and Independent Consultant, for providing second reviews for several chapters in the Science Learning part of this international handbook. Alma Adrianna and Alejandra García Franco would like to thank the teachers who participated in the workshop in San Cristóbal de las Casas for letting them work besides them and learn from their experience. To Yeison Arboleda for his support in data collection in some of the activities in the Chiapas Highlands. To Rocío Balderas, Yei Rentería, and Nallely Jiménez for organizing data and transcribing. To Helda Morales and ECOSUR San Cristóbal for the installations where the workshop took place. Sharon Nelson-Barber, Zanette Johnson Jonathan Boxerman, Matt Silberglitt, and Elizabeth Rechebei would like to thank the BSCS organization for sharing FieldScope with our project and extend a special thank you to Sean O’Connor for expertise and guidance on the Indigenous Mapping on FieldScope modifications. Gillian Bayne wrote the following: “I wish to thank Mr. Ethan Andrews for his help with the initiation of ideas incorporated into this chapter [“Global Voices: Personal and Professional Lived Experience of Black and Brown Women’s Culture in Science”], as well as Ms. Aderinsola Gilbert and Dr. Leah Pride.” The editor would like to thank Julia Elaine Przybyla-Kuchek for assisting the section editors and chapter authors during fall semester 2020. Finally, all those involved in the writing of the International Handbook appreciate the work of the Springer staff. The editor is particularly grateful to Akshara PP, Project Coordinator, for her continued support and encouragement during this project.

Contents

Volume 1 Part I History, Theory, and Methods of Research of Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary M. Atwater

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary M. Atwater

3

4

5

7

8

3

9

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment Through the Culturo-Techno-Contextual Approach Peter A. Okebukola

49

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a Multicultural Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert H. Tai

87

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marilyn Fleer, Glykeria Fragkiadaki, and Prabhat Rai

Part II 6

1

Science Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103

141

Science Learning and Multicultural Science Education: Insights with Which to Move Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wesley Pitts

143

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunyata Smith and Wesley Pitts

151

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation, Engagement, and Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meta Van Sickle and Julie Swanson

177 ix

x

Contents

9

10

11

12

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jordan Henley

205

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in Multicultural Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Randy Yerrick and Erin Kearney

229

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of African American Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katie Wade-Jaimes

267

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in Multicultural US Classrooms and Beyond . . . . . . . Maria Varelas, Eli Tucker-Raymond, and UIC Research on Science Learning Course Team

297

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning . . . . Phillip A. Boda and Alison Riley Miller

329

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science Tzu-Hua Huang and Yi-Jiun Li

..........

361

Part III

Science Teaching

.................................

15

Introduction to Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Lizette Ramos de Robles and Alejandro J. Gallard Martínez

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models and Missed Opportunities for Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina L. Suriel

17

18

19

20

387 389

401

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sharon Dotger and Terrance Burgess

429

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and Underrepresented Populations in Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhea Miles, Leonard Annetta, Shawn Moore, and Gera Miles

457

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christopher Emdin

487

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bhaskar Upadhyay

505

Contents

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

xi

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of Arab Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saouma BouJaoude, Abdullah Ambusaidi, and Sara Salloum Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse Multicultural Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amy Ricketts, Minjung Ryu, Jocelyn Elizabeth Nardo, Mavreen Rose S. Tuvilla, and Camille Gabrielle Love

545

573

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Lizette Ramos de Robles and Alejandro J. Gallard Martínez

601

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding Translanguaging in Multicultural Settings . . . . . . . . . . Noushin Nouri, Alma D. Rodríguez, and Maryam Saberi

617

It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx Learners’ Native Language to Learn Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angela Chapman and Patricia Alvarez McHatton

653

Multicultural and Dialogic Science Education in Indigenous Schools in the Mayan Highlands, México . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo and Alejandra García Franco

683

Using Context-Adaptive Indigenous Methodologies to Address Pedagogical Challenges in Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sharon Nelson-Barber, Zanette Johnson, Jonathan Boxerman, Matt Silberglitt, and Elizabeth Rechebei

711

Volume 2

Part IV

Science Curricula

.................................

28

Multicultural Science Curriculum Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Prentice Baptiste

29

Multicultural Science Content and Contexts in Zambian Science Curriculum Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vivien Mweene Chabalengula and Frackson Mumba

30

Reconstructing the Impact of Colonialism on Science Curricula in Sub-Saharan Africa: Toward Place-Based STEM Curricula for Workforce Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George E. Glasson and Joseph S. Mukuni

739 741

747

777

xii

31

32

33

Contents

Globalized Science Education Through Technology in a Multicultural Education Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles B. Hutchison

799

Implementing a Socioculturally Relevant Science Curriculum: The South African Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meshach B. Ogunniyi

819

Fostering a Multicultural Science Curriculum in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Umesh Ramnarain and Lydia Mavuru

839

34

Māori Science Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgina Tuari Stewart

35

Relations Between Disputing Cultures in Brazilian Science Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flavia Rezende and Fernanda Ostermann

36

37

38

39

Using Project-Based Learning to Leverage Culturally Relevant Pedagogy for Science Sensemaking in Urban Elementary Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph S. Krajcik, Emily C. Miller, and I-Chien Chen “Doing Native Science”: Challenging Settler Colonialism, Reaffirming Native Identity, and Confirming Sovereignty Through Multicultural Science Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeanette Haynes Writer and Shelly Valdez Research on Modeling Competence in Science Education from 1991 to 2020 with Cultural and Global Implications . . . . . . . Mei-Hung Chiu and Jing-Wen Lin

871

895

913

933

961

Funds of Knowledge and Relations as a Curriculum and Assessment Resource in Multicultural Primary Science Classrooms: A Case Study from Aotearoa New Zealand . . . . . . . . 1001 Bronwen Cowie and Helen Trevethan

Part V

Science Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1033

40

Multicultural Science Teacher Education: Advances and Challenges at the Elementary, Middle and Secondary Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Gillian U. Bayne

41

Professional Development to Prepare Teacher-Coaches for Students from Culturally Diverse Groups in After-School STEM Clubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Margaret R. Blanchard, Kristie S. Gutierrez, and Kylie J. Swanson

Contents

xiii

42

Preparing Teachers of Science for the Multicultural Classroom Through a Global Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Regina P. McCurdy, Katherine Cruz-Deiter, and Malcolm B. Butler

43

Multicultural Science Education for Middle-Level Teacher Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 G. Nathan Carnes and Molly H. Weinburgh

44

Preparing Secondary Science Teachers to Teach Linguistically Diverse Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125 Su Gao and Vassiliki I. Zygouris-Coe

45

Elementary Teacher Preparation in the Borderlands . . . . . . . . . . . 1151 Cecilia M. Hernandez, Magdalena Pando, and Leanna Lucero

46

Elementary Multicultural Science Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . 1175 Felicia Moore Mensah and Jessica L. Chen

47

Learning from Youth Lives: Towards a Justice-Oriented Multicultural Science Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213 Christina Restrepo Nazar and Angela Calabrese Barton

48

“I Don’t Speak Science”: Preparing Monolingual Teachers to Work with Multilingual Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1233 Alexandra J. Reyes and Katie Brkich

49

Multicultural Perspectives on Language, Identity, and Emotions in Science Teacher Education for Social Justice . . . . . . . 1269 María S. Rivera Maulucci and Natalie R. Davis

50

Multicultural Science Education: Preparing Elementary Teachers to Support the Academic Language Needs of ELLs in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1305 Neporcha Cone and Virginie Jackson

51

Honoring Diverse Knowledge: ‘A’ohe pau ka ‘ike i ka hālau ho’okahi | All Knowledge Is Not Learned in One School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333 Pauline W. U. Chinn, Huihui Kanahele-Mossman, Valasi Lam YuenApulu, and Margarita Cholymay

Part VI

Higher Education Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1369

52

Cultural Influences in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1371 Melody Russell

53

Black Men in U.S. Undergraduate and Graduate Science Programs and their Persistence: Insights for Multicultural Science Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1375 Shari Earnest Watkins and Felicia Moore Mensah

xiv

Contents

54

Factors that Impact Persistence and the Culture of Higher Education for African American Graduate Students in STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1405 Melody Russell and Misty Givens

55

Teaching Science in Another Culture: Multicultural Influences on International Teaching Assistants in Science Programs . . . . . . . . . 1425 Banu Avsar Erumit, Valarie L. Akerson, and Gayle A. Buck

56

Global Voices: Personal and Professional Lived Experiences of Black and Brown Women’s Culture in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1447 Gillian U. Bayne

Part VII

Science Education Policy

..........................

1483

57

Science Education Policy Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1485 Seth Chaiklin

58

Can There Be Multicultural Science Education Policy in a Country That Does Not Recognize Multicultural Science Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1493 Seth Chaiklin

59

Toward Equitable Science Instruction: The Current State of Elementary Science Education in the United States and Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1539 Stefanie L. Marshall, Christa Haverly, and Amal Ibourk

60

Multicultural Education Policies and Practices in South Korea: A Case of North Korean Migrant Students and Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1563 Nam-Hwa Kang

Part VIII The Future in Multicultural Science Education Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

1591

The Future of Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593 Mary M. Atwater and Gillian U. Bayne

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1611

About the Editor

Dr. Mary M. Atwater is a professor in the College of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, and an affiliate professor in the Institute of African American Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Georgia. She is involved in multicultural science education by obtaining grants, conducting research, and designing and teaching courses in the area. In addition, her work has also centered on chemical education. Over the years, Professor Atwater has worked with doctoral students and visiting scholars in the areas of multicultural science education and chemical education. She now promotes a socio-cultural-political perspective in her research work. She has been the principal investigator or co-principal investigator of several federally funded and privately funded grants totaling over $3.9 million and is presently the PI of NSF-funded EAGER grant entitled “Exploring Racial Microaggression in Science Education.” Her publications include articles, book chapters, an edited book, and a co-authored K-8 science program. She is an inaugural fellow of the American Educational Research Association, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a past president of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning through Research, and the 2017 Julius and Rosa Sachs Distinguished Lecturer in Teachers College, Columbia University, for the 2016–2017 academic year. She was awarded the 2019 Distinguished Contributions in Research Award of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, The John Shrum Award (2017) of the Southeast Association for Science Teacher Education, National Technical Association’s Academy xv

xvi

About the Editor

of Top Minority Women in Science and Engineering (1998), and the 1996 College of Education and Psychology Distinguished Alumnus, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. In April 2017, she was elected again to a 3-year term as Chair of Continental and Diasporic Africa in Science Education RIG (CADASE), where she led the effort to establish CADASE, NARST’s first research interest group (RIG), and served as its elected chair until she became president-elect of NARST. The 2021–2022 Methodist University Distinguished Alumni Award was bestowed on her by her undergraduate alma mater, Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC. Relevant publications have appeared in such journals as the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Cultural Studies of Science Education, Theory Into Practice, The Science Teacher, the Journal of Science Teacher Education, and Urban Education. Professor Atwater has served as the editor of The Georgia Science Teacher and The Multicultural Science Educator Informer, and guest editor of Innovative Higher Education, and she will serve as a lead guest editor of one of the 2020 issues of Cultural Studies of Science Education. Professor Atwater has served as the consulting editor of Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Classroom Activities, and she has been twice on the editorial board of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching and on the editorial boards of the Journal of Science Teacher Education, the Journal of Elementary Science Education, and Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Classroom Activities.

About the Section Editors

Mary M. Atwater Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA Institute of African American Studies College of Arts and Sciences University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA

H. Prentice Baptiste School of Teacher Preparation, Administration, and Leadership, College of Health, Education, and Social Transformation New Mexico State University Las Cruces Las Cruces, NM, USA

xvii

xviii

About the Section Editors

Gillian U. Bayne School of Education Lehman College, City University of New York Bronx, NY, USA

Seth Chaiklin Frederiksberg, Denmark

Alejandro J. Gallard Martínez Georgia Southern University Savannah, GA, USA

About the Section Editors

xix

Wesley Pitts Department of Middle and High School Education Lehman College City University of New York Bronx, NY, USA

S. Lizette Ramos de Robles Universidad de Guadalajara Guadalajara, Mexico

Melody Russell Department of Curriculum and Teaching College of Education, Auburn University Auburn, AL, USA

Assistant to the Editor

Jordan Henley Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education Mary Frances Early College of Education University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA

xxi

Contributors

Valarie L. Akerson Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Abdullah Ambusaidi Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Leonard Annetta East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA Mary M. Atwater Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Institute of African American Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Banu Avsar Erumit Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey H. Prentice Baptiste School of Teacher Preparation, Administration, and Leadership, College of Health, Education, and Social Transformation, New Mexico State University Las Cruces, Las Cruces, NM, USA Gillian U. Bayne School of Education Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, NY, USA Margaret R. Blanchard North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Phillip A. Boda University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Saouma BouJaoude American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon Jonathan Boxerman WestEd, San Francisco, CA, USA Katie Brkich Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA Gayle A. Buck Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Terrance Burgess Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, USA Malcolm B. Butler University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Cato College of Education, Charlotte, NC, USA xxiii

xxiv

Contributors

Angela Calabrese Barton Educational Studies Department, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA G. Nathan Carnes University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Vivien Mweene Chabalengula University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Seth Chaiklin Frederiksberg, Denmark Angela Chapman The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA I-Chien Chen Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Jessica L. Chen Science Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Pauline W. U. Chinn University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA Mei-Hung Chiu Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Margarita Cholymay Department of Education, Caroline College and Pastoral Institute, Chuuk, Weno, Micronesia Neporcha Cone Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA Bronwen Cowie The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Katherine Cruz-Deiter College of Community Innovation and Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA Natalie R. Davis Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education, Program in Creative and Innovative Education, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA Sharon Dotger Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA Christopher Emdin University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Marilyn Fleer Conceptual PlayLab, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Glykeria Fragkiadaki Conceptual PlayLab, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Alejandro J. Gallard Martínez Georgia Southern University, Savannah, GA, USA Su Gao University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA Alejandra García Franco Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Cuajimalpa, México Misty Givens Woodland Middle School, Stockton, GA, USA

Contributors

xxv

George E. Glasson Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo Unidad Monterrey Cinvestav, Apodaca, Nuevo León, México Kristie S. Gutierrez Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA Christa Haverly Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Jeanette Haynes Writer Curriculum and Instruction, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA Jordan Henley Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Cecilia M. Hernandez College of Health, Education, and Social Transformation, School of Teacher Preparation, Administration, and Leadership, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA Tzu-Hua Huang Department of Education, University of Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan Charles B. Hutchison The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA Amal Ibourk Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Virginie Jackson Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA Zanette Johnson Intrinsic Impact Consulting, Honokaa, HI, USA Huihui Kanahele-Mossman Edith Kanakaʻole Foundation, Hilo, HI, USA Nam-Hwa Kang Physics Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongju-si, South Korea Erin Kearney State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA Joseph S. Krajcik Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Yi-Jiun Li Department of Education, University of Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan Jing-Wen Lin Department of Science Education, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan Camille Gabrielle Love Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Leanna Lucero College of Health, Education, and Social Transformation, School of Teacher Preparation, Administration, and Leadership, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA Stefanie L. Marshall University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Saint Paul, MN, USA

xxvi

Contributors

Lydia Mavuru University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Regina P. McCurdy Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA Patricia Alvarez McHatton Branch Alliance for Educator Diversity, Austin, TX, USA Felicia Moore Mensah Science Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Gera Miles East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA Rhea Miles East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA Alison Riley Miller Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME, USA Emily C. Miller University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA Shawn Moore East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA Joseph S. Mukuni Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA Frackson Mumba University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Jocelyn Elizabeth Nardo Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA Christina Restrepo Nazar Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Charter College of Education, California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA Sharon Nelson-Barber WestEd, San Francisco, CA, USA Noushin Nouri College of Education and P-16 Integration, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA Meshach B. Ogunniyi School of Science and Maths Education, University of the Western Cape, Belville, South Africa Peter A. Okebukola Africa Centre of Excellence for Innovative and Transformative STEM Education, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria Fernanda Ostermann Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto AlegreRio Grande do Sul, Brazil Magdalena Pando College of Health, Education, and Social Transformation, School of Teacher Preparation, Administration, and Leadership, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA Wesley Pitts Department of Middle and High School Education, Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, NY, USA Prabhat Rai Conceptual PlayLab, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Contributors

xxvii

Umesh Ramnarain University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa S. Lizette Ramos de Robles Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico Alexandra J. Reyes Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA Flavia Rezende Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto AlegreRio Grande do Sul, Brazil Amy Ricketts Department of Science Education, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, USA María S. Rivera Maulucci Barnard College, New York, NY, USA Alma D. Rodríguez College of Education and P-16 Integration, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA Melody Russell Department of Curriculum and Teaching, College of Education, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA Minjung Ryu University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Maryam Saberi Ministry of Education, Shiraz University, Drab, Fars, Iran Sara Salloum University of Balamand, Balamand, Lebanon Matt Silberglitt WestEd, San Francisco, CA, USA Sunyata Smith Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA Georgina Tuari Stewart Te Kura Mātauranga–School of Education, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), Auckland, New Zealand Regina L. Suriel Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA Julie Swanson College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA Kylie J. Swanson University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, USA Robert H. Tai University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Helen Trevethan The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Eli Tucker-Raymond Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Mavreen Rose S. Tuvilla Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Bhaskar Upadhyay Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Shelly Valdez Native Pathways, Inc., New Laguna, NM, USA Meta Van Sickle College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA Maria Varelas University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

xxviii

Contributors

Katie Wade-Jaimes Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA Shari Earnest Watkins Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning, American University, Washington, DC, USA Molly H. Weinburgh Education, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA Randy Yerrick California State University, Fresno, CA, USA UIC Research on Science Learning Course Team University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Valasi Lam Yuen-Apulu American Samoa Department of Education, Pago Pago, AS, USA Vassiliki I. Zygouris-Coe University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Part I History, Theory, and Methods of Research of Multicultural Science Education

Introduction History, Theory, and Methods of Research of Multicultural Science Education Mary M. Atwater

Contents History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Theory and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Keywords

Multicultural Science Education · History of Multicultural Science Education · Brief History of Multicultural Education · Theory and Methods in Multicultural Science Education

The History, Theory, and Methods of Research part of the International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education includes historical perspectives on multicultural science education, a very broad theoretical approach, and on methodological approaches in multicultural science education. The history of education can be viewed as a study of the past that concentrates on learning and teaching issues. These include education systems, institutions, theories, themes, and other related phenomena. The history of a subfield can chronicle the derivation of the subfield and how the subfield became acceptable in the major field. In this case, this chapter chronicles the beginnings and the battles fought to make multicultural science education acceptable and a part of the discourse in science education. The past is

M. M. Atwater (*) Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Institute of African American Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_61

3

1

4

M. M. Atwater

closely connected to the present and the later shapes the future. The history of multicultural science education encompasses philosophical, sociological, comparative, administrative, curricular, and other issues in this subfield of science education. However, the question remains should multicultural science education be a subfield of science education or be interwoven into the science education fabric.

History ▶ Chapter 2, “Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science Education” written by M. Atwater, the Editor of the international handbook does this. She provides a historical account of her perspective and others on multicultural science education Smith (1994). Just like any historical account, the winners’ voices are heard and none of the losers’ voices are heard. But you do hear of some of the battles that were fought to include multicultural science education as a part of the discipline of science education. Because multicultural science education rose from multicultural education, a brief history of this field is given because it influenced the history of multicultural science education. Also, multicultural education and multicultural science education did have a checkered origin. In addition multicultural science education researchers have been funded by federal and private agencies like multicultural education researchers (personal communications, H. Prentice Baptiste, July 28, 2021).

Theory and Methods Joseph Schwab (1973) claimed there are four things that an educator must take into account when teaching: the learner, the teacher, the milieus or environments in which the teaching is taking place, and the curriculum. He defines where “the child’s learning will take place and in which its fruits will be brought to bear” (p. 503) and ask the following questions: 1. What are likely to be children’s relations to one another? 2. Will the classroom group over- lap the play or neighborhood group or any other group in which the children function? 3. Will the children begin as friends and acquaintances or as strangers? 4. Will their relationships be dominated by cliques or other subgroups? 5. What structure of authority (or status) will characterize the relations of teachers to one another and to the educational leaders of the school? 6. In what ways are these relations of adults in the school likely to affect the relations of teachers to students or to what and how the teachers are likely to teach (p. 503)? Schwab argued that relevant milieus include “. . . the family, the community, the particular groupings of religious, class, or ethnic genus. What aspirations, styles of life, attitudes toward education, and ethical standards characterize these parents and,

1

Introduction

5

through their roles as parents, affect the children . . .” (p. 503). Others substitute the term “environment” for the term “milieu.” In 1991 Barry Fraser provided an overview of past research involving classroom environment assessments, including (a) relationships between outcomes and environment, (b) the use of environment dimensions as criterion variables, and person-environment fit studies of whether students achieve better in their preferred environment, (c) teachers’ use of classroom environment instruments in practical attempts to improve their own classrooms, and (d) some recent developments that can be used to outline desirable directions for future classroom environment research. He found that a positive classroom environment is equally imperative and should be considered as both a means and an end and consistently identified strong links between a positive learning environment and a range of student outcomes, including achievement, providing an incentive for teachers to improve the learning environments of their classrooms. He also found that establishing positive school environment influences students’ performance (Aldridge and Fraser 2008). Fraser (2012) ties classroom learning environment with context. The Queensland Studies Authority (2004) as cited in article on chemical education defines an educational context as “a group of learning experiences that encourages students to transfer their understanding of key concepts to situations that mirror real life.” I would like to redefine this term to mean that it is a group of learning experiences that enable learners to understand concepts and ideas that do and do not mirror real life. Context in which the teaching and learning of science occur is critical (Fraser 2012). ▶ Chap. 3, “Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment Through the Culturo-techno-Contextual Approach”, by Peter Okebukola, he highlights the development, deployment, and guide to the use of using a mobile app, which is now available for STEM teachers and students all over the world. He discusses the ecocultural theory of science learning (Okebukola and Jegede 1990), a theory embraces that the context (ecology) where science teaching and learning take place and the microcultures of students and teachers exert noteworthy effects on science performance. The Culturo-Techno-Contextual Approach was designed by Okebukola and others to break down many of the traditional barriers to the meaningful science learning by drawing on three framework: (a) the cultural context in which all learners are immersed, (b) technology-mediation to which teachers and learners are increasingly dependent upon, and (c) the locational context which is a unique identity of every school and which plays a strong role in the examples and local case studies for science lessons. This approach can and has become beneficial to students learning science in multicultural classrooms, especially in African countries as Peter postulates. Tyler (1967) maintains that science education studies should be systematic research that deal with theories of learning compatible with different objectives of learning. However, in 1967, qualitative research had not become an acceptable form of research, but Tyler does state that the “function of research relating to education is to provide a basis of understanding the educational process or parts of it and [in] planning and developing programs” (p. 55). This function of education research

6

M. M. Atwater

has not altered. Even in 1967 Tyler discusses models and identifies that sound methodology is one of the criteria for sound education research. Research designs are vital in assisting a subfield to become acceptable in a discipline and to become a robust subfield. Research designs is the overall strategy that is chosen to ensure that the data or evidence obtained enables investigators to effectively address research problems logically and as unambiguously as possible. The data or evidence can be quantitative, qualitative, or both in nature and collected in a variety of ways. In addition, it can be analyzed in many different ways. Longitudinal design is normally used to study the same group of participants over a long period of time, which ensures comparability of subjects or participants. Another advantage of longitudinal design is the same group responds to present circumstances, attitudes, beliefs, etc. rather than trying to recollect the past; however, the disadvantage is that it involves long commitment to time, money, and resources. It is difficult to keep track of those involved in the study and maintain their cooperation for an extended period of time. Robert Tai in his ▶ Chap. 4, “A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education through a Multicultural Lens,” discusses utilizing longitudinal research studies with a multicultural perspective. He examines the need to conduct longitudinal studies in science education and especially in multicultural science education. He explains the different types and applications of longitudinal research in both quantitative and qualitative research designs and provides examples. He further explains the importance of longitudinal research to multicultural research and education and offer some directions for future research. Fleur, Fragkiadaki, and Rai’s ▶ Chap. 5, “The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge” builds on Tai’s discussion and provide an excellent example of a longitudinal study about the relation between methodology and digital visual research method that Fleur has conducted over a period of time. They maintain that methodologies have not kept pace with the new methods that have become available to researchers. These researchers draw on cultural-historical concepts to build a theory about a methodology and methods that use digital tools for studying children’s cultural learning of science. They begin the chapter with a theoretical discussion of methodology from a Vygotskian perspective that is followed by examples of a set of digital tools which illustrate the methodology in action and demonstrate how science learning can be visually represented. Digital tools and analytical techniques are discussed in relation to how knowledge forms culturally develop in contexts of science education. The final section of the chapter includes a presentation on the relations between method and methodology for the cultural formation of the child in science learning contexts. They further discuss the cultural nature of science and science learning for young children. Finally, they close the chapter by bringing together the insights gained and make suggestions on how researchers in science education can conceptualize their methods in ways that encompass culture, rather than culture being an addition to the study design.

1

Introduction

7

References Aldridge JM, Fraser BJ (2008) Outcomes-focused learning environments: determinants and effects (Advances in learning environments research series). Sense Publishers, Rotterdam Fraser BJ (1991) Two decades of classroom environment research. In: Fraser BJ, Walberg HJ (eds) Educational environments: evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Pergamon Press, pp 3–27 Fraser BJ (2012) Classroom learning environments: retrospect, context and prospect. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG, McRobbie CJ (eds) The second international handbook of science education. Springer, New York, pp 1191–1240 Okebukola PA, Jegede OJ (1990) Eco-cultural influences upon students’ concept attainment in science. J Res Sci Teach 27(7):661–669 Schwab J (1973) The practical 3: translation into curriculum. School Rev 81(4):501–522. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084423 Smith LM (1994) Biographical methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 286–305 Tyler R (1967) Analysis of strengths and weaknesses in current research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 5:52–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660050114

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science Education Mary M. Atwater

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Culture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brief History of Multicultural Education: Precursor to Multicultural Science Education . . . The Beginning of Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Handbooks, Journal Publications, and Standard: Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . Their Stories into Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding Agencies: Their Contributions to Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Institute of Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Private Funding Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding Agencies Outside of United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Her Story and Their Story: Ending and Beginning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 11 12 16 19 27 28 28 30 33 34 35 40 42

Abstract

This chapter is written in the first and third person because it is the journey of the editor and the stories of others in multicultural science education. The chapter is entitled a historical account because it is one person’s perspective about multicultural science education and the contributions she and others made in this sub-field of science education and multicultural education. There is no doubt about the naming of the sub-field, but when the discussion about culture began in science education is somewhat doubtful. There is no ending to multicultural M. M. Atwater (*) Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Institute of African American Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_1

9

10

M. M. Atwater

science education because as people continue to live, groups of people will have a culture. How they make meaning of science and how they teach and learn science will continue. However, my story will end 1 day and may even be forgotten, but the stories of multicultural science education will continue. Keywords

History of multicultural science education · Multicultural science education · History of science education · Science education · Multicultural education

Introduction Where does one start to share a story about the beginning of a sub-field of science education when the chapter author plays a major role in its beginning? Some would say you begin with the definition, while others would say start with discussing the context in which this sub-field began. I will begin with the title of the chapter and then the definition, work backward, and then move to the presence. The term “history” means many things. According to the Webster’s Encyclopedia Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989), the term “history” is described as “branch of knowledge dealing with past events” (p. 674) or “a past that is full of important, unusual, or interesting events” (p. 674). However, some question the use of the term history. Some feminists, for example, rejected the word history and championed the notion of herstory during the 1970s. For instance, in history textbooks, women are depicted in WWII, but there was no attention to women’s agency and the unique experiences of African American women during the war. Without such examinations in the textbooks, the written version of history becomes an exclusive and distorted body of knowledge from a male perspective (Gordy et al. 2004). Other marginalized groups question the history of certain events. Official history can suggest a lot about race and whether an African American perspective is included in what is passed won in textbooks (Nicholls 2006). I would maintain that the culture of the winning dominant group would provide the history, and historical perspectives of other cultural groups would be left out of the official version of history. I defined multicultural science education as “a recognized field of disciplined inquiry devoted to research using quantitative and qualitative approaches and the development of educational policies and practices so all students can learn” (Atwater 1994a, p. 1). Multicultural science education incorporates paradigms, theories, assumptions, and pedagogy rooted in many fields. In addition, qualitative paradigms have influenced the theoretical and conceptual frameworks and methodological frameworks utilized in multicultural science education (Atwater 1994b; Atwater and Riley 1993). In its early years, few science education studies embraced multicultural science education, but many more science education researchers have, as demonstrated in this international handbook. Over the years, the sub-field of science education, namely, multicultural science education, has expanded from science

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

11

teaching, learning, curricula, teacher education, assessment, evaluation, to science education policy (Atwater 1991, 1993). I, as the editor of this international handbook, named this sub-field –multicultural science education. I have spent my professional life making multicultural science education an acceptable and valued focus of the science education community. However, it was not always the case. In 1995, a symposium occurred at the premiere science education research organization, National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual National Convention. Norman Lederman et al. (1995) organized the symposium with the following description: Interest in “multicultural science” is steadily increasing is steadily increasing and has become more prominent in the science education literature. Many scholars have criticized the current science curricula (as well as the science advocated in reform as presently only “Western Science” or presenting the view that there is only one science. Alternately there are just as many scholars who take the position science has arisen one science in history and, that the various culture-specific activities performed throughout the world (and throughout history) that have been labelled as science, are actually either technology or something other than science. Although a few would agree that science is not influenced by culture within which it is practiced, there is much debate whether this influence constitute different ways of knowing or simply cultural infusion. (Lederman et al. 1995, p. 11)

Those who spoke at the symposium besides me were Norman Lederman, Nancy Brickhouse, William Stanley, Dennis Phillip, Ronald Good, and Catherine Loving. I remember vividly this symposium for two reasons: (a) few Black NARST members sat on the first two middle rows of the seats in a packed room, and (b) no one on the panel was supportive of multicultural science education but me. At that time, none of the symposium speakers could see that science had a culture of its own and that people’s culture influenced science teaching and learning. They had no vision about equity as I did because my presentation at that symposium was entitled “Equity for Black Americans in Science Education” (Atwater 1995). If these well-known science education researchers had intimidated me, I would have stopped the pursuit of multicultural science education.

What Is Culture? As science education researchers began to embrace multicultural science education, many used the term “culture” in a variety of ways. They began to interpret my work in ways I did not mean it to be understood. Hence, it became necessary for me to define culture, as others in multicultural education had to do so. I defined culture in the following way: An integrated pattern of shared values, beliefs, languages, worldviews, behaviors, artifacts, knowledge, and social and political relationships of a group of people in a particular place or time that the people use to understand or make meaning of their world, each other, and other groups of people and to transmit these to succeeding generations (Atwater et al. 1989, 2013). Culture is not static, but ever changing.

12

M. M. Atwater

Banks (2003) used cultural anthropology to define culture. For Banks, culture “consist of behavior patterns, symbols, institutions, values, and other human-made components of group” (p. 58), and it distinguishes one group from another. Edward Hall (1977) maintained that culture touches every aspect of a person’s life. It can also alter a person’s life. Culture helps determine people’s personality and how they express themselves, think, move, solve problems, and organize systems such as government and economics. Nieto (2000) stated that “Culture consists of the values, traditions, social and political relationships, and worldview created, shared, and transformed by a group of people bound together by a common history, geographic location, language, social class, and/or religion” (p. 139, 383). Spradley (1980) does not differ in his definition, but he emphasized that culture is an acquisition of knowledge that people use to make meaning of their experiences and produce actions. He believes this acquisition occurs through language about the natural world and people’s role in it. When one concentrates on education, Hollins (1996) argued that culture determines the efficiency and effectiveness of specific instructional approaches, curriculum designs, and social arrangements for learning for all students, specifically of students not from the dominant culture.

Brief History of Multicultural Education: Precursor to Multicultural Science Education According to Michele Kahn (2008) based on Banks (1993), the context for the emergence of multicultural education in the United States was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. When the Supreme Court ruling of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, desegregated the US schools, there was an all-out push for equal representation and opportunities. This landmark case brought televised images of national troops escorting Black students like Ruby Bridges into all-White classrooms, the turned-on gushing water hoses on Black people, and the vicious beating of Black people. African American studies and women’s studies programs began in higher education. Hence, multicultural education first began in the higher-education setting. In the summer of 1972, H. Prentice Baptiste accepted a faculty position in science education at the University of Houston. In the fall of 1972, he became the Director of the college of education program for the preparation of Black Teachers who had been displaced in southern states because of the desegregation in their school districts. In addition, he received the first of several grants that led to his establishment and development of multicultural courses and the establishment of the first PhD program in multicultural education at a university (Baptiste 1977; H. P. Baptiste, personal communication, December 5, 2020). In the early 1970s, H. Prentice Baptiste (a Section Editor in this international handbook) consulted with the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) in leading the development of multicultural competencies for the NCATE accreditation for colleges of education. Richard James and Anne Gayles

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

13

were also members of this writing team. The book Multicultural Education Through Competency-Based Teacher Education was edited by William Hunter and published AACTE in 1974. Asa Hilliard and H. Prentice Baptiste (then known as Hanson P. Baptiste), along with the editor, William Hunt, were involved in the writing of this significant book in multicultural education. The writing team met at the University of Oklahoma on June 16–22, 1974, for the production of this book. Carl Grant (1975c) edited the publication “Sifting and Winnowing: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Multi-cultural Education And CBTE” and was the chapter author of the “Introduction” and “Exploring the Contours of Multi-cultural Education” (Grant 1975b) as well as the lead co-author of a chapter with A. Brian Calhoun entitled “Planning and Implementing Multi-cultural Competency-Based Teacher Education Programs: A National Survey” (Grant 1975c). In the following year, H. Prentice Baptiste wrote Multicultural Education: A Synopsis and then in 1977 wrote a chapter entitled “Multicultural Education Evolvement at the University of Houston: A Case Study in Pluralism.” Finally, during the early history of multicultural education, H. Prentice Baptiste published Developing the Multicultural Process in Classroom Instruction: Competencies for Teachers. Geneva Gay (1975a, b, 167) was an early scholar in multicultural education, and her interview with the editor will be discussed later (Atwater 2010a; b). Grant and Sleeter (1985) undertook a review and analysis of literature on multicultural education. They only included articles with the descriptors multicultural education, multiethnic education, and bicultural education and eliminated those articles that addressed a single ethnic group or bilingualism without a reference to culture. This study included both articles found in an ERIC search and some additional articles that the ERIC search omitted. Hence, there were close to 200 articles reviewed. The articles were divided into broad categories: national policy, purposes and goals, models of instruction, curriculum, instructional processes, teacher education, call to action, and arguments against multicultural education. There were 25 articles on national policy, 46 articles that discussed multicultural education purposes and goals, 9 articles about models, 16 articles related to curricular issues, 8 articles concentrating on instructional processes, 29 articles focusing on teacher education, 5 articles calling for advocating for multicultural education to be institutionalized, and 6 articles criticizing multicultural education. What is noteworthy is that only 19 out of the 144 articles were research articles, and they focused on teacher education, curriculum, the extent to which precollege schools should be multicultural, strategies for teaching students from underrepresented groups in multicultural classrooms, and characteristics of ethnic schools. Grant and Sleeter (1985) believed that more funding was necessary for scholars to fund more robust scholarship on multicultural education and that more collaboration was needed among scholars around the world in the field of multicultural education. Ramsey in 2008 published an article entitled History and Trends of Multicultural Education. She also emphasized that multicultural education had been a noteworthy impetus in school reform over the past 30 years and produced new educational theories and motivated research at all educational levels. She references Grant and Sleeter’s 1989 book and includes the typology of multicultural education

14

M. M. Atwater

approaches: (a) education of culturally different children, (b) single-group studies, (c) human relations approaches, (d) M.E. that values cultural pluralism, and (e) education that is a multicultural and social reconstructionist. Multicultural education originally focused on race, ethnicity, and culture, with James Banks focusing on ethnicity. Then multicultural theorists began to recognize and analyze power differentials underlying race and culture, so they began to include social class and economic discrimination. As gender disparities became apparent in schools, gender issues were incorporated into multicultural curricula (Sleeter 2000). Protests arose from families with children with disabilities; therefore, legislation was passed in 1990 called the Americans with Disabilities Act for children to include children with disabilities in “regular” classrooms. Multicultural education now embraces disability (Sleeter, 2010). Finally, the relationship between oppression and destruction of the natural environment became an issue; multicultural education embraced this as the disparity between the environmental degradation of poor and affluent countries and communities (Frucher 1999). Sonia Nieto (2016) encompassed the definitions of Banks (2004), Grants, and Baptiste and Archer (1994) to finally determine that multicultural education is “a process of comprehensive school reform ad basic education for all students. [It] challenges and rejects racism and other forms of discrimination in schools and society and accepts and affirms pluralism that students, their communities, and teachers reflect” (p. 42). She discusses the permeation of multicultural education in the schooling process and that it utilizes critical pedagogy as its underlying philosophy with a focus on social change. She delineates seven characteristics of multicultural education. The following aspects of her delineation of multicultural education have been very helpful to me in better understanding multicultural science education and my research studies: • • • • • • •

“Antiracist education. Basic education. Important to all students. Pervasive. Education for social justice A process. Critical pedagogy.” (pg. 42)

Within the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE), there was the Multicultural Education Special Interest Group. The founding members of the Association of Teacher Educators Multicultural Education SIG were Anne Richardson Gayle of Florida A&M University (FAMU), James Anderson, and H. Prentice Baptiste. Anne Richardson Gayle was later known as Anne Richardson Gayles-Felton (H. P. Baptiste, personal communication, May 8, 2021). In 2002, she co-authored a book entitled The History of the College of Education-Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (1887–2000) with Drs. Marian Smith and William Castine. The FAMU Foundation received the proceeds from the book to set up scholarships in the College of Education (Florida A&M University Website 2021). On January

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

15

11, 2005, Dr. Gayles-Felton established an Endowed Scholarship at FAMU for undergraduate teacher education majors. She is a distinguished and productive member of the Association of Teacher Educators and had a record of unceasing membership for over 45 years of meritorious service to the association. Her affiliations include the Association of Student Teaching (AST), the Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators (SRATE), and the Florida Association of Teacher Educators (FATE). In 2013, Dr. Gayles-Felton established the Anne Richardson Gayles-Felton Scholarship Endowment Fund, which is awarded to a secondary education undergraduate that shows promise not only as a prospective teacher but also as a future teacher educator (Association of Teacher Education Website). Fort Valley State University (FVSU) named the Academic Classroom and Lab Building for Anne Richardson Gayles-Felton during a ceremony on FVSU’s campus on Sunday, October 21, 2018. A $300,000 gift that was received by the university doubled her lifetime contributions to FVSU, which now totals $600,000 (Teresa D. Southern, Distinguished Alumna’s Contributions to Education Include $600 k in Gifts to FVSU, Oct. 18, 2018) (Teresa 2018). In 2017, Anne Richardson GaylesFelton, Professor Emerita at FAMU, endowed a $250,000 scholarship at Teachers College, Columbia University, where she earned a master’s degree in teaching in 1947 (Gayles-Felton endows $250 K scholarship at Columbia Special to the Chronicle, April 19, 2017). I was very fortunate that in 2004, I met Dr. Anne Richardson Gayles-Felton when I gave a paper at the meeting of the Southern Association for the Education of Teachers of Science in Gainesville, FL. I visited the campus of FAMU and briefly talked to Dr. Gayles-Felton. I told her I wanted a position at her university. She told me I needed to stay at the University of Georgia. Looking back, she was correct. I refer to Anne Richardson Gayles-Felton as the “mother of multicultural education.” The National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) was created because of Rose Duhon-Sells’ challenge to members of the Multicultural Education Special Interest Group at the 1990 meeting of the ATE. The new association, NAME, was launched through a national conference held in conjunction with the 1991 ATE meeting in New Orleans. However another document (Duhon-Sells and Smith 1992) indicates that NAMES originated at the 1990 Association of Teacher Educators’ annual meeting in Las Vegas on February 7 when Rose Duhon-Sells, a former Chair of ATE’s Multicultural Education Special Interest Group, invited several people to her hotel room and challenged them to work together and create NAME. The minutes of this meeting indicate that 17 people were present: James E. Anderson, H. Prentice Baptiste, Jr. (one of the Section Editors), Lesley McAvoy Baptiste, Charlotte R. Bell, Samuel Bolden, James Boyer, Glenn A. Doston, John Hendricks, Rose Marie Duhon-Sells, Tonya Huber, Alfred G. Mouton, Cornel Pewewardy, G. Pritchy Smith, Helen Ralls-Reedes, Samuel E. Spaght, Maureen Vanterpool, and Doris C. Vaughn. By virtue of their presence in the room at this first meeting where NAME’s beginning was planned, these people were designated as the founding members of NAME (Duhon-Sells and Smith 1992). Baptiste et al. (2013) share biographies of nine of the founding members. Rose Duhon-Sells invited Carl Grant, Geneva Gay, and Donna Gollnick to be the keynote speakers at

16

M. M. Atwater

the first NAME conference, while Pritchy Smith assisted by developing a call for papers and the conference program and receiving and reviewing the papers (Baptiste et al. 2013). The objectives of this organization today are as follows: • To provide opportunities for learning in order to advance multicultural education, equity, and social justice • To proactively reframe public debate and impact current and emerging policies in ways that advance social, political, economic, and educational equity through advocacy, position papers, policy statements, and other strategies • To provide the preeminent digital clearinghouse of resources about educational equity and social justice According to Kahn (2008), NAME defines multicultural education as: a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity . . . It affirms our need to prepare students for their responsibilities in an interdependent world. It recognizes the role schools can play in developing the attitudes and values necessary for a democratic society. It values cultural differences and affirms the pluralism that students, their communities, and teachers reflect. It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and society through the promotion of democratic principles of social justice.

As stated in this organization website, NAME has over 1500 members from throughout the United States and several other countries. NAME is a registered 501-c.3 non-profit organization (NAME’s Federal Tax ID # is 72-119-3754.). NAME’s membership is unique in that it has members from preschool to university level and from the business and communities. There are local chapters at the state and local levels.

The Beginning of Multicultural Science Education It is always interesting how someone interprets your life accomplishments even at the beginning of efforts. I graduated from Methodist College, now Methodist University in Fayetteville, NC, with a B.S. in Chemistry. In the first year, I was the only Black student at the college, and therefore I was the first Black to graduate from Methodist and the first female to be awarded a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. I graduated magna cum laude. Eileen Parsons (2008) wrote: “Methodist College was only one among many firsts in Mary’s life and many instances in which she would be one of few who chartered the unknown for those of us who would come behind her” (p. 211) I then completed a master’s degree in organic chemistry and all of the coursework for a PhD in physical organic chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. After marriage, I enrolled in North Carolina State University (NCSU) and received a doctorate degree in science education. I was the first AfricanAmerican PhD female awardee. Parsons (2008) decided that these “first actions set

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

17

the groundwork for the history of NCSU’s doctoral program in science education, one of the largest in the US, to include the names of several African American female doctoral graduates – a major accomplishment in a field in which African Americans with PhDs are seriously under-represented” (p 211). She went on to write that “Mary’s presence and efforts in the early days of her career not only prepared a physical space for future generations by desegregating academic environments but she also worked to establish an intellectual sphere for diverse perspectives” (p. 211). When I came to the University of Georgia in 1987, I was encouraged to apply for the Lilly Fellows Program. Its main goals were to assist faculty members in completing an instructional project designed to strengthen the courses and teaching methods in their academic department and to fortify an instructional environment that (a) honors and acknowledges committed teaching scholars; (b) cherishes a synergistic relationship between teaching, research, and service; and (c) furthers a spirit of learning on a large campus. In its beginning, nine assistant professors from UGA were selected to become fellows in this 1-year program. I was one of the nine assistant professors selected in the fifth cohort (1988–1989) to become a Lilly Fellow and the second African-American Lilly Fellow. I chose as my instructional project the development of instructional materials and the creation of a multicultural education course. Fellows received funding for their projects. I utilized my funding to visit James A. Banks at the University of Washington during the 1989 NARST annual conference. I visited James Banks’ classes, met with people in the University of Washington’s Department of Ethnic Studies, and talked with students on campus at the cafeteria as I ate lunch. That was a great 1-day experience. The following year, I shared with my members in my cohort my ideas related to multicultural education and my materials. Everyone was interested, and the discussion had to be terminated by the discussion leaders so that others could make their presentations. It was obvious that everyone was interested in how culture affected teaching and learning. So, my integration of culture into my courses at UGA began. While I was on the NARST Board of Directors (1991–1994), the White NARST female members wanted a strand dedicated to gender issues because many of the White females were conducting research on gender issues. Let me explain what and how important strands are to NARST, our science education research organization. Strands allow the organization to group members’ research topics into broad, general categories of similar interest. Each year NARST announces a call for proposals for its annual international conference. Members submit proposals to Strands for review and presentation on the program. In addition, the Strands provide an informal forum for conference attendees to interact around a common interest of study, teaching, or research. Hence, at a board meeting in 1992, the board had a discussion on the “gender” strand issue. However, the board members decided to expand this strand and named it “Cultural, Social, and Gender Issues.” A few female NARST members were upset because the name of the strand was much more inclusive than gender. I had predicted this reaction. However, I believe that the Board Directors, the leaders of the organization, saw the future of science education research that some could not. Today, that strand consider proposals that concentrate on diversity and equity issues

18

M. M. Atwater

and are peer-reviewed for presentation at the NARST annual international conference. The diversity and equity issues are described as sociocultural, multicultural, bilingual, racial/ethnic, and gender equity studies. Sometimes, it might not be appropriate to begin to investigate the history of multicultural science education when the term was first utilized. It might be more appropriate when the term “multicultural” or some aspect of culture first appeared in science education journals. I had some doctoral students in a course focusing on multicultural science education to determine the earliest science education publication related to multicultural or some aspect of culture. One student found the following entry: Harty and Sachs (1977): Elementary school science methods for preservice teachers preparing to teach in poor multicultural setting (Bae, personal communication, September 9, 2020). This entry appeared in School Science and Mathematics that is focused on the science method course for elementary preservice teachers working in a university- and community-based setting with “poor whites, blacks, Latinos, and native Americans in rural or inner city community agencies” (Harty and Sachs 1977, p.296). In the 1970s, the authors viewed these groups as “disadvantaged” and in need of help. Even though the Center for Multicultural Education existed at this university, it appears that this center did not have the perspective of providing these groups of students the capability to empower themselves. When I was researching the term “multicultural” or some aspect of culture that first appeared in a science education research journal, I found that language was the first aspect of culture that was published in the first official journal of NARST, Science Education by Meshach Ogunniyi (Ogunniyi and Pella 1980). The article was entitled “Conceptualizations of Scientific Concepts, Laws, and Theories held by Kwara State, Nigeria Secondary School Science Teachers.” I attended a national convention of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) when I was a PhD candidate at North Carolina State University. In my early professional career at the University of Georgia (UGA), I attended one of the national conventions of the NSTA and continued to attend a group called the Minority Caucus. It was composed of the long-standing mostly Black members of the NSTA. They normally met in a room to discuss issues that were important to Black NSTA members. Napoleon Bryant was the Chairperson of this group. In one of the meetings, Napoleon Bryant decided to step down as the Chairperson. A new Chairperson was needed. Alice Moses was also a long-standing member and a science teacher in the Chicago schools. She approached me and wanted me to take on this role. I informed her I was an assistant professor and did not think this was the best time in my professional career to take on such a position. However, I did return to UGA and discussed the matter with my department head. Ultimately, I decided to serve in this role, began in1987, and continued until 1990 when a momentous idea was proposed during the Minority Caucus. Many members of the group wanted to leave the NSTA because it was impossible for a Black NSTA member to be elected President of this organization. It had been attempted in the past when I was not a member, but with no success. This leaving was going to be done in a news-breaking way. I asked that a small group of us meet with the NSTA Board before this occurred

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

19

because I had never discussed this matter with the Board. The group was willing to wait. A small group of us met with the Executive Board in Washington DC with written demands. Of course, I was made the spoke person, and the other group members were composed of teachers from the Washington DC area. The NSTA Executive Board listened, asked questions, and wanted a few of us to talk to the entire NSTA Board that would meet in Hawaii. We would have time on the agenda to discuss the matter and the full Board would vote. Dr. Fred Johnson, an assistant superintendent, and I were to fly to Hawaii, but at the last minute, he became ill and could not fly. I flew alone to Hawaii. We wanted the Board to have (a) two Black candidates for the President position in which bios would appear, but no pictures; (b) we would support the Executive Board to create a new organization that became the Association of Multicultural Science Education. (It was later decided by the NSTA Board that it would pay for its incorporation fees of this new organization.); and (c) the creation of a new division that will be eventually named Multicultural Science Education. The full Board had a long deliberation on whether there would be pictures of the candidates, and that motion barely passed. However, all of the other motions related to our requests were passed, the creation of the Division of Multicultural Science Education began, and the Association of the Multicultural Science Education as an organization was eventually incorporated. I decided I would never run to be a board member for the Division of Multicultural Science Education and never have. However, I did serve as the President of the Association for Multicultural Science Education. Over the years, the NSTA’s Division of Multicultural Science Education has had a name change; it is presently called the Division of Multicultural/ Equity in Science Education. One of the NSTA’s Guiding Principle is to “embrace diversity, equity, and respect.” This guiding principle did not exist in 1987. The first Black President of NSTA was Alice Moses, and then when Dr. Fred Johnson became a candidate, he became the second Black President of the NSTA. Alice Moses appointed Napoleon Bryant to be the Chair of the NSTA’s Convention when she was President (Atwater, M. M.*, Bryant, N., & Foots, B. (1989, June). Concerns of NSTA minority caucus. North Carolina State University.)

Handbooks, Journal Publications, and Standard: Multicultural Science Education There has been a growing interest in multicultural science education in the publication industry. Handbooks, journals, and standards were created due to the science education researchers’ interest in science education. In the Handbook of Research on Science Education edited by Dorothy Gabel in 1994, I was one of the chapter’s authors. At that time, little research had been done on culture in science education; therefore, I entitled the chapter “Research on Culture Diversity in the Classroom” rather than having in its title the term “multicultural”. This was the beginning of the acknowledgement of multicultural science education as a sub-discipline of science education. Each handbook on science education research afterward had one or more chapters on the influence of culture on science education, even though the section

20

M. M. Atwater

might have been entitled “Diversity and Equity” or some version of this phrase (Abell and Lederman 2007; Lederman and Abell 2014). In 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates published a book edited by Anthony E. Kelly and Richard Lesh entitled Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education. Kelly has a PhD in psychological studies in education and a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, while Lesh has a PhD in mathematics, cognitive psychology, and statistics for research in the social sciences from Indiana University and a BA in mathematics and physics from Hanover College. As a result, this handbook has many chapters devoted to mathematics, a very few reserved to mathematics and science, and only two committed to science. One is written by Feldman and Minstrell (2000) that has nothing to do with culture, and the other one is written by Ken Tobin (2000) that also has nothing to do with culture. However, in 2005 Kenneth Tobin with Wolff-Michel Roth started the journal Cultural Studies of Science (K. Tobin., personal communication, March 29, 2021). Culture was gaining ground in the science education research community. Two science education researchers decided to start journals that focused on culture. Ken Tobin described the history of Cultural Studies of Science in this way. During NARST/AERA meetings of 2004 (in Vancouver) Michael and I prepared and submitted a proposal to Kluwer, to create a new journal to promote science education research with sociocultural theoretical underpinnings. We regarded the journal as a necessary forum for research with this orientation because of the direction of 5-6 journals in science education that all pretty much favored a status quo that was not encouraging to the growth of forms of inquiry that did not align with crypto-positivism in all of its forms. At that time, [Tobin names the person] was a key figure at Kluwer and we discussed the creation of this journal with him, along with a companion book series that would publish manuscripts that were book length and could not easily be accommodated by the journal (which intentionally did not limit publications to a particular page length). Kluwer was acquired by Springer soon after we had reached agreement to create the journal and book series. Accordingly, [Tobin names two people], both of whom I had worked with previously, were now with Springer. However, this was soon to change as Springer reduced its personnel. [One of the people Tobin named] decided to leave Springer and create his own publishing company. Sense Publishers was created in 2004 and prior to this happening [Tobin names a person] met with me in New Jersey to ascertain whether I would create two book series in what would become Sense. One series was Bold Visions – which accommodated books from any disciplinary area. The series, which was co-edited with Joe Kincheloe, still exists today and publishes books with a sociocultural emphasis. The other series was Cultural Perspectives of Science Education. Initially, [Tobin named a person] remained at Springer, but soon after the establishment of Sense, decided to join [Tobin named a person] in pioneering this new company. At this time, [Tobin names a person] assumed editorial responsibility for the subjects that contained science education. [The named person] launched the first volume of CSSE [Cultural Studies of Science Education] (the journal) and soon after proceeded with the book series that had the same title as the journal. The book series continues today with the same editors as the journal. Hence, when I stepped aside as editor of the CSSE, the journal, I was no longer editor of the book series. At the moment, Catherine Milne and Christina Siry are editors of CSSE, journal and book series. As I came closer to retirement, I handed over editorship of Cultural Perspectives of Science Education to Katherine Scantlebury and Catherine Milne about 5-6 years ago.

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

21

Although the emphases may have shifted after the handover, the initial goals of the book series had a family resemblance to those we formulated for Cultural Studies of Science Education (book series and journal). As is the pattern in the publishing industry, Sense Publishers were acquired by Brill, and is now known as Brill | Sense. Bold Visions continues as a book series and we have a good list of books being published at the moment. There have been 70 books published in Bold Visions since its inception. Similarly Cultural Perspectives of Science Education continues as a series in the Brill | Sense catalogue. (K. Tobin, personal communication, April 28, 2021)

Presently, the journal Cultural Studies of Science Education views science education as a “cultural, cross-age, cross-class, and cross-disciplinary phenomenon.” It creates connections between science education and social studies of science, establishes public understanding of science, maintains human values, and develops science literacy. It serves as an interactive platform for researchers working in the multidisciplinary fields of cultural studies and science education that features theoretical and empirical articles by researchers and forum articles in which authors of forum articles respond to the featured articles. All research published in this journal must have a sociocultural perspective. In 2004, multicultural science education crossed over into multicultural education with the publication of a chapter entitled “Access and Achievement in Mathematics and Science: Inequalities that Endure and Change” written by Jennie Oakes, Rebecca Joseph, and Kate Muir (2004) in the Handbook of Multicultural Education with James A. Banks as editor. Kate Muir is a professor of science and mathematics education at the University of Wyoming, while Jennie Oakes and Rebecca Joseph are outside of science education. Kate Muir is presently an associate professor at the University of Wyoming, and her research interest is presently science education with foci of place-based education and social justice on the University of Wyoming’s website. Science Activities, not a very well-known journal to science education researchers, publishes classroom-tested projects, experiments, and curriculum ideas that promote science and inquiry through active learning experience. I approached the editor of the journal because I was on the Editorial Board at the time and proposed that I be a guest editor of a special issue on multicultural science education. The editor agreed, and in 2010, a special issue highlighting multicultural science activities was published. In addition, an interview with Geneva Gay (Atwater 2010a) was included. Geneva Gay believes that mathematics and science are untouchable high-status disciplines. “She admitted that she has limited science content knowledge and what goes on in science education, but she does know that the scientific enterprise and science education are human endeavors. Hence, cultural human beings are involved in the scientific enterprise, and ‘we embed our humanity in theory research and other forms of knowledge [production]” (p. 161). She continues by saying that “there are no quick-fix strategies, which are, by definition, decontextualized.” She construes that multicultural education “evokes one of the most fundamental issues of the human condition and that we are incredibly as an entity called the human family. We are incredibly diverse. It is deep and it is complex; it is profound and it is incredibly beautiful. It is that complexity that I find exciting and enticing—inviting

22

M. M. Atwater

if you will” (p. 161). I wrote the introductory article stating that “Access to science knowledge and the control of science applications are heavily shaped by social, political, and economic factors” (Atwater 2010b, p. 108). The six featured peerreviewed articles in this special issue were based upon Banks’ (2004) approaches to integrate multicultural content into science curriculum. In this issue, there was even an example of Level 4 – the Social Action Approach – by Michael Mueller and John Pickering (2010). Min-Hsien Lee, Ying-Tien Wu, and Chin-Chung Tsai in 2009 published an article in the International Journal of Science Education, reviewed and analyzed a total of 869 papers published in the three journals from 2003 to 2007, and compared those results with those in the 2005 publication (Tsai and Wen 2005). Besides in the previous study, they identified 31 highly cited papers published during 1998–2002, while 20 highly cited papers were published during 2003–2007. The results showed that authors from countries other than the four major English-speaking countries (i.e., the USA, the UK, Australia, and Canada) were published in the past decade. During these 5 years (2003–2007), science educators showed relatively more interest in research topics involving the context of student learning. Also, they identified research topics. One of them was “Cultural, social, and gender issues” and is described to include “Multicultural and bilingual issues; ethnic issues; gender issues; comparative studies; issues of diversity related to science teaching and learning.” They found that Culture, Social and Gender (14.4%) was the third-ranked research topic in 1998–2002, while Teaching (13.9%) was the third-ranked research topic in 2003–2007. In 1998 to 2007, a clearly increasing trend was found in the topic Culture, Social and Gender, from 14.4% to 6.8%. Clearly, science educators’ researchers transferred their research foci during these past 10 years. These authors also maintain that this study provided an opportunity for researchers in science education to reconsider the next step of research in the field. There are future challenges in science education research. More and more researchers are contributing from different cultures, and various social contexts contribute to the field of science education. How do we integrate their findings derived from different sociocultural variations and apply these findings to global science education? Should science education researchers conduct more cross-national or cross-cultural studies? These authors maintain that the cooperation of researchers from different sociocultural contexts will be one of the important issues for the advancement of this field of science education. Social justice had become a conceptual theme in multicultural education. In 2010, Chapman and Hobbel edited a book entitled Social Justice Pedagogy Across the Curriculum: The Practice of Freedom. They contacted me and invited me to write a chapter related to social justice and multicultural science education. They wanted to mix “three elements: history, theory, and praxis” (p. xi). I asked if I could have a co-author, but I would be the lead author. I was given the affirmative, and thus the chapter “Science Curricular Materials Through the Lens of Social Justice: Research Findings” was published by Atwater and Suriel (2010) in a major multicultural education publication. However it is difficult to believe that some science educators discussed multicultural and never mentioned Black scholars doing work in the field

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

23

of multicultural science education, such as Meyer and Crawford (2011). Science educators of European ancestry received credit as if they were the only ones doing multicultural science education research worth mentioning. In 2011 Angela Calabrese Barton and Joseph Krajcik, the co-editor of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, contacted me to identify a group of NARST members to determine the most influential science education articles published in JRST from 1980 to 2010 that focused on multicultural science education (MSE), equity (EQ), or social justice (SJ) (Atwater 2011). These articles would then be identified in a virtual issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) that science education researchers and policymakers could ponder. These articles would be re-published and made widely available to educators. A committee of 12 science educators selected 5 MSE articles and 4 EQ/SJ articles from a pool of 233 articles. The committee members were Julie Bianchini (University of California, Santa Barbara), Gayle Buck (Indiana University, Bloomington), Malcolm B. Butler (University of South Florida, St. Petersburg), Sumi Hagiwara (Montclair State University), Heidi Carlone (University of North Carolina at Greensboro), Bhaskar Upadhyay (University of Minnesota), Felicia Moore Mensah (Teachers College, Columbia University), Obed Norman (Morgan State University), Jrene Rahm (Université de Montréal), Alberto J. Rodriguez (San Diego State University), Geeta Verma (University of Colorado, Denver), and Matthew Weinstein (University of Washington – Tacoma). Unfortunately the complete virtual issue was not published because the new co-editors of the JRST decided they would not publish the remaining four EQ/SJ articles. In 2013, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a special issue in which Eileen Carlton Parsons and Heidi B. Carlone (Parsons and Carlone 2013) were guest editors entitled “Culture and Science Education in the 21st Century.” In this special issue, the co-editors acknowledge that: the concept of culture has become more prominent and relevant in science education. The culture of science, culture of school science, culture of science classrooms, and cultures of individual actors in the science educative process are among the many ways in which culture has been cast and examined in the science education literature. Many studies described culture and examined its role in the participation in and the teaching and learning of science but fewer studies comprehensively entertained culture as a structure and mechanism that can inform research and policies developed to address the numerous challenges in science education (p.1).

In 2013, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a special issue on culture. Eileen Carlton Parsons and Heidi B. Carlone were the invited editors of this issue. With six articles and a Closing, this special issue contained research articles and conceptual essays that highlighted the importance of culture in science education. They wrote the following about this special issue: In the past 20 years, the concept of culture has become more prominent and relevant in science education. The culture of science, culture of school science, culture of science classrooms, and cultures of individual actors in the science educative process are among

24

M. M. Atwater the many ways in which culture has been cast and examined in the science education literature. Many studies described culture and examined its role in the participation in and the teaching and learning of science but fewer studies comprehensively entertained culture as a structure and mechanism that can inform research and policies developed to address the numerous challenges in science education.

In 2017, the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) created Strand 11 for its conference papers. This strand entitled “Equity and Diversity Issues” encompasses sociocultural, multicultural, bilingual, racial/ethnic, and gender equity studies and science education for the special needs. In 2021, it is now Strand 12; there are now 18 research strands. With more research being conducted in the subfield of multicultural science education, a special issue of Cultural Studies of Science Education entitled “Equity in Science Teacher Education: Toward an Expanded Definition” was published in 2019. Brian S. Fortney, Deborah Morrison, Alberto J. Rodriguez, and Bhaskar Upadhyay (2019) were the invited editors for this issue. In this issue, the works of well-known multicultural science education researchers were cited: Atwater (2011), Mensah (2012), and Rivera Maulucci (2012). Of course Alberto Rodriguez’ work was also cited (Rodriguez and Morrison 2019). In this same issue, Monica L. Ridgeway wrote an article entitled “Against the Grain: Science Education Researchers and Social Justice Agendas” and cited the work of multicultural science education researchers Mensah and Jackson (2018), Mutegi (2011), Rodriguez (1998, 2015), and Walls (2016, 2017). A group of science teacher educators, mostly members from the Association of Education of Teachers of Science (AETS), now known as the Association of Science Teachers, wrote the original NSTA Standards for Education of Teachers of Science. According to Duggan-Hass, Enfield, and Ashman (2000), the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation offered guidance for K-12 science teacher preparation programs. The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for science teacher education programs adopted these standards, even though the NSTA Standards were more directed toward the secondary science teacher education programs. In 1990s the heart and soul reform effort in science education was (a) the teaching of all students for science understanding and they being able to apply science and (b) utilizing a broad vision that the teaching less science content allows for better understanding and more meaningful application of science. It was in these standards that there was a multicultural science education emphasis, the Social Context of Science Teaching, which was developed under the leadership of Mary Atwater. It reads as follows: The program prepares candidates to relate science to the community and to use human and institutional resources in the community to advance the education of their students in science. The social context of science teaching includes: • Social and community support network within which occur science teaching and learning. • Relationship of science teaching and learning to the needs and values of the community.

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

25

• Involvement of people and institutions from the community in the teaching of science. Standards for education for social context (Standards for the education of science teachers: the social context 1998).

There were three levels for each standard, including the social context: preservice level, induction level, and professional level. In 1987, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) came in existence as the results of a response to A Nation at Risk when the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy convened a task force of policymakers, educators, teacher associations, and business leaders. Governor James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina served as the first Chair of the NBPTS Board of Directors, and former Ford Foundation Executive, James A. Kelly, became the National Board’s first President (The beginning of the movement, Mission & History n.d.) It was established to define and recognize accomplished teaching. It was created by teachers, for teachers (National Board of Professional Standards 2006). Master teachers could get board-certified using a voluntary process against very high standards. In order to become board-certified today, eligible science candidates must demonstrate advanced knowledge, skills, and practice in their science area by completing four components: three portfolio entries and a computer-based assessment. Teachers can currently be certified in science at two levels: (a) Science Early Adolescence (ages 11–15) and (b) Adolescence and Young Adulthood (ages 14–18+) (National Board of Professional Standards, 2014). In 1991, the NBPTS convened the Early Adolescence/Science Standards Committee in 1991. I served on this committee in which we created the original standards for this level. The committee members recommended these standards to the National Board in 1998. This set of standards had multicultural science education interwoven in each standard. There was no separate multicultural science education standard. Then in 2011, I was appointed again to another NBPTS. This time the committee was entitled the “Science Standard Committee.” This Committee’s goals were to analyze the current Science Standards (the previous levels of standards), identify the content that would be carried forward, and create the new Science Standards. They recommended nine standards to facilitate understanding of science, and there was no priority. The nine standards were as follows: (a) Understanding Students; (b) Knowledge of Science; (c) Curriculum and Instruction; (d) Assessment; (e) Learning Environment; (f) Family and Community Partnership; (g) Advancing Professionalism; (h) Diversity, Fairness, Equity, and Ethics; and (i) Reflection (Science Standards for teachers of students ages 11–18+ (2014)). This committee completed its work in 2012 and made its recommendation to the Board. In these Science Standards, there was a separate multicultural science education standard, namely, Standard VIII. Its description was “Accomplished science teachers understand and value diversity, and then engage all students in high-quality science learning through fair, equitable, and ethical teaching practices” (Science Standards for teachers of students ages 11–18 + 2014, p. 18), and each of the other standards had a multicultural science education component interwoven in it. For example, the Standard IX: Reflection had multicultural science education interwoven into it by being written the following way:

26

M. M. Atwater Accomplished science teachers reflect on whether they are teaching in a way that is responsive to the strengths and needs of their students; they realize students bring to the classroom a variety of exceptionalities and diverse cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. Accomplished teachers reflect on whether they are reaching out to students and families in ways that ensure they all feel welcome and supported in an inclusive setting. Teachers make sure that their science classroom reflects the value of diversity in productive ways that engage students and demonstrate respect. Accomplished teachers are especially deliberate and thoughtful in reflecting on their students’ backgrounds and abilities. They reflect on what they know about their students as learners, how they know it, and how they can apply this knowledge to improve instruction. If, through the process of reflection, teachers determine that there are significant gaps in their knowledge of their students’ backgrounds that adversely affect science learning, teachers reflect on how they can remedy this lack. For example, if a teacher has a student with an exceptional need, the teacher may talk with other professionals, read articles, or seek out professional learning opportunities in order to learn more about the exceptionality and how to support and encourage students who bring that need to the classroom. Accomplished science teachers continually reflect on their classroom practice in order to ensure that they are educating all students fairly and equitably. To aid in this endeavor, teachers avail themselves of many sources of relevant information. They may watch videos of classroom interactions, analyze assessment data, invite colleagues to observe their classrooms, and interview students. Teachers look for patterns that may indicate inequity, such as disproportionate rates of success or failure among certain groups of students or a consistent lack of engagement on the part of some individuals. Teachers look for ways to ameliorate these situations when inequities exist. Accomplished science teachers scrupulously seek to uncover their biases and any other factors that may somehow undermine students’ achievement in science. Accomplished teachers make every effort to prevent their personal biases from affecting their interactions with students. (Science Standards for teachers of students ages 11–18+ 2014, p. 71)

The NBPTS Board of Directors unanimously approved these new Science Standards document in April 2012. Multicultural science education had finally been accepted in the science teaching arena at the highest level. In addition, this version of the standards is still utilized by the NBPTS today to certify teachers (Dat Le, personal communication, April 25, 2021). In 1990, I received the NSTA OHAUS Award for Innovations in Four-Year College Teaching for integrating multicultural science education as a strand into secondary science education program at the University of Georgia. At that time, OHAUS donated money for these awards for innovations in teaching at the precollege and college levels to the National Science Teachers Association (now the National Science Teaching Association). At that time in the Department of Science Education at UGA, the science teacher education consisted of a one-semester science education curriculum, methods, practicum, and student teaching courses. The practicum course required students to have an experience in a middle-school and highschool setting and must teach students from African and Latin ancestries. They had to use their curriculum unit developed in their curriculum course during their student teaching experience. For many of these students in this program, they began their journey in multicultural science education because the program mostly had students of European ancestry that did not graduate from schools that had a diverse student population. My NSTA OHAUS Award, which is a crystal square, stated the following: “Given in recognition of demonstrated imagination, creative thinking, and

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

27

innovative appropriates to the teaching of science. This award is proudly presented by the Ohaus Corporation and the National Science Teachers Association in Interest of sharing ideas and shaping the future of science education for all.”

Their Stories into Multicultural Science Education Chris Emdin, a young science education scholar in 2006, described his experience in the following way: Because of my experiences in other academic conferences and the consequent feelings about conferences that I had developed, I looked to the NARST conference with a lack of great expectation. I anticipated that there would be people with different perspectives on science education and perhaps a small group of people who shared my passion for issues on the intersections of race, class, diversity and science education. I had prepared myself for meeting scholars who I considered to be mentors in this field. People who I had never met but whose work inspired me to enter the field of science education. I believed that a few exchanges of words with these few people would be enough to make the conference worthwhile. On my first day attending the conference, I sat in a meeting of the Ethics and Equity Committee, had the opportunity to hear Mary Atwater speak to the room of scholars of color and listened to a panel of discussants that entered into discussions about their work. Rather quickly, my expectations about the conference were quickly surpassed by the energized, passionate, yet deeply scholarly discussions surrounding both my areas of interest and realms of science education that I was not familiar with. Both during and right after that session, I was able to sit and talk with colleagues from all over the world and was informally welcomed to a conference that proved to be much more than just an event. By this, I mean that my experiences at the conference never became locked in space and time. The first session I attended, the welcoming words of Mary Atwater, and the insightful work of my colleagues during my first session was a wormhole of sorts that transferred me to a world where all that I was learning during the conference exists in a continuum (Joslin et al. 2008, p. 203).

Roth (2008) argues that the globalization has led cultural métissage and therefore hybridity and heterogeneity. He maintains that the experiences of “learning science and identity not only as a consequence of cross-national migrations-Mexicans in the United States, Asians and Europeans in Canada, Africans in Europe, but also African Americans who, in science classrooms, find themselves (temporarily) at home away from home give rise to the possibility of symbolic violence in science classrooms even to those whose ethos is or is closest to the one at the heart of science” (p. 891). As in the field multicultural education, splintering has occurred in the understanding of teaching students from different cultures. I would argue this should be the case because students’ microcultures differ. Eileen Parsons (2008) wrote the following about the editor and author: Research employing a deficit perspective implicitly and explicitly compares oppressed minorities to their dominant counterparts and attributes any differentials in the phenomena studied to what is lacking with what is lacking with the oppressed minorities. Even in the face of high personal and professional costs, Mary questioned and defied the deficient perspective in science and science education at every phase of her personal life beginning with her dissertation.

28

M. M. Atwater

Funding Agencies: Their Contributions to Multicultural Science Education Research related to culture has been conducted as a result of financial support. Multicultural science education like any other sub-field of science education such as science teacher education and college science teaching thrived because federal and private agencies fund such research.

Federal Agencies The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a federal agency created by the Congress in 1950 when President Harry S. Truman signed Public Law 81–507. This act provided a National Science Board (NSB) of 24 part-time members and a Director as Chief Executive Officer. All of these people would be appointed by the US President (NSF history by decade. 1950s, 2021). The mission of NSF is “to support basic research and people that create knowledge that transforms the future.” Presently, NSF is divided into seven directorates that support science and engineering research and education: (a) Biological Sciences; (b) Computer and Information Science and Engineering; (c) Engineering; (d) Geosciences; (e) Mathematical and Physical Sciences; (f) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; and (g) Education and Human Resources. Normally, one can submit proposals that fund research related to culture in the two directorates: (a) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and (b) Education and Human Resources. Usually, science educators submit proposals to the Education and Human Resources if they are going to be the Principal Investigator. I as a science educator have submitted proposals and been funded under this directorate. NSF’s Office of the Director, the Office of Integrative Activities, also supports research and researchers. France A. Córdova, the 14th Director of NSF, wrote: “The education and human resources directorate’s portfolio has expanded from funding only graduate student fellowships in 1952 to now including support for primary, secondary and undergraduate education, as well as informal learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)” (Bush 1945, p.vi). NSF is required to create strategic plans. Its strategic plans include broadening participation: to expand efforts to increase participation from underrepresented groups and diverse institutions throughout the United States in all NSF activities and programs. “INCLUDES: Special Report to the Nation II: Building Connections” is an NSF document that identifies the primary tenant of INCLUDES that explains broadening participation (Broadening participation at NSF n.d.) The hallmark of NSF INCLUDES is “collaborative infrastructure by which organizations and institutions come together with a shared vision; map out mutually reinforcing activities; develop goals, objectives and measures to assess their progress; engage in continuous communication; and advance the potential for expansion, sustainability, and scaling that would not be possible otherwise” (NSF INCLUDES: Special Report to the Nation II: Building Connection 2020, p. 7)

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

29

The Congress has mandated an advisory committee to NSF called Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE 2019). The CEOSE committee has published several reports to the Congress, which focus on broadening participation in STEM. Their latest report advises NSF to give increased attention to diverse community voices across its research and education portfolios through community-driven projects. There are several NSF Directorates that science education researchers can submit proposals in which culture is a focus. A list of the directorates, their mission, and examples of funded multicultural science education project follow (Division and Offices, n.d.). The Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) has as its mission to achieve excellence in US science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and informal) in order to support the development of a diverse and well-prepared workforce of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians, and educators and a wellinformed citizenry that have access to the ideas and tools of science and engineering. The purpose of these activities is to enhance the quality of life of all citizens and the health, prosperity, welfare, and security of the nation. There are four divisions within this directorate and many more programs not found under the four divisions. These programs have funded research investigations that focus on multicultural science education. Racial Equity in STEM Education (EHR Racial Equity) is a new program in the EHR that will fund proposals that will “(1) advance the science and promotion of racial equity in STEM, (2) substantively contribute to removing systemic barriers that impact STEM education, the STEM workforce, and scientific advancement, (3) institutionalize effective and inclusive environments for STEM learning, STEM research, and STEM professionals, (4) diversify the project leadership (PIs and co-PIs), institutions, ideas, and approaches that NSF funds, and (5) expand the array of epistemologies, perspectives, and experiences in STEM” (slides 3–4, Racial equity in STEM education programs description (PD 21–191Y) May 2021 Outreach Webinar, 2021). Older programs such as Discovery Research PreK-12 (DR K-12) and Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) have undergone revisions, but they continue to keep their same missions. DR K-12 program (Synopsis of program. Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12), n.d.) seeks to “significantly enhance the learning and teaching of STEM by preK-12 students and teachers, through research and development of STEM education innovations and approaches (p.1). Projects in the DR K-12 program build on fundamental research in STEM education and prior research and development efforts that provide theoretical and empirical justification for proposed projects. Projects should result in research-informed and field-tested outcomes and products that inform teaching and learning. Teachers and students who participate in DR K-12 studies are expected to enhance their understanding and use of STEM content, practices and skills.” DR K-12 has funded multicultural education grants such as “Culturally Responsive Indigenous Science: Connecting Land, Language, and

30

M. M. Atwater

Culture,” “Supporting teacher customizations of curriculum materials for equitable student sensemaking in secondary science,” “Promoting Scientific Explorers Among Students with Learning Disabilities: The Design and Testing of a Grade 2 Science Program Focused on Earth’s Systems,” and “Supporting students’ language, knowledge and culture through science.” AISL’s mission is to advance new approaches for the public in informal environments; provide multiple pathways for broadening access to and engagement in STEM learning experiences; advance innovative research on and assessment of STEM learning in informal environments; and engage the public of all ages in learning STEM in informal environments (Synopsis, n.d.). Hence, in the area of multicultural science education, it has funded such grants as “The Tuskegee Alliance to Develop, Implement and Study a Virtual Graduate Education Model for Underrepresented Minorities in STEM,” “Science Learn +: Partnering for Equitable STEM Pathways for Underrepresented Youth,” Exhibit Appraisal and Diverse Populations: Pilot Research About Intersectional and Science Identities in Science Exhibits,” and “Collaborative Research Broadening Participation of Latinx Students in Computer Science by Integrating Culturally Relevant Computational Music Practices.” There were also programs in the natural sciences, such as Geosciences Directorate and Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences. In the distant past, NSF has funded resource centers for science and engineering (Atlanta University Resource Center for Science and Engineering Southwest Resource Center for Science and Engineering, Puerto Rica Resource Center for Science and Engineering) and systemic initiatives (urban systemic initiatives, statewide systemic initiatives, rural systemic initiatives) funded by the Division of Educational System Reform (ESR) in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) to manage a cadre of programs that encourage and facilitate coordinated approaches to the standard-based reform of science and mathematics education (APPENDIX 7: Crosswalk of NSF goals and programs n.d.). The author of this chapter served as Associate Director, Southwest Resource Center for Science and Engineering from August 1980 to July 1983.

US Department of Education According to the US Constitution, the education of students is the responsibility of the state. There are also local and community responsibilities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, which create schools and colleges, produce curricula, and decide the requirements for enrollment and graduation. Originally in 1867, the Department of Education has begun to gather information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. Eventually it became a responsibility for administering support for the original system of landgrant colleges and universities and to focus on vocational education (agricultural, industrial, and home economics) for high-school students. Then in the 1960s and

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

31

1970s, the Department of Education acquired an equal access mission. In 1980, the Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet-level agency. Today its elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 18,200 school districts and over 50 million students attending roughly 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools, and the department provides grant, loan, and work–study assistance to more than 12 million postsecondary students (History 2021). Regarding multicultural science education, the missions of the US Department of Education include the following: • Strengthen the Federal commitment to ensure access to equal educational opportunity for every individual; • Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems, and other instrumentalities of the states, private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education; and. • Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information (Mission 2021). There are several programs in the US Department of Education that fund grants related to culture, ethnicity, or related topics. They include (a) Office of Postsecondary Education(OPE): Higher Education Programs(HEP) – Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HIS) STEM and Articulation Program Assistance; (b) Future Scholars for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce Development Programs; and (c) Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE): Higher Education Programs (HEP) – Predominantly Black Institutions Competitive Grant Program Assistance, The US Department of Education has had several programs that no longer exist like the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program that started in 1985 and ended in 1990. The goals of this program were to: provide financial assistance to state and local education agencies and to institutions of higher education to support sustained and intensive high-quality professional development, and to ensure that all teachers will provide challenging learning experiences for their students in elementary and secondary schools. The program also focuses attention on meeting the educational needs of diverse student populations, including females, minorities, individuals with disabilities, individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP), and economically disadvantaged individuals, to give all students the opportunity to achieve to challenging state standards. (Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program Part B–State and Local Activities (CFDA No. 84.164, n.d.)

The Eisenhower funds for the state grant program grew from about $127 million in the fiscal year 1990 to $240 million in the fiscal year 1992. Even though the program ended in 1990, this program continued for a few years afterward (US General Accounting Office (GAO) 1992). Those interviewed about this program stated that the Eisenhower program was the only source of funds for science training even if they were short-term training and provided the flexibility for districts to provide

32

M. M. Atwater

various training programs to accommodate different teacher training needs. A study published in 1991 by SRI International (formerly Stanford Research Institute) reported that short-term training can play an important role in enhancing teachers’ awareness of new knowledge and teaching methods. I received several grants that focused on the needs of students from underrepresented and underserved populations. The grants were as follows: 1. Thomson, N., & Atwater, M. M. Creating a commitment to professional development during pre-service science teaching. Awarded under the Improving Teacher Quality Grant Program, Eisenhower Education Grant, Skidaway Island. Amount: $2480 (2004–2005). 2. Atwater, M. M. Continuation of the production of multicultural education monograph for science and mathematics. Awarded under the Eisenhower Education Grant. Amount: $9000 (1994–1995). 3. Atwater, M. M. Production of Multicultural Education Monograph for Science and Mathematics. Awarded under the Eisenhower Education Grant. Amount: $15,505 (Spring, 1992–Spring, 1993). 4. Atwater, M. M. APS-UGA Upper Elementary Science Workshop. Awarded under the Eisenhower Grant, U. S. Department of Education. Amount: $13,000 (June, 1990–November, 1990). 5. Atwater, M. M. Multicultural Science and Mathematics Teacher Education Seminars. Awarded under the Eisenhower Grant, U. S. Department of Education. Amount: $15,505 (September 1990–April, 1991). In Georgia, the state stopped funding short-term projects and decided to fund long-term projects for underserved groups in which I received a few as listed above. • The US Department of Education now has a focused institute that calls for research on Mathematics and Science Education. Its five goals for science education include (a) exploring malleable factors such as children’s skills, instructional practices, curricula that are associated with better science outcomes, as well as mediators and moderators of the relations between these factors and student outcomes for the purpose of identifying potential targets of intervention; (b) developing innovative curricula and instructional approaches to science education that will eventually result in improving science achievement; (c) evaluating the efficacy of fully developed curricula and instructional approaches to science education with efficacy or replication trials; (d) evaluating the impact of science curricula and instructional approaches that are implemented at scale; and (e) developing and/or validating assessments of science learning intended for use by practitioners. Some examples of the projects funded by the US Department of Education follow. Project Name: Molecules and Minds: Developing Bridging Scaffolds to Improve Chemistry Learning with Catherine Milne at New York University as PI for $1,464,692 for 3 years. This was a Development and Innovation grant.

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

33

According to the NSF website, this study takes place in urban public high schools in New York. Population: Three chemistry classes from four public high schools in New York will participate in the study. The participating high schools are diverse along racial and ethnic lines, with the student population being approximately 7% White, 45% Black, 42% Hispanic, and 5% Asian, Pacific Islanders, Alaskan Natives, and Native Americans. Approximately 51% of students are eligible for free and reduced price lunch. Intervention: The researchers will develop four types of scaffolds, one narrative and three visual, which will be embedded into four of the six simulations developed under a previous IES Goal 2 Development grant. The researchers selected the four simulations (kinetic theory, diffusion, gas laws, and phase change) most directly associated with the New York State Core Curriculum in The Physical Sciences: Chemistry and the National Science Education Standards. The narrative scaffolds will contain a main character or protagonist who embodies values of curiosity, questioning, observation, and quantification that are central to scientific reasoning. The narratives will be framed in such a way that students using the simulation will be placed in the role of either helping the protagonist understand the conceptual area of the simulation or explaining the protagonist’s understanding to a broader audience. Three types of visual scaffolds—observable/explanatory, within-simulation, and explanatory/symbolic—will be integrated into each simulation to support students in making specific connections between observable, explanatory, and symbolic forms of molecular representations. Curricular materials will be developed to integrate each simulation and scaffold into existing chemistry curricula (National Center for Educational Research, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Grants 2020). Building Students’ Understanding of Energy in High School Biology in which Jo Ellen Roseman is the PI for $1,492,355 for 3 years (9/1/2015–8/31/2018). It is Development and Innovation grant. This research study took place in urban schools in Washington, DC, and suburban schools in Maryland, in which a sample of four teachers and their students in Maryland and two teachers and their students in Washington, DC. The pilot study will have a sample of 12 high school teachers in Maryland and their students.

National Institute of Health On the webpage of the National Institute of Health (NIH), it states that “NIH is the largest biomedical research agency in the world” (National Institute of Health. About NIH. Turning discovery into health n.d.). The overall mission of NIH is to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability” (About the Researcher Auth Imitative n.d.; Missions and Goals, 2017). The NIH Science Education Partnership Award Program (SEPA) supports educational activities (taking place in both formal and informal settings) that

34

M. M. Atwater

complement and/or enhance the training of a workforce to meet the US biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research needs. This program focuses on (a) Courses for Skills Development, (b) Provision for Research Experiences and Mentoring Activities, (c) Curriculum or Methods Development, and (d) Designing and Executing Outreach. The projects funded under this program can be informal science education (ISE) activities that (a) diversify more of the biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research workforce and (b) promotes a better understanding of NIH-funded biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research and its public health implications. It prefers to fund activities that are not covered in traditionally science curricula. Science educators can definitely be PIs on such grants. The SEPA Program, National Institute of Health. Retrieved from National Institute of Health website) NIH Neuroscience Development for Advancing the Careers of a Diverse Research Workforce: The NIH Research Education Program funds research education activities in the mission areas of the NIH. The overarching goal of this program is to support educational activities that encourage individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in the biomedical and behavioral sciences, to pursue further studies or careers in research. Normally science educators are co-PIs on such grants.

Private Funding Agencies The Amgen Foundation The Amgen Foundation seeks “to advance excellence in science education to inspire the next generation of innovators and invest in strengthening communities where Amgen staff members live and work” (About the Amgen Foundation, 2014–2021). The Amgen Foundation carefully considers each grant application it receives, seeking out diverse organizations whose philosophies, objectives, and approaches align with the Foundation goals and mission. The Foundation awards grants to local, regional, and international nonprofit organizations that are replicable and scalable and designed to have a lasting and meaningful effect in our communities. Grants should reflect Amgen’s dedication to impacting lives in inspiring and innovative ways. Amgen Foundation grants range from $10,000 to multi-million dollar commitments. The Amgen Foundation has established grant-making partnerships with qualified intermediary partners to manage donations to organizations chartered outside of the United States. In the area of science education, this Foundation is committed to raising the value of science literacy on national and local levels. The areas given priority consideration within science education are: • Teacher quality and professional development in math and science: Comprehensive programs that enhance the quality of math and science teachers entering the classroom and support teachers with meaningful professional development opportunities that have a positive impact on student achievement

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

35

• Pivotal hands-on science experience: Support programs that provide students and teachers with opportunities for hands-on, inquiry-based learning experiences that significantly impact students’ excitement about science and scientific careers (Amgen Foundation Fact Sheet. (2022, January 13)) The Amgen Foundation, Inc., will consider grant requests from nonprofit organizations that are recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as tax exempt public charities under Sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1), (2), (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, located in the United States and Puerto Rico. In addition, the Amgen Foundation will consider requests for funding from governmental organizations located in the United States where the purpose of the grant is to support a charitable, educational, scientific, or literary purpose. Thus, eligible grantees may include public elementary and secondary schools, as well as public colleges and universities, public libraries, and public hospitals. Successful requests will fall within both the current eligibility guidelines and funding priority areas established by the Amgen Foundation. The Amgen Foundation has established grantmaking partnerships with qualified intermediary partners to manage donations to organizations chartered outside of the United States.

Toyota Foundation Science and Education Grants Toyota’s national corporate giving program supports organizations focused on three main areas: the environment, education, and vehicle safety (Toyota Foundation Science & Education Grants – DUE: Open, n.d.) and is obliged to expand the opportunities of diverse and underserved populations and supports organizations that meet the needs of local communities across the United States. The Toyota USA Foundation is a separate giving program that funds education programs for K-12 in math, science, and education. Nationally, Toyota focuses on three areas: environment, vehicle safety, and education. National programs in these areas must have a broad reach by impacting several major US cities, communities, or groups. Regionally, Toyota makes contributions to help support the specific needs of local communities.

Funding Agencies Outside of United States This last section on funding agencies provides examples of funding agencies that provided funds to science education researchers conducting investigations related to culture in their country.

Canada Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) is the Canadian federal funding agency that promotes and supports basic university research and partnered-project research in the natural sciences and engineering (W. Gitari, personal communication, July 22, 2021; J. Hewitt, personal communication, July 22, 2021). There is a Discovering Program whose goal is to provide long-term

36

M. M. Atwater

operating funds that can facilitate access to funding from other programs but are not meant to support the full costs of a research program. Applicants to this program are expected to increase the inclusion and advancement of under-represented and disadvantaged groups in the natural sciences and engineering, as one means to enhance excellence in research and training. It is expected that the submitted proposals have the inclusion of sex, gender, and diversity considerations in their research. NSERC funds initiatives that promote the natural sciences and engineering to Canada’s young people, particularly to underrepresented groups in such careers, including girls and indigenous peoples. Its PromoScience supports activities and content designed for youth in elementary school and high school (including those in the equivalent first year of college in Quebec) and their teachers and activities that will encourage indigenous undergraduate students to pursue graduate studies in the natural sciences and engineering. The NSERC funds the NSERC Awards for Science Promotion. This award honors individuals and groups that make an outstanding contribution to the promotion of science in Canada through activities encouraging popular interest in science or developing science abilities. (The NSERC Awards for Science Promotion 2022). Two recipients (one individual and one group) may be selected for the awards each year. On the NSERC website, it is promoted that Dr. Ken Hewitt is the recipient of the 2021 NSERC Award for Science Promotion (Individual). He is a professor of Physics and Chair of Senate at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada. His passion to foster interest in and access to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for students of African descent in Nova Scotia drove him to create the Dalhousie University’s Imhotep Legacy Academy (ILA), an innovative university–community partnership that bridges the achievement gap for students of African heritage in grades 6 to 12. Thanks to his leadership, the ILA has attracted more than 800 African Nova Scotian students to STEM fields in the past decade than Dalhousie University has done in two centuries. He is also the first African-Canadian to win the University of Toronto’s Scarborough College Physics prize, and he has been recognized nationally with the Harry Jerome Award for Professional Excellence and provincially with the Discovery Centre Science Champion Award.

Great Britain The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is the main funding body for engineering and physical sciences research in the United Kingdom (Economic and Social Research Council, July 20, 2021a, b; S. Erduran, personal communication, July 21, 2021). One of its main aims is to ensure that the ethnic diversity in its grant portfolio and of those who engage in its peer review, advisory, and governance processes is at least as representative of the EPS academic researcher population and that their award rates across different ethnicities show no disparity. More importantly, in its Funded 11 Inclusion Matters projects, the aim is to work together to accelerate the pace of culture change and challenge current thinking. It is the innovative Inclusion Matter’s calls for supporting ambitious and

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

37

inspiring projects with the aim of supporting the acceleration of culture change within the engineering and physical sciences community. In addition, EPSRC has an ethnicity and race equality community engagement initiative. The goal of this engagement initiative is to build knowledge and gather insights to better understand the factors that influence the inclusion of Black, Asian, and ethnic “minority” researchers and doctoral students in its portfolio, as well as the challenges colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds encounter as they progress their research careers. Its community engagement aims to explore: 1. the barriers doctoral students from ethnic minority backgrounds may face when accessing doctoral studies; 2. the attractiveness of a transition to an academic career for people from an ethnic minority background; 3. the challenges facing ethnic minority researchers as they progress their research careers; and 4. the experiences of ethnic minority researchers when accessing and securing research funding and the effectiveness of current interventions and support for ethnic minority researchers – particularly in relation to recruitment and career progression, enabling greater inclusion and addressing bias and prejudice (Ethnicity and race equality in our portfolio website, 2021). The major funding body for science education research is the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (J. S. Dillon, personal communications, July 20, 2021). ESRC is part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), a new organization that brings together the UK’s seven research councils, Innovate UK and Research England, to maximize the contribution of each council and create the best environment for research and innovation to flourish. The vision is to ensure the UK maintains its world-leading position in research and innovation. This program funded a grant entitled “Sparking science diversity and participation with science capital” in July 2019. Its study is called “ASPIRES,” which is a new approach to science teaching that supports more young people, from more diverse backgrounds, to engage in science – reaching over 600,000 students and informing education policy in over 20 countries. According to the ESRC website, the program impacts were as follows: • Findings from the ASPIRES project formed the basis of the Science Capital Teaching Approach, which has reached over 600,000 students worldwide via 4000 teachers and is being taken up in 18 countries. • Science capital is now a criterion within the Primary Science Quality Mark for science education in primary schools – reaching 240,000 pupils and 9000 teachers across the UK annually. • The concept of science capital has informed STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education policy in over 10 countries, including Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and Malta, as well as the UK Department for Education’s Careers Strategy and “Your Life” campaign.

38

M. M. Atwater

• It has also influenced science programs in Australia (STELR education program) and the USA (AmeriCorps STEM after-school program) as well as UK initiatives, including Education and Employers Taskforce initiatives, the Wellcome Trust’s primary science teacher training, the Natural History Museum’s “Generate: Scientists of the Future,” and others. • Science capital has been adopted in strategic plans for organizations such as the Science Museum Group and Winchester Science Centre and changed outreach practice in institutions, such as Glasgow Science Centre, Francis Crick Institute, Tom Tits Experiment (Sweden), and Copernicus Centre (Poland), reaching millions of visitors annually. • Following on from the research, STEM outreach programs for schools have been revised by the Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, Science Council, and numerous other institutions in the UK and worldwide (Sparking science diversity and participation with science capital 2019, July). Justin Dillon described one of the functions and some of the funded projects of ESRC in the following way. In these funded projects, he was either the PI or the co-PI (J. Dillon, personal communication, July 23, 2021). In addition to grants to individual researchers and separate projects, the ESRC has funded programs of research. One such example is the Targeted Initiative in Science and Mathematics Education (TISME). TISME involved five separate but related research projects and was funded by the ESRC in partnership with the Institute of Physics, the Gatsby Foundation, and the Association for Science Education (https://www.sciencecentres.org.uk/resources/ academic-research/tisme-publications-including-what-influence-participation-science-andmathematics-report/). One of the five projects was ASPIRES led by Professor Louise Archer. ASPIRES (“Children’s science and career aspirations, ages 10 –14”) was a longitudinal study of what influences young people’s science and career aspirations between the ages of 10 and 14. Funding was secured for two follow-up projects, ASPIRES 2 and ASPIRES 3. Additional support for the subsequent projects was provided by impact collaborators, including the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-and-centres/departments/education-practice-andsociety/aspires-research). UK researchers have traditionally benefited from funding from the European Commission under the aegis of programs, such as Frameworks 6 and 7 (2002 to 2013) and Horizon 2020 (2014 to 2020). Many of these multi-national projects focused on STEM education in and out of school. Inquiry-based science education was promoted heavily within European projects following the publication of the Rocard report (https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/ documents/rocard-report-science-education-now-new-pedagogy-future-europe). However, few of the funded projects offered much by way of opportunities for research; their focus tended to be on development. An example of a research-focused Framework 7 project is Interest and Recruitment In Science (IRIS), which was led by the University of Oslo (Norway) and involved King’s College London (UK), Observa (Italy), the University of Leeds (UK), the University of Copenhagen (Denmark), and the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) (https://cordis.europa. eu/project/id/230043): IRIS (Interest and Recruitment in Science) addresses the challenge that few young people (women in particular) choose education and career in science, technology, and mathematics (STM). Women represent the greatest recruitment potential to STM; moreover, a higher

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

39

participation from women may expand the ways of thinking and working within this area and contribute to gender equity. An earlier project, Towards Women in Science and Technology (TWIST), involved 11 institutions, most of which were science centers in 10 countries (https://cordis.europa. eu/project/id/244584): The TWIST project [. . .] targeted young people and their teachers and parents as well as the general public. A major aim of the project [was] to create and develop innovative activities and exhibitions in the science centers targeting the general public and schools in order to create debates and ignite on-going discussions. A structured use of scientific role models via databases [was] introduced and a new national way of focusing on the gender theme in each country [was] established.

There are also other funding organizations within Great Britain such as the Wellcome Trust, Royal Society, Gatsby Foundation, Nuffield Foundation, and Education Endowment Fund that fund science education research and development projects (S. Erduran, personal communication, July 21, 2021).

South Africa The National Research Foundation (NSF) is as an independent government agency established by the National Research Foundation Act (Act No 23 of 1998) in South Africa. Its main purpose is to promote and support research that creates knowledge, innovation, and development in all fields of science and technology, including indigenous knowledge, and thereby contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of all South Africans (About Us. National Research Foundation, n.d.). This agency funds proposals in institutional grants; postdoctoral grants; general research grants; international research grants; Thuthuka research grants; research grants without student support, travel, training, and conference grants; and travel, training, and conference grants: scholarship and fellowship holders. In 1995 it extended its sponsorship to science, mathematics, and technological education research. In recent years, NRF has extended its grant to an array of fields. Of course, there are other parallel funding agencies for technology, arts, humanities, and social sciences. Since 1995 the NRF has sponsored several of my research projects that traverse philosophical, historical, social, and cultural studies (including collaborative projects with other countries). Right now I am busy rounding up a 3-year historical, political, and sociocultural study of mathematics, science, and language education during and after the colonial/apartheid period sponsored by the NRF. So, if you cite NRF as supporting multicultural classroom studies, you will be right to make such a claim. I am also in the last phase of another collaborative study on cosmological worldviews of preservice and practicing teachers in Brazil, Egypt, Japan, and South Africa. It is also sponsored by NRF (M. Ogunniyi, Personal Communication, July 19, 2021). I served as a reviewer for some proposals submitted to the NRF related to chemistry, science, and culture. Taiwan The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) funds researchers from institutes or universities for conducting research in science education. The programs include

40

M. M. Atwater

funding for research, international cooperation, attending conferences, as visiting scholars abroad, supporting doctoral students to study overseas, etc. (personal communication, M. Chiu, July 20, 2021). It was originally established as the National Science Council (NSC) with three main missions: promoting nationwide science and technology development, supporting academic research, and developing science parks (Innovation Inclusion Sustainability, 2020, September). Its National Science and Technology Plan (2017–2020) contained four goals: “(a) revive economic dynamics through innovation, (b) cultivate and recruit talents with diverse career paths, (c) develop robust smart living technologies and industries, and (d) enhance innovation ecosystem for scientific research” (Innovations, Inclusion, Sustainability, 2020, September, 7). MOST supports academic research through providing grants to educational and research institutions. Research projects approved after two stringent rounds of review can receive funding from MOST for research personnel, equipment and facilities, books and references, consumable materials, and overseas travel expenses; in 2019, MOST gave grants to 173 public and private universities and colleges and 134 research institutes. MOST highlights its funded projects. One of them is the “Return to Basics – Science Education for the Indigenes.” This funded project has five emphases. Cultivation of teachers 1. Research and curriculum planning; 2. Development of teaching materials on the basis of knowledge system of indigenous people; 3. Setting up of evaluation tools to test true ability of indigenous students 4. Enhancement of reading ability; and 5. Promotion of popular science activities to foster understanding of indigenous wisdom of science among the public (Innovation Inclusion Sustainability 2020, September, p. 23). The funded project “Return to Basics – Science Education for the Indigenes” has accomplished the following goals: (a) to cover 8 indigenous groups; (b) to develop textbooks, teaching materials, picture books, e-books, and cloud learning platforms; (c) to organize annual “Indigenous Science Festival” to arouse interest in science and technology among the indigenous people; and (d) to foster understanding of indigenous wisdom of science among the public (Innovation Inclusion Sustainability 2020, September, p. 23).

Her Story and Their Story: Ending and Beginning My personal highlights in multicultural science education included many different fulfillments and accomplishments. However I remember when I was notified I would receive The John Shrum Award (2017), Southeast Association for Science Teacher Education. To this day, I have no idea who nominated me, but it was a great honor to

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

41

receive such an award. The second was when I received the Legendary Award, Association for Multicultural Science Education. At this ceremony, I met old friends and made many others. But I was saddened that Alice Moses and Napoleon Bryant were not there because they were deceased. In 1990, I received the NSTA OHAUS Award for Innovations in Four-Year College Teaching for the integration of multicultural science education into my science education secondary courses at the University of Georgia. At that time, OHAUS donated money for these awards for innovations in teaching at the precollege and college levels to the National Science Teachers Association (now the National Science Teaching Association). At that time in the Department of Science Education at the UGA, the science teacher education consisted of a one-semester science education curriculum, methods, practicum, and student teaching courses. The practicum course required students to have an experience in a middle-school and high-school setting and must teach students from African and Latin ancestries. They had to use their curriculum unit developed in their curriculum course during their student teaching experience. For many of these students in this program, they began their journey in multicultural science education because the program mostly had students of European ancestry that did not graduate from schools that had a diverse student population. My NSTA OHAUS Award, which is a crystal square, stated the following: “Given in recognition of demonstrated imagination, creative thinking, and innovative appropriates to the teaching of science. This award is proudly presented by the Ohaus Corporation and the National Science Teachers Association in Interest of sharing ideas and shaping the future of science education for all.” Hence, I had received commendations for service and teaching. Then in 2019, I received the 2019 Distinguished Contributions in Research Award (DCRA) given by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching to those that have made outstanding and continuing contributions, provided notable leadership, and made a substantial impact in the area of science education. My friend and colleague, Valarie Akerson, nominated me for the award for the second time for my research efforts in multicultural science education. The NARST Crystal Octavia given to me reads as follows: NARST A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning through Research 2019 Distinguished Contributions to Science Education through Research Award Dr. Mary Monroe Atwater Dr. Mary M. Atwater is a pioneer in multicultural science education. Through her enduring commitment to this critical issue, she has assisted the science education research community worldwide. She has provided the foundation upon which many scholars have built their research agendas and careers specific to equity and diversity. Dr. Atwater has authored numerous groundbreaking research articles. She is the editor of the forthcoming International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education. Prompted by her commitment to make scholarship accessible to users of research, Dr. Atwater has authored countless papers specifically for practitioners.

42

M. M. Atwater Dr. Atwater served as president of NARST and provided service to the organization in just about every role conceivable within the organization. In these multiple roles, she has been a significant influence on large numbers of early- and mid-career scholars. Given her stellar research, notable leadership, and untiring service to the field, Dr. Atwater is a most deserving recipient of this honor. Presented at the 2019 NARST Annual International Conference Baltimore, MD March 31-April 3, 2019

I will eventually end my story in multicultural science education, but I doubt, seriously, that there will be an end to the stories of others in multicultural science education. Science teachers must continue to be cognizant of the culture of their students and demand information on how to provide quality teaching (Atwater 1989). Doctoral students will persist in their research efforts to understand how culture impacts science teaching, learning, curricular issues, assessment/evaluation, and science education policy. Moreover, there must be researchers that guide these doctoral students’ pursuit of generating new knowledge in the sub-field of multicultural science education. Funding agencies must continue to push and fund researchers to pursue theoretical frameworks and methodologies that advance our understanding of people learning and teaching science as they relate to cultural issues. Where there are people, there will always be cultures and microcultures.

References Abell SK, Lederman NG (2007) Handbook of research on science education. Mahweh. N.J.: Routledge About the Amgen Foundation. (2014–2021). Amgen Foundation. Thousand Oaks, CA. Retrieved from https://www.amgeninspires.com/about/#:~:text=The%20Amgen%20Foundation% 20seeks%20to,to%20dramatically%20improve%20people’s%20lives About the researcher auth Service Initiative (n.d.) National Institute of Health, Office of Data Science Strategy. Retrieved from https://datascience.nih.gov/researcher-auth-service-initiative About Us. National Research Foundation. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.nrf.ac.za/about-us/ Amgen Foundation Fact Sheet (2022, January 13) Amgen Foundation. Thousand Oaks, CA. Retrieved from https://www.amgeninspires.com/~/media/amgen/full/www-amgeninspirescom/pdf/amgenfoundationfact_sheet.ashx?la=en Association of Teacher Education Website. Retrieved from https://ate1.org/anne-gayles-feltonscholarship Atwater, M.M. (1989). Including multicultural education in science education: Definitions, competencies, and activities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1, 17–20. https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF03032129 Atwater MM (1991) Multicultural education in Georgia’s science classrooms. Georgia Sci Teach 33(1):3–12 Atwater MM (1993) Multicultural education: assumptions and alternative views. Sci Teach 60(3): 32–37 Atwater MM (1994a) Introduction: invitation of the past and inclusion of the future of science and mathematics. In: Atwater MM, Radzik-Marsh K, Structchens M (eds) Multicultural education: inclusion of all. University of Georgia, Athens, pp 1–3 Atwater MM (1994b) Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, pp 558–576

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

43

Atwater MM (1995, April) Equity for Black Americans in science education. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco. In the symposium N. Lederman (Chair), Can there be a universal science in our multi-cultural world? (Symposium). Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA Atwater MM (2010a) Dr. Geneva Gay: multicultural education for all disciplines [issue]. Sci Act Classroom Project Classroom Act 47(4):160–162 Atwater MM (2010b) Introduction: multicultural science education and curriculum materials. [Special Issue]. Sci Act Classroom Project Classroom Act 47(4):103–108 Atwater MM (2011) Significant science education research on multicultural science education, equity, and social justice. J Res Sci Teach 49(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20453 Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspective, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77(6):661–668 Atwater MM, Suriel RL (2010) Science curricular materials through the lens of social justice: research findings. In: Chapman TK, Hobbel N (eds) Social justice pedagogy across the curriculum: the practice of freedom. Routledge, New York, pp 273–282 Atwater MM, Bryant N, Foots B (1989) Concerns of NSTA minority caucus. North Carolina State University Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodard U, Hillsman N (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful forecasters of science learning and performance. [Special issue]. Theory Pract 52(1):6–13 Bae A (personal communication, September 9, 2020) Banks JA (1993) Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions and practice. Review of Research in Education 19:3–49 Banks JA (2003) Teaching strategies for ethnic studies. Pearsons Education Group, A and B, Boston Banks JA (2004) Multicultural education: historical development, dimensions, and practice. In: Banks JA (ed) Handbook of research on multicultural education, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–29 Baptiste HP (1977) Multicultural education evolvement at the University of Houston: a case study. In: Klassen FH, Gollnick DM (eds) Pluralism and the American teacher issues and case studies. Ethnic Heritage Center for Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC, pp 171–185. Retrieved https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED134575.pdf Baptiste HP (personal communication, December 5, 2020) Baptiste HP (personal communication, May 8, 2021) Baptiste HP, Archer C (1994) A comprehensive multicultural teacher education program: an idea whose time has. In: Atwater MM, Atwater K, Radzik-Marsh A, Strutchens M (eds) Multicultural education: inclusion of all. University of Georgia, Athens, pp 65–92 Baptiste HP, Ryan A, Williams VP (2013) The genesis of name: founders. Special issue: a historical perspective of the National Association for multicultural education. J Parxix Multicult Educ 8(1):5–15 Broadening participation at NSF. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/od/broadeningparti cipation/bp.jsp Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier. A report to the President. National Science Foundation, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/ about/history/EndlessFrontier_w.pdf CEOSE biennial report to Congress 2017–2018: Investing in diverse community voices (2019) National Science Foundation, Washington, DC Chapman TK, Hobbel N (eds) (2010) Social justice pedagogy across the curriculum: the practice of freedom. Routledge, New York Crosswalk of NSF goals and programs In NSF GPRA Strategic Plan FY 2001–2006. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf0104/app7.htm Dillon J (personal communications, July 20, 2021) Divisions and Offices. (n.d.). Education and Human Resources. Retrieved from https://www.nsf. gov/dir/index.jsp?org=EHR

44

M. M. Atwater

Duggan-Hass D, Enfield M, Ashman S (2000) Rethinking the presentation of the NSTA standards for science teacher preparation. Electron J Sci Educ 4(3) Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/profile/Mark Duhon-Sells R, Smith GP (1992) History and philosophy of the National Association for multicultural education: credit cards and blind faith. In: Grant CA (ed) Toward education that is multicultural: proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association for multicultural education. National Association for Multicultural Association, pp 1–4. Retrieved from https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED398290.pdf Dwight D (n.d.) Eisenhower professional development program part B: state and local activities (CFDA No. 84.164). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/95-96/eval/12697.pdf Economic and Social Research Council (2021a). Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/councils/ esrc/ Economic and Social Research Council (2021b). Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/about-us/ what-we-do/andEnfield/publication/278411487_Rethinking_the_presentation_of_the_NSTA_ standards_for_science_teacher_preparation/links/5629198e08ae518e347c9093/Rethinkingthe-presentation-of-the-NSTA-standards-for-science-teacher-preparation.pdf Ethnicity and race equality in our portfolio (2021). Retrieved from https://epsrc.ukri.org/funding/ edi-at-epsrc/ethnicity-and-race-equality/ Feldman A, Minstrell J (2000) Action research as a research methodology for the study of the teaching and learning of science. In: Kelly AE, Lesh RA (eds) Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 429–456 Florida A&M University Website (2021). Retrieved from https://famu.academicworks.com/donors/ dr-anne-r-gayles-felton Fortney BS, Morrison D, Rodriguez AJ, Upadhyay B (2019) Equity in science teacher education: toward an expanded definition. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:259–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-019-09938-7 Frucher J (1999) Linking social justice concerns with environmental issues. ZPG Recordr [Special Issue of kid-friendly cities] 31:10–11 Gay G (1975a) Unfilled promise. Rev Educ 1(3):349–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0098559750010308 Gay G (1975b) Teachers’ achievement expectations of and classroom interactions with ethnically different students. Contemp Educ 46(3, Spring):166 Gayles-Felton endows $250K scholarship at Columbia Special to the Chronicle, April 19, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/chronicle/2017/04/19/gayles-feltonendows-250k-scholarship-columbia/100647878/ Gordy LL, Hogan J, Pritchard A (2004) Assessing “Herstory” of WWII: content analysis of high school history textbooks. Equity Excell Educ 37(1):80–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10665680490422133 Grant CA (ed) (1975a) Sifting and winnowing: an exploration of the relationship between multicultural education and CBTE. Teacher Corps Associates, University of Wisconsin, Madison Grant CA (1975b) Exploring the contours of multi-cultural education. In: Grant CA (ed) Sifting and winnowing: an exploration of the relationship between multi-cultural education and CBTE. Teachers Corps Associates, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, pp 1–12 Grant CA (1975c) Introduction. In: Grant CA (ed) Sifting and winnowing: an exploration of the relationship between multi-cultural education and CBTE. Teachers Corps Associates, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, pp xi–xiv Grant CA, Sleeter CE (1985) The literature on multicultural education: review and analysis. Educ Rev 37(2):97–118 Hall ET (1977) Beyond culture. Anchor Books, Garden City Harty H, Sachs R (1977) Elementary school science methods for preservice teachers preparing to teach in poor multicultural settings. Sch Sci Math 77(4):294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.19498594.1977.tb09244.x

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

45

History (2021) The federal role in education. U. S. Teachers Corps Associates. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html Hollins ER (1996) Culture in school learning: revealing the deep meaning. Erlbaum, Mahweh Hunter WA (ed.). (1974) Multicultural education through competency-based teacher education. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Innovation Inclusion Sustainability (2020) Ministry of Science and Technology (most). Taipei City. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/4cfb868e-6946-4395-b5b1ebcd7b5151d1? Joslin P, Stiles KS, Marshall JS et al (2008) NARST: a lived history. Cult Stud Sci Educ 3(1): 157–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9079-4. Retrieved from https://eds.b.ebscohost. com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid¼1&sid¼7cebb1c0-0da1-44cd-8cb5-3fdce7b32f56%40pdcv-sessmgr01 Kahn M (2008) Multicultural education in the United States: reflections. Intercult Educ 19(6): 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980802568327. Retrieved from http://www.nameorg. org/resolutions/definition.html Le D (personal communication, April 25, 2021) Lederman N, Abell SK (eds) (2014) Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, New York Lederman N, Atwater MM, Brickhouse N, Stanley W, Phillip D, Good R, Loving C (1995) NARST Program. Can there be a universal science in our multi-cultural world? (Symposium). Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA Lee M, Wu Y, Tsai C (2009) Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. Int J Sci Educ 3(15):1999–2020. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09500690802314876. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/ 0 9 5 0 0 6 9 0 8 0 2 3 1 4 8 7 6 ? c a s a _ t o k e n ¼w E G _ W 2 N b - E U A A A A A % 3 A 1 S x y j 5 g P m F CMwxmHChr9kXX3e4PXAl3D33esFHFghXb7nlKXV8RtyqyPH1oT1OIleF7j0j6hBkpQrg Mensah FM (2012) Positional identity as a lens for connecting elementary preservice teachers to teaching in urban classrooms. In: Varelas M (ed) Identity construction and science education research. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 105–121 Mensah FM, Jackson I (2018) Whiteness as property in science teacher education. Teach Coll Rec 120(1):1–38 Meyer X, Crawford BA (2011) Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6:525–547. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9318-6 Mission (2021) About education. Overview. U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https:// www2.ed.gov/about/overview/mission/mission.html?src¼rt Mission & history. National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. Retrieved from https:// www.nbpts.org/mission-history/ Mueller M, Pickering J (2010) Bee hunt! Ecojustice in practice for Earth’s buzzing biodiversity. Sci Act 47(4):151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121003631637 Mutegi JW (2011) The inadequacies of “science for all” and the necessity and nature of a socially transformative curriculum approach for African American science education. J Res Sci Teach 48(3):301–316 National Board of Professional Standards (2006) Categories for Board certification. Retrieved from https://www.nbpts.org/wp-content/uploads/Certification-Areas-1.pdf National Board of Professional Standards (2014) National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, National Board Certified Teacher, National Board Certification. Retrieved from https:// www.nbpts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/EAYA-SCIENCE.pdf National Center for Educational Research, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Grants (2020). Retrieved https://ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/program.asp? ProgID¼12 National Institute of Health. About NIH. Turning discovery into health (n.d.). Bethesda, Maryland. Retrieved from www.nih.gov/about-nih

46

M. M. Atwater

Nicholls J (2006) What is history in U.S. textbooks? In: Nicholls J (ed.), School history textbooks across cultures: international debates and perspectives, pp 7–14. Oxford: Symposium Books 48(3):301–316 Nieto S (2000) Affirming diversity: the sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 3rd edn. Longman, New York Nieto S (2016) Defining multicultural education for schools. In: Nieto S, Bode P (eds) Affirming diversity: the sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 6th edn. Pearson, Boston, pp 40–62 NSF history by decade 1950s A timeline of NSF history. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/ about/history/overview-50.jsp NSF INCLUDES: special report to the nation II: building connection (2020, July) National Science Foundation, Washington, DC Oakes J, Joseph R, Kate M (2004) Access and achievement in mathematics and science: inequalities that endure and change. In: Banks JA (ed) Handbook of multicultural education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 69–90 Ogunniyi M (personal communication. July 19, 2021) Ogunniyi MB, Pella MO (1980) Conceptualizations of scientific concepts, laws, and theories held by Kwara State, Nigeria secondary school science teachers. Sci Educ 64(5):591–599. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.3730640505. Retrieved https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct¼true& AuthType¼ip,shib&db¼ehh&AN¼20899665&site¼eds-live. Acesso em: 30 mar. 2021 Parsons EC (2008) Mary Monroe Atwater: a transformative force in science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 3(1):209–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9078-5 Parsons EC, Carlone HB (2013) Culture and science education in the 21st century: extending and making the cultural box more inclusive. J Res Sci Teach 50(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea. 21068 Racial equity in STEM education programs description (PD 21-191Y) May 2021 Outreach Webinar. (2021). [PowerPoint slides]. Directorate for Education & Human Resources, National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/ehr/Pubs/RacialEquityPre sentation2021.pdf Ramsey PG (2008) History and trends of multicultural education. NHSA Dialog 11(4):206–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15240750802432573 Rivera Maulucci MS (2012) Social justice research in science education: methodologies, positioning, and implications for future research. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin K, McRobbie CJ (eds) Second international handbook of science education. Springer, New York, pp 583–594 Rodriguez AJ (1998) Guest editorial: what is (should be) the researcher’s role in terms of agency? A question for the 21st century. J Res Sci Teach 35(9):963–965 Rodriguez AJ (2015) What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards. J Res Sci Teach 52(7):1031–1051 Rodriguez AJ, Morrison D (2019) Expanding and enacting transformative meanings of equity, diversity and social justice in science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:265–281. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09938-7 Roth W (2008) Bricolage, métissage, hybridity, heterogeneity, diaspora: concepts for thinking science education in the 21st century. Cult Stud Sci Educ 3(4):891–916. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-008-9113-1 Science Standards for teachers of students ages 11–18+ (2014) National Board for professional teaching standards. Arlington Sleeter C (2000) Creating an empowering multicultural curriculum. Race Gender Class 7(3): 178–196. Retrieved May 9, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41674953 Sleeter CE (2010) Probing Beneath Meanings of multicultural education, Multicultural Education Review 2(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2010.11102867 Sparking science diversity and participation with science capital (2019, July). Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/news-events-and-publications/impact-case-studies/sparking-science-diver sity-and-participation-with-science-capital/

2

Her Story and Their Stories: A Historical Account of Multicultural Science. . .

47

Spradley J (1980) Participant observation. Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, New York Synopsis. Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISEL). (n.d.) National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from https://beta. nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/advancing-informal-stem-learning-aisl Synopsis of program. Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12). (n.d.) Program Solicitation NSF 20572. National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings. Alexandria, VA: Retrieved from https://www.nsf. gov/pubs/2020/nsf20572/nsf20572.htm Standards for the education of science teachers: the social context (1998). Retrieved from http:// virtualfieldwork.org/Duggan-Haas_Enfield_Ashmann_2000/SocialContext.htm#intro STEM grants for K-12 & nonprofits (n.d.). Retrieved from http://stemgrants.com/stem-grants-for-k12-nonprofits/ Teresa D. (2018). Southern, distinguished Alumna’s contributions to education include $600k in gifts to FVSU October 18. Retrieved from https://www.fvsu.edu/news/fort-valley-stateuniversity-names-the-academic-classroom-and-lab-building-for-educator-and-philanthropistanne-richardson-gayles-felton-ed-d/ The beginning of the movement. Mission & History (n.d.) National Board of Professional Standards. Retrieved from https://www.nbpts.org/about/mission-history/ The NSERC Awards for Science Promotion (2022). Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada. Retrieved https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Prizes-Prix/ SciencePromotion-PromotionScience/Index-Index_eng.asp Tsai CC, Wen LMC (2005) Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: a content analysis of publication in selected journals. Int J Sci Educ 27:3–14 Tobin K (2000) Interpretive research in science education. In: Kelly AE, Lesh RA (eds) Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 487–512 Toyota Foundation Science & Education Grants – DUE: Open. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:// stemgrants.com/toyota-foundation-science-education-grants-due-open/ U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) (1992) The Eisenhower Math and Science State Grant Program: report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Author, November 1992. ERIC Access Number ED355115 Walls L (2016) Awakening a dialogue: a critical race theory analysis of US nature of science research from 1967 to 2013. J Res Sci Teach 53(10):1546–1570 Walls L (2017) Equitable research: a bridge too far? Cult Stud Sci Educ 12(2):493–503. Whelan, M., Rid Webster’s encyclopedia unabridged dictionary of the english language (1989) Gramercy Books, New York What we do. Missions and Goals. (2017). National Institute of Health. Bethesda, Maryland. Retrieved from https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/mission-goals

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment Through the Culturo-Techno-Contextual Approach Peter A. Okebukola

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is the Culturo-Techno-Contextual Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnoscience Versus Indigenous Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emergence of Eco-Techno Cultural Theory of CTCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning Facilitation Perception Index of CTCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanism of Action of CTCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steps in the Implementation of CTCA and Sample Lesson Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Lesson Notes on Using CTCA in a Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Field Trials of CTCA in Selected Science Subjects: Biology and Computer Studies . . . . . . . . . . Snapshots of Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Practices Relating to Perceived Difficult Topics in STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear Chemistry: Radioactive Decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biology: Energy Flow in the Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biology: Producers and Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biology: Mitosis and Meiosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer Studies: Concept of Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer Studies: Process of Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physics: Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemistry: Electroplating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemistry: Electrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The CTCA Mobile App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using the CTCA App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Install the App on a Mobile Device (Android) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50 52 56 57 58 58 59 59 67 69 69 70 71 71 72 72 72 73 73 74 74 75 77 79 80 83

P. A. Okebukola (*) Africa Centre of Excellence for Innovative and Transformative STEM Education, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_51

49

50

P. A. Okebukola

Abstract

The multicultural science classroom provides new vistas of opportunities for teachers and students to experiment and innovate. This chapter describes the emergence, after about four decades of experimentation in multicultural science classrooms, of the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) for breaking barriers to meaningful learning of science. CTCA is now being piloted in several African countries. It is a method that is set within the cultural context of the learner and recognizes the increasing use of technology in African science classrooms, a development that will pervade the environment and shape teaching and learning far into the twenty-first century. Beginning with a brief description of CTCA, the chapter provides step-by-step guide to using CTCA. A review of empirical studies which explored the impact of CTCA on students’ performance in science is reported, and a special focus was given to the indigenous knowledge and cultural practice elements of CTCA. The chapter also highlights the development, deployment, and guide to the use of the CTCA mobile app which is now available for STEM teachers and students all over the world. The concluding section forecasts the future of CTCA in the desire to improve science teaching and learning especially in multicultural classrooms. Keywords

Culturo-techno-contextual approach · Multicultural environment · Barriers to learning

Introduction One of the enduring findings in the science education literature is the strong link between students’ performance and the ecocultural context of delivering science (Aparicio et al. 2016; Banner 2016; Okebukola and Jegede 1990; Sugimoto and Swain 2016). Cultural context is a panoply of vistas, broadly ranging from sociological (Jacobs and Hanrahan 2016), political (Scheitle 2018), ethnic (Fiske 2017; Roth 2019), religious (Radhakrishnan 2019; Thomas 2016), to gender (Corbett 2016; Parsons et al. 2018) and several other individual and group-denominated characteristics. In Africa, as early as the 1840s when European missionaries included nature study in the curriculum of schools, the goal was to teach science to pupils from largely Eurocentric contexts. Examples of flora and fauna, though available within the precinct of the village classroom were of species in the colonizing country. For pupils in the hot tropics, it was a world of imagination of the polar bear and the fir of the tundra. Meaningful learning was impeded, love for science was not kindled, the ranks of future scientists were thinned, and the girls had a dim enthusiasm for science. This was over a century-and-half ago. What has changed? Since most colonized African countries wrestled independence in the early 1960s, efforts of the nationalists steered in the direction of making the teaching of science

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

51

more culturally relevant. The milestones in these efforts included revision of science policies, curriculum reform, new models of science teacher education, and better resourcing of schools. In anglophone Africa, from the 1960s to the 1990s, government and the missionaries were the key actors on the stage of science education. In francophone Africa, French influence lasted longer and it is still strong until today. The missionaries provided a mix of education which had religion and secular subjects, including science in the curriculum. In government schools, subjects offered were essentially to provide some of literacy not beyond the level of producing clerks and administrative assistants. After independence and with greater national control, both missionary and government schools were strengthened to produce secondary and postsecondary education of respectable quality (Okebukola 2020). While science was given visibility in this arrangement, teaching within the cultural context of learners remained compromised. The situation has only marginally changed even in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Performance of students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in Africa has been a matter for worry. Although there are islands of excellent performance which produce top-rate scientists for African countries and the rest of the world, on the average, achievement level in school and public examinations has failed to climb beyond the average. In international tests in STEM, African counties are within the lower rungs of league tables (Reddy et al. 2016). African governments have not been satisfied with these developments. Reform efforts have targeted improvements in most enabling factors for reversing the trend. Many of these efforts are yet to percolate to the deeper school system to make significant impact. An area to which scant attention has been paid is the method of delivering the science curriculum. The teacher-centered lecture method has predominated and failed to yield good dividends in students’ achievement. The search for alternative methods has been vigorous over the last five decades. This chapter describes the emergence, after about four decades of evolution, of one of the methods – the culturo-techno-contextual (CTC) approach that is now being piloted in a number of African countries. It is a method, abbreviated as CTC approach or CTCA, that is set within the cultural context of the learner and recognizes the increasing use of technology in African science classrooms, a development that will pervade the environment and shape teaching and learning far into the twentyfirst century. The chapter begins with a brief description of CTCA. Next, it details the steps in using CTCA. The third section is a review of empirical studies, which explored the impact of CTCA on students’ performance in science. The fourth section is a special focus on the indigenous knowledge and cultural practice elements of CTCA. Here, examples of such elements in the teaching of difficult concepts are provided, extracted from a growing CTCA database. The fifth section is considered an exciting new angle to the CTCA enterprise. This is a report of the development, deployment, and guide to the use of the CTCA mobile app which is now available for STEM teachers and students all over the world. The concluding section forecasts the future of CTCA in the regional desire to improve science teaching and learning. Readers are encouraged to get a full description of CTCA in Okebukola (2020).

52

P. A. Okebukola

What Is the Culturo-Techno-Contextual Approach? The culturo-techno-contextual (CTC) approach or CTCA is a method of science teaching developed in 2015 after over 40 years of experimentation with different methods in an African setting to address some of the challenges to meaningful learning of science. As succinctly stated in ctcapproach.com, it is designed to break down many of the traditional barriers to the meaningful learning of science. Such barriers as fear of science due to its special language and mathematical orientation, deficit of facilities for teaching and learning, abstract nature of some of the concepts, and perception that science is only for the gifted are melted and broken down by CTCA. The approach is an amalgam, drawing on the power of three frameworks – (a) cultural context in which all learners are immersed, (b) technology mediation to which teachers and learners are increasingly dependent, and (c) locational context which is a unique identity of every school and which plays a strong role in the examples and local case studies for science lessons (see Fig. 1). The first element in the trinity of amalgamated frameworks in CTCA is culture. Culture is operationally defined as “an integrated pattern of shared values, beliefs, languages, worldviews, behaviors, artifacts, knowledge, and social and political relationships of a group of people in a particular place or time that the people use to understand or make meaning of their world, each other, and other groups of people and to transmit these to succeeding generations”(Atwater 2017; Atwater et al. 2013). Culture is not static, but ever changing. We talk about microcultures (Banks 2010). Culture is seen by Herbert (2012) as a set of beliefs and values about what is desirable and undesirable in a community of people and a set of formal and informal practices to support those beliefs and values. People’s beliefs and values determine their attitudes and opinions about life, events, society, and the world (Fig. 2). A broad view of culture is also shared by Babawale (2012) who sees culture as “everything that people have learned and preserved from their past collective experience. Culture is Fig. 1 Schematic representation of components CTCA

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

53

Fig. 2 Relationship between culture and indigenous knowledge. (Source: Okebukola 2015a)

fundamental to human existence and human civilisation offering meaning, purpose and value to the socio-economic, political and aesthetic ethos of society. Inevitably therefore, culture and society are inseparable. Culture makes society as society makes culture. Culture can only be preserved from the past and transmitted into the future by learning. It cannot be transmitted biologically.” Babawale (2012) proceeds further to assert that “culture is the subtotal of the material and immaterial tools, art works and work of art of a people and knowledge accumulated by the people.” The plurality of the linguistic, religious, and cultural communities in Africa clearly shows that the continent is a land of cultural diversity (Tella 2012). As further noted by Tella (2012), from Cairo to Cape Town, the values, beliefs, food culture, mode of dressing, traditional political systems, theatrical performances, and peoples’ shared conception of morality vary in an interesting manner.

54

P. A. Okebukola

Prominent within the CTCA cultural framework is indigenous knowledge. Ogunniyi (2013) regards indigenous knowledge systems as “a conglomeration of thought systems or worldviews that have evolved among various local communities over a considerable length of time. It is the product of human reflection, creativity and resourcefulness. It is the sum total of organised human interactions with nature and represented in various forms: verbal, graphic or written.” The community-based attribute of indigenous knowledge highlighted by Ogunniyi resonates in Serote’s (2012) definition – “IKS is accumulated and organised knowledge which is used further to accumulate knowledge with the objective to create quality of life and to ensure a liveable world.” In this policy brief, indigenous knowledge system is taken to mean “a corpus of raw, unpolluted, idiosyncratic knowledge, values and skills associated with indigenous peoples in a given community. It is the product of the process of viewing the world through the lens of such communities, a distillate of their understanding of how the world works and how such understanding can be deployed for their wellbeing, welfare and improved quality of life” (Okebukola 2013). Down through the ages, the first settlers in a geographical location studied and took control of their environment in a way that addressed their everyday need for food, shelter, health, security, and several other needs that assured some measure of good quality of life. The knowledge and skills acquired and refined over time by such indigenous peoples are indigenous knowledge. Farming practices including irrigation, planting techniques, storage, and distribution of farm produce were based on such knowledge systems. Herbal treatment when ill, ingenious bone-setting techniques, organization into cooperatives in banking and fund management, effective governance methodologies, conflict resolution mechanisms, as well as nonformal and information methods of educating children and adults were part of the conglomerate of indigenous knowledge systems (Babawale 2012; Gbamanja 2014; Okebukola 2012, 2015b; Sholanke 2019; Tella 2012; UNESCO 2003). How is this form of knowledge different from others especially from what is often regarded as modern, western, or explicit knowledge? Indigenous knowledge, a subcomponent of CTCA, is part of the human repertoire of knowledge. It goes by various synonyms – local, traditional, folk, ethno, intangible, and tacit are some of the adjectival labels for some of the synonyms. Indigenous or tacit knowledge is created through individual experiences and immersed within the culture and traditions of individuals and communities (Dei 2013; Herbert 2012; Serote 2012; Okebukola 2012, 2015b). It is derived from acceptable mode of knowledge generation although it is erroneously lumped with superstition, magic, and irrationalism and labeled primitive, pagan, outdated, and barbaric. In contrast, western or scientific knowledge which comes with such labels as scientific, western, modern, Eurocentric, tangible, and explicit is derived from empiricism and scientific investigations which have testable and objective data as product. Its hallmark is verifiability. Tangible or explicit knowledge is recorded and codified and widely conveyed through formal language – textual or electronic. Tacit knowledge on the other hand is largely transmitted through oral history and hardly codified in a globally intelligible form. It lives mainly in the memory of the beholder; unless

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

55

transferred, it dies with the beholder. It is mostly rural, commonly practiced among poor communities and hence marginalized (Ocholla 2007). Indigenous knowledge is becoming increasingly recognized as a form of rational and reliable knowledge developed through generations of intimate contact by native peoples, and its value is becoming appreciated by scientists, managers, and policymakers (Dei 2013; Onwu 2012). For example, many western medical scientists have tapped into the huge resource of knowledge and skills in healthcare built over centuries by indigenous peoples. In a number of medical schools in Nigeria and South Africa, the curriculum includes training in local herbal medical practice, and it is becoming less rare to see viable partnerships between traditional healers and western or orthodox medical practitioners in delivering healthcare (Amabeoku 2013). Gbamanja (2014) has underlined the importance of the use of local knowledge and improvisation of materials from local sources in boosting achievement of secondary school students in science and in winning more students for science. With African students doing better in science through the direct and indirect contributions of indigenous knowledge, development in the region is poised for a significant boost. What are other examples of the application of indigenous knowledge that CTCA draws from? Indigenous architecture and housing are cheap and usually more energy efficient than western-styled housing. Aeration without the expensive use of air conditioners and the energy they consume is socioeconomically beneficial to the largely rural population in Africa. Earthenware pots which are ingeniously constructed can cool water to temperatures fairly close to what a compressor powered refrigerator can deliver. These are energy-conserving devices which have positive impact on our environment and on decelerating global warming (Babawale 2012; Ogunniyi 2013; Onwu 2012; Tella 2012). The foregoing cultural contexts form the basis for implementing CTCA. The second element in the CTCA amalgam is technology. The findings of several surveys, which aggregate to suggest that learners flock to YouTube, Wikipedia resources, WhatsApp, and Facebook for their online activities, led the CTCA research team to target these technologies. Ordinarily, most students do not visit YouTube to watch video lessons of topics learned in school, the greater attraction for them being musical and entertainment movies. Sadly, some venture into pornographic videos. Since these students already have some appetite for YouTube and technical expertise for retrieving and watching its videos, the idea in CTCA is to ride on the back of such interest and steer the students toward watching lesson-related videos. Wikipedia and other online textual materials are rich sources of information for students on any topic in the school curriculum. CTCA also takes full advantage of this by getting students to prepare for a forthcoming lesson by reading materials from these sources. Of course, the caution against plagiarism keeps being stressed. CTCA ensures that when the lesson is over in class, it is technically not over. Learning continues outside class, strengthened by the summary of the lesson received by each member of the class via WhatsApp and other instant messaging systems. CTCA takes advantage of this messaging technology that is craved by many youths and adults in the world today.

56

P. A. Okebukola

Ethnoscience Versus Indigenous Knowledge How does ethnoscience compare with indigenous knowledge? There are connecting points, yet they stand as separate entities. Ethnoscience is a field of inquiry with roots in anthropology, which seeks to describe how different cultures interpret and categorize the world. It is regarded by Roth (2019) as an umbrella concept comprising the subfields of ethnoarcheology, ethnoastronomy, ethnobotany, ethnolinguistics, ethnomedicine, ethnopedology, ethnopsychology, ethnopsychiatry, and ethnozoology, among others. The common thread is the prefix “ethno” which situates the study within the “ethnic” context of a group of people, race, or culture and can be filtered through the prism of language, religion, worldview, and general behavior patterns. The product of an ethnoscientific inquiry is the teasing out of ethnic-specific and idiosyncratic ways of interpreting the world by groups of people. By way of example, in 1984, the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN) commissioned a national survey of Nigerians of all walks of life on “what is science?” The report (Bajah and Okebukola 1984) provided differing as well as converging views on how Nigerians of different cultural orientations perceive the world through the lens of science. Notable differences were found among the three major ethnic groups – Hausa, Ibo, and Yoruba. In turn, these perceptions were influenced by religious belief systems nucleating around creation, purpose of humans on earth, and relationships among humans and nonliving things that are approved through “commandments” by a god or deity that the individual or group worships (Joshua 2019; Serote 2012; Tella 2012). Since 2008, one of such differences – the belief that western education is detrimental to proper understanding of the world, canvassed by the terrorist group Boko Haram – has surfaced as a point of tension and brutal terrorist confrontations in the West African subregion (Okebukola 2015a; Onwuchekwa 2015). Let us now look at indigenous knowledge. The word “indigenous” connotes place-based human ethnic culture that has not migrated from its homeland and “adulterated” by the culture of a colonizing population (Herbert 2012; Okebukola 2015a). To be indigenous is therefore by definition different from being of a world culture, such as the western or Euro-American culture (Onwu 2012; Radhakrishnan 2019). Indigenous knowledge refers to the understandings, skills, and philosophies developed by societies with long histories of interaction with their natural surroundings. Such knowledge, as Serote (2012) and Okebukola (2015b) adduced, has been developed over centuries of experimentation and passed orally from generation to generation. Indigenous peoples are the holders of unique languages, knowledge systems, and beliefs and possess invaluable knowledge of practices for the sustainable management of natural resources. The major connecting point between ethnoscience and indigenous knowledge is localization to specific ethnic framework. Science, by some definitions, is culture free and is said to be universal knowledge, which applies equally everywhere (Ogunniyi 2013; Roth 2019). Its attributes such as objectivity, verifiability, and predictability are not culture or context constrained. Hence ethnoscience, like indigenous knowledge, is localized, describing inquiry and knowledge about specific groups of people. Such (unfair) reference to “African science,” “western science,”

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

57

and “aboriginal science” exemplifies ethnoscience. The difference in ethnoscience and indigenous knowledge is scope. Indigenous knowledge is an umbrella concept, covering all forms of knowledge of indigenous peoples including knowledge about language, religion, arts and crafts, leisure, farming, and housing. Ethnoscience limits itself to indigenous knowledge of ethnic people relating to science (Ogunniyi 2013; Okebukola 2012, 2015b; Onwu 2012).

Emergence of Eco-Techno Cultural Theory of CTCA After two decades of research to gather supporting evidence, Okebukola and Jegede proposed the ecocultural theory of science learning (Okebukola and Jegede 1990). The theory which is a STEM slant of the general theory of ecoculture holds that the context (ecology) where teaching and learning of science takes place and the microcultures of students and teachers exert noteworthy effects on learning. The pathways of the effect are two bridges. The first bridge is the link between experiences derived from the learning context and the subject matter to be learned. This bridge can be seen, for example, in relating practices of electroplating that students can observe in their immediate school environment, perhaps in a nearby blacksmith workshop and the topic of electroplating in a chemistry class. The second bridge has longer span, tucked deep in the cultural orientation of learners. This cultural bridge links indigenous knowledge and cultural practices that are related to a STEM concept. The effect of the two bridges is likened to a catalyst accelerating the formation of neural networks which are evidentiary that learning has taken place. The two bridges of context (ecology) and culture work in a similar manner to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the transmission of nervous impulse from one neuron to another, a process that is implicated in the mechanism of learning. Acetylcholine acts at various sites within the central nervous system where it can function as a neurotransmitter and as a neuromodulator. It plays a role in motivation, arousal, attention, learning, and memory. In a series of additional experiments within the framework of the ecocultural theory, two elements – technology and humor – were inserted into the intervention equation. The aggregated findings of these studies led Okebukola (2015a) to derive the eco-techno cultural theory. This theory sees learning as product of the effect of activation energies from four sources. Like its precursor, the ecocultural theory, where two bridges link context and culture to concept formation, the eco-techno cultural theory extends the bridging to four activation energies which ensures that the links by the bridges are speedily established and are longer-lasting. Activation energies lower the rate of reactions which bring about learning of a (STEM) concept. They foster the formation of neural networks which are indicative that learning has occurred. Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices are ecocultural determinants which immerse the learner in a world where belief systems and cultural practices are drivers of learning. Human beings, as social animals, have their behaviors changed as a consequence of interacting with significant others in a cultural setting.

58

P. A. Okebukola

Learning Facilitation Perception Index of CTCA Learning facilitation index is a measure of the potency of a teaching method in promoting learning. In a series of surveys conducted in Nigeria, Ghana, and Burundi, the learning facilitation perception index (LFPI) of CTCA was computed. LFPI is a measure of how students and teachers who had the CTCA experience perceive the relative impact of the four elements of CTCA on students’ performance. Findings show that the IK and cultural practice component were perceived to have the greatest impact of learning (37%), followed by technology (31%), context (21%), and humor (19%).

Mechanism of Action of CTCA We hypothesize four mechanisms of action for CTCA in the learning process. These are related to its major components – culture, technology, and context. There is a fourth – humor which is a flavor of CTCA. Let us take the components one by one and then take them together. In implementing the “culturo” part of CTCA, the teacher asks students to document indigenous knowledge and cultural practices related to the topic. In carrying out this task, students are able to see that their indigenous knowledge and cultural practices do not count for naught and some, directly or indirectly, explain natural events and phenomena in the topic of the lesson. CTCA students come to class already primed with some baseline indigenous knowledge and cultural practices to learn a new topic. For such students, learning a new topic is like swimming across a stream. The indigenous knowledge or cultural practices can be likened to a raft to which the learner clings as tool to swim across the stream (Awaah 2020; Onowugbeda 2020; Onyewuchi 2020). A student in one of the studies (Okebukola et al. 2016) commented that “I never knew the link between our cultural practices and the topic of energy flow in the ecosystem we learned today. This link has made me learn the topic better.” There is another angle to the mechanism where culture facilitates learning with the context of CTCA. In a class where CTCA is implemented, students and their teacher share examples of indigenous knowledge and cultural practices related to the lesson. The process of group discussion and sharing is by itself facilitative of learning. Our studies and those of others on cooperative learning confirm this (Adolo 2020; Hungbeji 2020; Lawal 2020). In the group, some students may not readily recall a relevant indigenous knowledge and cultural practice. The examples shared by others and the teacher bring to the remembrance of all students in the class such practices and provide the raft for crossing the stream of knowledge of the topic (Lawal 2020; Olabiran 2020). Another mechanism within the “culturo” component of CTCA is worthy of attention. Ausubel (1963, 2012) demonstrated the importance of prior knowledge to learning new concepts. The indigenous knowledge that students bring to class are

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

59

advance organizers. Leaning on Ausubel’s postulation, these indigenous advance organizers steer students to their zone of proximal development (ZPD) which is theorized to catalyze learning. So, at least on the “culturo” component, CTCA provides a mechanism to explain the potential of the approach in fostering meaningful learning.

Steps in the Implementation of CTCA and Sample Lesson Notes There are five major steps in implementing CTCA in a classroom setting. So far, our research group, preservice, and serving teachers have used CTCA extensively for STEM classes. The steps are: 1. Inform students ahead of time of the topic to be learned in class. Ask each student to (a) reflect on indigenous knowledge or cultural practices and beliefs associated with the topic or concept. Students should be made aware that such reflections are to be shared with others in class when the topic is to be taught; and (b) using their mobile phones or other Internet-enabled devices, search the web for resources relating to the lesson (first technology flavor of the approach). 2. At the start of the lesson and after the introduction by the teacher, students are grouped into mixed ability, mixed-sex groups to share individual reflections on (a) the indigenous knowledge and cultural practices and beliefs associated with the topic and (b) summaries of ideas obtained from web resources. All such cultural and web-based reflections are documented and presented to the whole class by the group leaders. Teacher wraps up by sharing their indigenous knowledge and cultural practices associated with the topic. 3. Teacher progresses the lesson, drawing practical examples from the immediate surroundings of the school. Such examples can be physically observed by students to make science (or any subject) real. This is one of the “context” flavors of the approach. Teacher should sprinkle delivery with some content-specific humor. 4. As the lesson progresses, the class is reminded of the relevance of the indigenous knowledge and cultural practices documented by the groups for meaningful understanding of the concepts. If misconceptions are associated with cultural beliefs, they are cleared by the teacher. 5. At the close of the lesson, the teacher sends a maximum 320-character summary of the lesson (two pages) via SMS or WhatsApp to all students. After the first lesson, student group leaders are to send such messages. This is another of the technology flavors of the approach.

Sample Lesson Notes on Using CTCA in a Classroom (Extracted from Okebukola 2020)

60

P. A. Okebukola

Lesson Note 1 Subject: Information and communication technology (ICT) Topic: Networking Teacher: Victor Adolo Class: Senior secondary class 2 Duration: 80 minutes

Objectives: At the end of the lesson, students should be able to: 1. Define networking. 2. List types of networks. 3. State types of network topologies. 4. Draw flow diagrams for each network topology. 5. List network devices. 6. State the benefits of networking. Previous knowledge: The students have learnt about computer hardware. Instructional materials: Charts and pictures. Reference materials: investopedia.com, techopedia.com, tutorialspoint.com, hope.com Presentation steps: 1. Pre-lesson assignment to students: (a) Use their mobile phones or Internetenabled devices to search the web for resources and watch YouTube videos on the topic “networking.” (b) Reflect on cultural practices and beliefs associated with the topic “networking.” 2. When lesson convenes, the teacher welcomes students to the class and divides the students in a group of 10, consisting of males and females. Their ability is a major consideration in determining the groups. 3. Each group is given 8 minutes to discuss their findings and to select a leader that will present on their behalf. 4. The teacher requests each group leader to give a detailed summary of their 8-minute discussion on the topic. 5. The teacher introduces the topic “networking” highlighting examples from the Nigerian culture such as the old communication medium between the Obas (kings) of a village and his people. The Oba is referred to as the server while the people are the clients. Also, the messengers of the Oba are the links that connect the nodes. 6. The teacher provides contextual examples emphasizing some of the discoveries from the student’s presentations and further explains that networking can be likened to sharing musical or pictorial files to others from a smart phone. 7. At the close of the lesson, the teacher appoints a student to send a summary of the topic via short message service (SMS) to every member of the class. Content of lesson drawing examples from indigenous knowledge, cultural practices, and with sprinkles of humor.

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

61

What Is Networking? First, let us view the term networking from our culture where we have the Oba (king) and his subjects (the people he governs). If the Oba has vital information that needs to be passed across to the whole village, he simply authorizes the town crier (a messenger) to share the information. Also, if the villagers are disturbed about an incident that has occurred in the village, the same process is taken, but the messengers now will be the chiefs who can advise the king. This example shows that in the past, for information to be transmitted, we need: (a) The king (b) A messenger (c) People The king and the people serve as nodes in computer networking, while the “messenger” serves as the link between the hosts. The messenger who serves as the link enables information to be shared among the king and the people. In computer networking, the king is referred to as the server, while the people are called the clients. Since information is shared by the king to the people, this means that the network (connection or link) between the king and the people enables information sharing. It is not only information that can be shared on a network; resources can also be shared. For instance, Farmer A has a yam and cassava plantation and Farmer B has a rice and bean plantation. If Farmer A wishes to eat rice or beans and Farmer B needs yam or cassava, Farmer A can ask for the produce of Farmer B in exchange for his own produce. If there is no link or connection between these two farmers, then the exchange will be impossible. Here the rice, beans, cassava, and yam serve as the resources. In networking, these resources can be the printers, modem, and CD-ROM. Therefore, when a connection is made between two hosts on a network, information and resources can be shared. Networking is therefore defined as the exchange of information and ideas among people with a common profession or special interest, usually in an informal social setting. Computer Networking Computer networking is an engineering discipline that aims to study and analyze the communication process among various computing devices or computer systems that are linked, or networked, together to exchange information and share resources. Computer networking depends on the theoretical application and practical implementation of fields like computer engineering, computer sciences, information technology, and telecommunication. Computer network can simply be defined as the interconnection between two or more computer or peripheral devices such as a printer for exchange of information and sharing of resources. Computers on a network are called nodes. The connection between these nodes can be done via cabling or wirelessly through radio waves.

62

P. A. Okebukola

Connected computers can share resources such as access to the Internet, printers, and file servers. A network is a multipurpose connection, which allows a single computer to carry out additional activities. Types of Networks Generally, networks are distinguished based on their geographical span. A network can be as small as the distance between a mobile phone and its Bluetooth headphone and as large as the Internet itself, covering the whole world. There are different types of networks. These include: 1. Personal area network: A personal area network (PAN) is a computer network that enables communication between computer devices near a person. This may include Bluetooth-enabled devices or infrared-enabled devices. PAN has connectivity range up to 10 meters. PAN may include wireless computer keyboards and mouse, Bluetooth-enabled headphones, wireless printers, and TV remotes. 2. Local area network: A computer network spanned inside a building and operated under single administrative system is generally termed local area network (LAN). Usually, LAN is used in offices, schools, colleges, or universities. The number of systems connected in LAN may vary from at least two to as much as 16 million. 3. Metropolitan area network: The metropolitan area network (MAN) generally expands throughout a city such as the cable TV network. 4. Wide area network: As the name suggests, the wide area network (WAN) covers a wide area which may span across states and even a whole country. Generally, telecommunication networks are wide area network. 5. Internetwork: A network of networks is called an internetwork, or simply the Internet. It is the largest network in existence. The Internet enormously connects all WANs and it can have connection to LANs and home networks. Summary 1. Networking is the practice of transporting and exchanging data between nodes over a shared medium in an information system. Networking is the connection between two or more computers or peripheral devices. 2. PAN, LAN, MAN, WAN, and Internet are different types of computer networks. 3. Computers on a network make up a node.

Lesson Note 2 Subject: ICT Lesson plan on algorithm and flowchart Teacher: Esther Setenme Hungbeji Class: Senior secondary class 2 Duration: 80 minutes Topic: Networking

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

63

Objectives: At the end of the lesson, students should be able to: 1. Define algorithm and flowchart. 2. State the functions and characteristics of algorithm. 3. Write simple algorithm for problem solving. 4. List flowchart symbols. 5. State what each flowchart symbol stands for. 6. Use flowcharts to solve problems. Previous knowledge: The students had pre-lesson information on the topic from their parents and on the Internet. Subsequently, students reported their findings in class. Instructional materials: Flowchart symbols displayed on cards. Reference Materials: quora.com, investopedia.com, tutorialpoint.com Presentation steps: 1. A pre-lesson assignment is given to students. Students have been instructed to watch YouTube videos on the topic “algorithm and flowchart” and to relate the topic to cultural practices and indigenous knowledge. 2. When lesson convenes, the teacher welcomes the students to the class and divides them into groups of 10 each, consisting of male and female and by ability level. 3. The teacher gives about 8 minutes to each group to discuss the assignment among themselves, each group with a preselected group leader. 4. The teacher asks each group representative to give a summary of their discussion on algorithm and flowchart to the class. 5. The teacher uses the findings of the students to introduce the topic “algorithm and flowchart” by relating it to their day-to-day activities. 6. The teacher builds on the knowledge of the students using more contextual examples and relating algorithm and flowchart with everyday activities. Content of lesson drawing examples from indigenous knowledge, cultural practices, and with sprinkles of humor.

Algorithm and Flowcharts Whenever anyone wants to accomplish a task, the individual first needs to carefully plan the systematic way and manner to accomplish the task successfully. In the olden days when communication was difficult, the commonest way for our forefathers to send messages was through symbols from one person to another. Once the symbol is received, the person is usually able to decode the message. In today’s world, we still make use of symbols and signs such as traffic lights. Once we see the traffic light, we immediately get the message it is trying to pass. For example, to fry an egg, you need to go through the following steps: 1. Get your eggs, frying pan, oil, and pepper ready. 2. Put on your cooker. 3. Place your frying pan on the cooker.

64

P. A. Okebukola

4. Pour a little oil on the pan. 5. Pour the already mixed egg and pepper into the hot oil. We see that the egg is fried in a stepwise manner and that is what an algorithm is about. Sometimes, this step-by-step manner is represented with symbols, and these symbols represent our flowchart. Algorithm and flowcharts are two different tools used for creating new programs especially for computer programming. Algorithm: This is the step-by-step manner of accomplishing a task. An algorithm refers to the systematic manner of successfully accomplishing a task which is usually written in human or natural languages. An algorithm includes calculation, reasoning, and data processing. Flowchart: This refers to the pictorial or graphical representation of an algorithm with the help of different symbols, shapes, and arrows in order to demonstrate a process or a program. A flowchart uses symbols to represent the stepwise manner of solving a problem or carrying out a task. Functions of an Algorithm 1. It provides a systematic manner of solving problems. 2. Flowchart breaks down programs into a stepwise form. 3. It is used for easy accomplishment of a program. Characteristics of Algorithm 1. Input: The algorithm receives input. 2. Output: The algorithm produces output. At least one quantity is produced. 3. Finite: Every algorithm must have a beginning and an end. It must be complete after a finite number of instructions have been executed. 4. Effective: Algorithm should be able to achieve what it was intended for. 5. Unambiguous: An algorithm must be easily understood. Writing Simple Algorithms In writing an algorithm for given problems, we state the solution for the problem in stepwise manner. For example: Algorithm for finding the average of a given set of numbers: Input: numbers N1, N2, N3. . .. . ..Nn Output: the average of the numbers Step 1: input numbers Step 2: sum¼0, average¼0 Step 3: sum¼ N1+N2+N3+. . .. . .. . ..+Nn Step 4: average¼ sum/n Step 5: print average

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

65

Algorithm to find the roots of a quadratic equation: Input: variables a, b, c Output: roots x and y Step 1: input variables a, b and c Step 2: let d¼ b2(4ac) Step 3: calculate d Step 4: let x¼ (b+sqrt (d))/2a Step 5: let y¼ (bsqrt (d))/2a Step 6: calculate x Step 7: calculate y Step 8: print roots x and y

Flowchart Symbols • Terminal box: start/end

This symbol denotes the beginning of a flowchart. It is a symbol that shows the end of a program or the point of termination of a flowchart. • Input/output

The parallelogram symbol is used to input data and show output at any point in a flowchart. • Process/instruction

The rectangle shape is a symbol that shows process and instruction. This is where arithmetic operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and all other operations are carried out.

66

P. A. Okebukola

• Decision

The diamond shape is the decision symbol in a flowchart. It allows decision to be taken in a program. It usually answers the yes or no question. • Connector/arrow.

As the name implies, this symbol connects the symbols in a flowchart. It also shows flow of movement along the flowchart. Using Flowchart to Solve Problems

Flowchart to find area of rectangle Step 7: Summary: In the lesson, students have been able to learn the following: 1. Algorithm and flowchart are tools used by programmers. 2. Definition of algorithm and flowchart. 3. Functions of algorithm.

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

67

4. Characteristics of algorithm. 5. Flowchart symbols and their functions. 6. Using flowcharts to represent an algorithm.

Field Trials of CTCA in Selected Science Subjects: Biology and Computer Studies Empirical studies exploring the effect of the CTC approach on students’ achievement in science have targeted concepts that students traditionally perceive difficult to learn. This is based on the logic that if a method can be successful in breaking barriers to learning difficult concepts, chances are high that it will be helpful in promoting meaningful learning of concepts that are generally perceived to be less difficult. This section provides reviews of studies that have explored the effectiveness of CTC approach in promoting achievement of students in topics that are perceived to be difficult to learn in biology and computer studies. Exploring the efficacy of CTC approach in biology, Akintola (2019) noted that CTC approach enhanced positive attitude and improved performance of students on the topics: hormones and kidney functions. His study involved 50 senior secondary school class 2 (11th grade) students grouped into experimental and control. The experimental group (N ¼ 25) that was taught hormones and kidney functions using the CTC approach outperformed the control group of lecture method. Egerue (2019) in another study explored the impact of sociocultural factors (CTCA) on scientific explanation in genetics and ecology. A total of 196 senior secondary class 3 students took part in the study, the results of which showed a significant impact of the CTC approach on students’ scientific explanation in genetics and ecology concepts (F (1, 85) ¼ 74.56; p < 0.001). Also, there was significant impact of CTCA on the attitude of students toward genetics and ecology concepts (F (1, 193) ¼ 20.52; p < 0.001). Okebukola et al. (2016) in their study which explored the impact of CTCA in tackling underachievement in difficult concepts in biology employed quantitative and qualitative data-gathering techniques and had experimental and control classes. The experimental group comprised 68 (30 boys, 38 girls) senior secondary 3 (12th grade) (mean age of 16) biology students in Lagos State, Nigeria. Control classes had 64 students (31 boys, 33 girls) located in a different education district from the experimental classes. Experimental group students had their learning experiences on “energy flow in the ecosystem” using CTCA over a 1-month period. Result showed that on the achievement measure, the experimental and control groups were significantly better (mean score for experimental ¼ 23.08; control ¼ 16.51; F ¼ 19.24; p < 0.001). Similar trend was found for the attitude scores (mean score for experimental ¼ 26.03; control ¼ 19.64; F ¼ 12.06; p < 0.001). Adam (2019) in his study with a total of 60 senior secondary class 3 (12th grade) biology students (32 male and 28 female) from educational district I of Lagos State, Nigeria, showed significant impact of culturo-techno-contextual approach on improving achievement as experimental group students outperformed their control

68

P. A. Okebukola

group counterparts on the achievement measure as well as on the measure of attitude toward mutation and variation. Ogunbanwo (2019) investigated the effectiveness of culturo-techno-contextual approach on students’ performance in genetics and evolution concepts in biology. Two senior secondary class 2 biology (11th grade) students were taught genetics and evolution, a topic perceived by Nigerian students to be difficult to learn. The result was in favor of the potency of CTCA in improving students’ performance on the perceived difficult topics of genetics and evolution. In addition, significant impact of culturo-techno-contextual (CTC) approach on students’ attitude toward learning genetics and evolution in biology was recorded. In the study by Sholanke (2019) which explored the efficacy of the culturotechno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students, 30 SS2 (11th grade) biology students were treated with CTCA, while 15 students were in the control group. The experimental class had a mean score of 24.5, while the control had a mean score of 12.0. The difference was found to be highly significant ( p ¼ 0.000; F (1, 44) ¼ 51.978; p < 0.05). Lawal (2020) sought to find the efficacy of the CTCA in improving achievement of secondary school students in adaptation. Two senior secondary classes were used as experimental and control group. CTC approach was used to teach the experimental group and normal traditional teaching method to teach the control group. The findings showed the efficacy of CTCA in improving students’ performance. Not all the studies had findings which favored the CTC approach in improving performance. Adeyemi (2019) in her study which involved 29 biology students in two groups – experimental and control found that the experimental group had a mean score 17.0 (SD ¼ 2.0), while control had a mean of 13.0 (SD ¼ 2.0). The difference was not found to be statistically significant F (1, 28) ¼ 0.365, p > 0.05. Similarly, Owolabi (2019) explored the efficacy of the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students in nutrition. Two groups were involved in the study – experimental and control group. The experimental group (N ¼ 20) was treated with CTCA, while the control group (N ¼ 18) was taught using the lecture method of the same topic. The result showed no significant difference in the treatment effect [F (1, 37) ¼ 1.73; p > 0.05]. In reviewing studies on the impact of the CTC approach on students’ performance in difficult concepts in the high school computer studies curriculum, we begin with the study by Esther (2019) which focused on algorithm and flowchart. There were two groups of 30 students from senior secondary school class 1 (grade 10) in Lagos State, Nigeria, who were taught using CTCA (15 students) and the lecture method (N ¼ 15). The results showed a statistically significant difference in the achievement of the experimental and control group, in favor of the experimental in algorithm and flowchart with F (1, 29) ¼ 5.95, p < 0.05. In an earlier study, Saanu (2015) explored the effect of the CTC approach on the achievement and attitude of students in logic gate, a topic that is traditionally perceived to be difficult by high school computer studies students. Her findings showed that the experimental CTCA group significantly outperformed their control counterparts F (1, 59) ¼ 15.261, p < 0.05. However, there was no statistically

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

69

significant difference in the attitude of students to logic gate taught with CTCA and that of the lecture method (control), F (1,59) ¼ 0.17, p > 0.05. Joshua’s (2019) study focused on students’ achievement in and attitude to computer ethics and human issues. There were 18 senior secondary school 3 students (12th grade) in the experimental group and 21 students in the control. Experimental group students performed significantly better on the achievement and attitude measures. In the last of the studies in this review, Victor (2019) in 2 classes treated 27 students (experimental) made up of 8 boys and 19 girls (mean age of 16) and the control class of 20 students comprising 7 boys and 13 girls. The topic was computer networking. Analysis of covariance performed on the data showed the experimental (CTCA) group significantly outperforming the control.

Snapshots of Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Practices Relating to Perceived Difficult Topics in STEM One of the CTCA repertoire of resources is a database of indigenous knowledge and cultural practices on topics that are traditionally perceived to be difficult to teach and learn in STEM by African students. The logic is that if we “wrestle down” (Gbamanja 2014; Okebukola 2015b) these difficult topics via linkage with indigenous knowledge and cultural practices, chances are bright that the “genie of poor performance in STEM, will be thrown progressively back into the bottle” (Okebukola 2015a, 2020). The demand of this logic is to compile indigenous knowledge and cultural practices that are relevant to the perceived difficult topics and use these to support teaching and learning of STEM. In this section, some entries in the growing database of examples submitted to the database by researchers and practitioners of CTCA in the last 5 years will be highlighted (please see www.ctcaapp.com for the full database).

Nuclear Chemistry: Radioactive Decay (Submitted by Adekunle Oladejo to https://ccta-app.com) Ayo olopon is an African board game played in a carved wood. The board consists of 12 holes (six holes on each side) and each of the holes accommodate four Ayo seeds (small stone like objects). Only two people can play the game; others are spectators and can give verbal support to any of the two participants during the game. Where there are many people interested in playing the game, for example, if six people are interested in playing the game, the winner of the first game engages the third participant, and the winner of the second game competes with the fourth participant until a final winner emerges. This concept is related to the concept of halflife because the participants keep decreasing in number per game. At the end of each game, the eligibility of the participants decreases because once a participant loses the

70

P. A. Okebukola

game, he/she is no longer eligible to participate again until the game ends. The dropping out of a participant exemplifies radioactive decay of a chemical substance, leaving the game arena lighter in weight. Hence, over time, the mass of persons gathered for the game keeps diminishing. Each person that drops off is likened to a nuclear particle that is emitted. A game with persons wearing alpha, beta, and gamma labels dropping off after losing a game was fun for students and helped in fostering their understanding of radioactive decay. Talo wa ninu ogba is an infant Africa game. This game involves joining of hands by all the participants moving around in a circle. While the circling is on, a participant who is outside the circle leads the others in singing the song: Lead singer: Ta lo wa ninu ogba na Response: Omo kekere kan ni Lead singer: Se ki nwa wo Response: Ma wa wo, iwo lo pa, Iwo lo mo, iwo lo gbein gbein soja, to ko woru woru soja Lead singer: omo bantu to nje sibiri tele mi kalo

At the end of the song, the leader of the game will tap one of the participants who must leave and join the leader outside the circle. This is done repeatedly, and the number of participants joining hands keeps decreasing until there is no other person that can be joined. This game relates with radioactive decay because the leader of the game cannot select all the other participants joining hands together at once; it has to be done one after the other. So also, in half-life, the particles do not decay once. The decay process must occur gradually.

Biology: Energy Flow in the Ecosystem (Submitted by Samson Imole to https://ccta-app.com) In Africa, after the peasant farmer has cleared a large expanse of land, he would proceed to cultivate his plants. These green plants trap energy from the sun which is used to produce their food. Also herbivores such as cow, grasshopper, and goat feed on these plants to get their own energy from the one available in the plants which they got from the sun. Yoruba people would also go ahead to kill some of these animals for consumption; by doing this, some energy present in these animals would be transferred to the consumers (i.e., human beings). This is the indigenous explanation of how energy is transferred or moved among organisms. The cultural practice of garri making symbolically relates the flow of energy in an ecosystem. Garri is made from cassava and is a delicacy in many parts of Nigeria and Igboland in particular. To make garri flour in Igboland, cassava tubers known as akpu are peeled, washed, and crushed to produce a mash. At this first stage, some amount of energy is lost. The mash is mixed with palm oil and placed in an adjustable press machine for 1–3 hours to remove excess water. Once dried it is then sieved and fried in a large clay frying pot with or without palm oil. The heat

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

71

applied during the frying stage of the cassava flour causes some amount of energy to be lost to the surroundings. The resulting dry granular garri can then be stored for a long period or may be pounded to make fine flour which can be made into eba for consumption. This stage by stage loss of energy in the making of garri (akpu) can be likened to the continuous loss of energy from one trophic level to another. Students in Nigeria are familiar with garri making, and they love the product, being the readymade snack that they commonly consume with fish or groundnuts. Therefore, energy flow in the ecosystem can be illustrated with this cultural practice.

Biology: Producers and Consumers (Submitted by Samson Imole to https://ccta-app.com) In the northern parts of Nigeria, the Fulani ethnic group lives almost entirely on animal farming. Cattle are noted to be the most important object in the Fulani society. A typical Fulani man lives his life around his cattle. Traditionally, these cattle are herded by taking them round in large numbers to feed in open spaces and uncultivated grasslands. This is common indigenous knowledge and cultural practice in Nigeria and in most parts of West Africa. Most, if not all, students in West Africa are familiar with this practice given prominence in recent times by farmerherder clashes. It is a cultural practice that students can relate well with producers and primary consumers. The green plants on uncultivated, even cultivated, farmlands produce their food using energy from the, sun and they also serve as food for the animals. Students know that the cattle of the Fulani which many can see on their way to school feed directly on grasses and crops without any intermediary trophic organism; hence they are primary consumers. Since humans feed on cattle, that is, indirectly on green plants, eating beef provides an example of secondary consumers.

Biology: Mitosis and Meiosis (Submitted by Abdulazeez Hussein to https://ccta-app.com) Four indigenous knowledge and cultural practices which students are familiar with can be used in teaching mitosis and meiosis. Firstly, there is a common saying among rural dwellers in Yorubaland also echoed in urban areas that “ejo yen ti pa awo da” meaning the snake has changed its color. This is the histological changes in the skin of the snake which occur by the process of mitosis whereby the snake sheds its skin. Secondly, in traditional societies, when injured, elders make use of some leaves to cure the wound so as to close up as soon as possible. This phenomenon can be related to cell division, in the sense that the cell quickly divides and multiplies to replace lost tissue. Thirdly, the act of planting where farmers cut the stem or part of the tree and plant it in another place, the ability of that part to grow again can also be related to mitosis. Fourthly, in African families when a child has physiognomic resemblance to the grandmother, the baby is given a name indicating a reincarnation

72

P. A. Okebukola

of the dead grandparent. Among the Yoruba, a female child with resemblance to the dead grandmother is called “iyabo” meaning “mum returned.” In the biology class, the indigenous knowledge can be used to illustrate the phenomenon of crossing over of genes which occurs during the process of meiosis.

Computer Studies: Concept of Networking (Submitted by Esther Peter to https://ccta-app.com) Three cultural practices in Africa can be used to illustrate networking in computing. An example is the communication between the Oba (king) of a village and his people. The Oba does the work of a server in a network, while the people are the clients. Also, the messengers of the Oba are the links that connect the nodes. Another cultural/indigenous knowledge that can be used to explain networking is family network. People belong to a family network in which related people share their resources and information. This sharing is bidirectional because even the youngest family members share information of some sort. As the family grows, so does the network. Most, if not all, science students in African schools are familiar with these examples which the teacher can take full advantage of in explaining the concept of networking.

Computer Studies: Process of Networking (Submitted by Esther Peter to https://ccta-app.com) A cultural practice for illustrating the process of networking is “ajo” or short-term savings. This practice dates far back in African history, and in spite of recent developments in formal banking, it is a dominant feature in many urban and rural communities. It is commonly practiced by traders especially market women. It is the process whereby contributors come together to support one another in order to boost the capital of their trade. For instance, seven women may agree to contribute #1000 daily for a week which equals #7000. The money will be given to the first person on the list, and this continues for 7 days, and each woman goes home with the sum of #7000 in rotation. A related practice is the indigenous cooperative networking system (Owe). This practice is common among large-scale farmers who cannot solely operate on their land but with the assistance of fellow farmers. The farmers come together to support one another. For example, seven farmers jointly work on the farm of an individual, and there is rotation until all farmers are served. These are networks within African communities to which students can readily relate when taught computer networking.

Physics: Radiation (Submitted by Adekunle Oladejo to https://ccta-app.com)

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

73

African communities are aware of the concept of radiation, so in the kitchen, they hang wet meat, fish, and leaves over the roof, directly under a heat source. Their understanding is that the fire from the cooking spot emits heat and the heat (energy) can be used to dry up and/or preserve food items and leaves. The concept of radiation can be likened to “Ooru” – heat emission in the Yoruba language, for example, ooru ina, heat emission or radiation from light or fire source, and ooru ile – heat emission from the ground. Radiation also comes from the sun (the sun emits heat).

Chemistry: Electroplating (Submitted by Adekunle Oladejo to https://ccta-app.com) Electroplating is about coating a metal usually expensive metals on the surface of another cheap metal for beautification and protection against corrosion. Three indigenous/cultural practices can be used to illustrate the concept. There is the agelong cultural practice in Africa of using gold- or silver-coated jewelry, and after use for a period of time, the coated gold or silver begins to fade. Women will then take the jewelry to a goldsmith for recoating to make them look like newly bought jewelry. This does not only save cost of buying new jewelry but also returns the lost glory of the old jewelry. Secondly, electroplating as a process of prevention and beautification can be likened to the use of cattle feces to coat the mud wall of houses for prevention against moisture and to make the wall look attractive. The practice was very common in the past, and such walls can still be found in old villages in some parts of Nigeria today. Students are quite familiar with this practice. Thirdly, the local knowledge of electroplating can be seen in the process of making the old mud pot conduct heat better. As most African students are aware, women use pots made from mud to cook, and these pots take longer time to get food cooked. To correct this, we now have modern local pots called “aperin” or ape onirin, that is, a pot containing metal. The pots are made with light mud upon which melted iron or aluminum is coated. These pots are commonly used for cooking large amount of food particularly for parties or events. This clearly reflects the local knowledge of electroplating that the teacher can use to illustrate the concept.

Chemistry: Electrolysis (Submitted by Adekunle Oladejo to https://ccta-app.com) Electrolysis is about breaking into parts of a chemical compound with the use of electricity (electrical energy). African indigenous peoples are aware of the power of lightning to split things. There is the knowledge that the power of lightning can split a tree, and it goes by saying “bi aara n pa araba, toun pa iroko, bi ti iginla ko.” This means that if lightning strikes and splits trees such as araba and iroko tree, it cannot split the tree locally called iginla. There is also a traditional belief that the eggs of some animals like snail don’t get hatched except with the help of lightning. In the examples lighting is considered as electrical energy which is needed to separate the

74

P. A. Okebukola

shell and young animal inside it at maturation. By this belief, the separation will ordinary not have been possible expect by the power of lightning. A traditional process that can be likened to electrolysis is the making of palm oil. Palm oil comes with the palm fruit as one; to separate the oil from the fruit and keep off the shaft requires heat. The separation of palm fruit into palm oil and shaft would not have happened ordinarily on its own, except with the aid of or in the presence of fire which is considered as electricity/electrical current in this instance. So, the understanding that to separate palm oil from palm seed shaft which together makes up palm fruit will require the aid of fire should ease the understanding that to separate Na from Cl2 which together makes up NaCl2 will also require electricity or electrical current in a process called electrolysis (splitting by means of electricity).

The CTCA Mobile App The use of CTCA in science classrooms to break barriers to learning took a new turn early in 2021 with the development of a mobile app (formally launched at a global event on February 17, 2021). This is an important tool for the over 65% of mobile device-owning STEM teachers globally (UNESCO 2020) who are desirous of experimenting with CTCA in breaking barriers to the learning of difficult STEM topics. With the growing number of people accessing broadband Internet via smartphones, tablets, and mobile devices, it is becoming imperative for educational solutions to take advantage of the offerings to increase access and the engagement of younger generations of students. Mobile education apps (applications) have changed the face of education by introducing new and dynamic ways of learning. Mobile apps have strong potentials to provide personalized learning, enhance knowledge, allow remote access to resources, provide limitless learning, and engage students in active learning. The CTCA mobile app has been developed to provide users with a tool that facilitates the implementation of the CTCA theoretical and philosophical frameworks. It aims to provide a platform for fulfilling the 5-step processes of the framework and a valuable resource that provides rich knowledge bases of indigenous and sociocultural resources that can be reused in different subjects by scholars, teachers, and students. Researchers and scholars using the tool can document useful and applicable indigenous knowledge. Teachers will be able to use the resources in their classes with their students. The students in turn will be assisted by the app to access subjects, topics, and class summary resources created by teachers on the go using their mobile devices. This section presents the basic features and technologies used in the development of the CTCA app.

Basic Features The CTCA mobile app has the following features:

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

75

1. User login and roles for students, scholars/researchers, CTCA administrators, and global administrators. 2. Forms for entering subjects, topics, indigenous and cultural knowledge, scholars, and lesson summaries. 3. Views for assessing subjects, topics, indigenous knowledge and lesson summaries, and other resources. 4. Google search iFrame to enable google searches within the app. 5. Social media sharing block to facilitate seamless integration with various social media platforms. 6. Offline access to cached content and resources even when Internet is not available. 7. Interface for management of users. 8. Push notifications to alert users when new content is available. Figure 3 shows the mobile user interface (Table 1).

Technology Several technologies are used for developing applications for mobile apps for various platforms. The major platforms are iOS, Android, and Windows phone. The iOS mobile ecosystem is developed and maintained by Apple and constitutes about 27% of the mobile operating system market share worldwide. The Google Android has a wider user base with 72% of the market share. Windows, Nokia, and others together have less than 1% of the market. Mobile app developers usually target Android and iOS devices and usually build native apps for the two ecosystems. However, this can be expensive and timeconsuming as solution providers will need to maintain developers for the two platforms. In recent times, there have been efforts to use cross-platform technologies like simple HTML, CSS, PHP, and JavaScript technologies to build mobile apps that work seamlessly across the different platforms. The so-called web apps aim to approximate the behavior of native applications. The CTCA mobile app adopts the progressive web app approach that works across all mobile devices using advanced technologies and the web browser to achieve native app behavior. The technology stack utilized for the project includes PHP, MySQL, Apache, Drupal 8, and progressive web apps. These technologies illustrated in Fig. 4 are open-source web development programs. The Apache web server delivers the web content, i.e., HTML documents, multimedia, style sheet scripts, and web traffic through the Internet. PHP – Hypertext Preprocessor – is the server-side scripting language used to develop the static and dynamic content of the application. MySQL is the relational database management system (RDBMS) used to store, access, and manage application content. Drupal is a free and open-source content management system and framework. Drupal was selected because of its abilities for enabling easy content authoring,

76

P. A. Okebukola

Fig. 3 CTCA mobile app user interface

Table 1 Role description The roles supported are as follows: Roles Description 1 Administrator Have full access on the site. Can configure any aspect of the site 2 CTCA admin Can administer users and view/add all resources 3 Writer/scholar Can view/add cultural/indigenous knowledge content 4 Teacher Can view and add knowledge resources and lesson summaries 5 Students Mainly view access to app content 6 Anonymous users Restricted access to information on the app

flexible development environment, reliable performances, and excellent security architecture. Progressive web app (PWA) is the technology used to enable web applications to look and feel like native apps. PWA facilitates the following behaviors:

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

Fig. 4 Technology stack for the CTCA mobile app

Students

Teachers

77

Site Admins

Progressive Web App Drupal PHP Apache

Site Files & Folders

• • • • •

MySQL

Offline access to content Display icons Access to device camera and geolocation Data synchronization between devices and web servers on the background Web push notifications

Together these behaviors assist the app to load faster and respond quickly to user actions and provide the native app feel users have come to like. The technologies outlined above were chosen for the CTCA app to achieve quick but reliable and secured solution with the capability of reaching a very broad range of users.

Using the CTCA App To login go to https://ctca-app.com on the browser of any device. • The Home Page appears. • Click on Login/Register to login or request for an account, which will need to be approved by a CTCA admin or global administrator. The screen in Figs. 5 and 6 appears.

78

P. A. Okebukola

Fig. 5 Welcome screen

Fig. 6 Login screen

• From this page a user can login, register for an account, or reset the password. • When logged in the user is able to access resources based on the privileges of the role the user belongs to, i.e., student, teacher, or CTCA admin. A CTCA admin will gain access to the full features of the tools menu shown in Fig. 7.

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

79

Fig. 7 Menu page

Fig. 8 Top menu bar

To Install the App on a Mobile Device (Android) To install the app on your phone, login to the CTCA mobile app site at https://ctcaapp.com • Click on the three vertical dots at the top right-hand corner of the phone (Fig. 8). • This brings up a menu list from which the install app link can be selected. • Click on install app (Fig. 9). • The CTCA install app appears; select install and follow the instructions on the screen (Fig. 10). • Alternatively, after a user has visited the site a few times, the user will get a prompt to add the app to the home screen as shown in Fig. 11.

80

P. A. Okebukola

Fig. 9 Menu for installation

• Click on add as in the diagram below to install the app to your home screen (Fig. 12). • After installing the app, the icon appears on the home screen (see Fig. 13). The app is installed and can be used to call the site anytime on the device.

Concluding Remarks This chapter provided a narrative of the development of the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) and its exploratory use in breaking barriers to the learning of science in African schools. As noted by Okebukola (2020), the strength of CTCA is its combination of three frameworks – culture, technology, and context. Teaching from the cultural and contextual perspectives of the learner and tapping the power of

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

81

Fig. 10 Guide to installation

technology to deliver instruction are clearly innovative as a combination in a single teaching tool. As further noted by Okebukola (2020), after about 5 years of field testing, CTCA is showing promise as a tool for breaking barriers to learning of STEM, especially of perceived difficult concepts. Data from the field are also pointing to three directions to which the development team should turn in order to improve the effectiveness of the approach. How can each of these elements be better structured within CTCA that is presently configured in the 5-step process? How can we further develop the database of indigenous knowledge and cultural practices in all perceived difficult topics that can be a resource for the teacher? What emerging and pervasive technology models can be embedded into the techno part of CTCA that will not discriminate between urban and rural communities? What contextual factors are important for the teacher and students to note as they explore the use of CTCA? These are the questions to be addressed in the further development and refinement of CTCA. In the coming months, the development team has planned massive teacher enlightenment programs on the use of CTCA. A free online training program is being finalized and should be up and running mid-2020.

82 Fig. 11 Adding CTCA to home screen of a mobile device

Fig. 12 Further guide to adding CTCA to home screen of a mobile device

P. A. Okebukola

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

83

Fig. 13 Icon showing installed CTCA app

References Adam U (2019) Potency of culturo-techno-contextual approach on students’ achievement in and attitude towards mutation and variation. Research report submitted in part fulfilment of the Bachelor of Science Education (Biology), Lagos State University, Nigeria. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Adeyemi A (2019) Relative effectiveness of culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in achievement of secondary school students in energy flow in the ecosystem. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Adolo V (2020) Potency of culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students in networking. In: Okebukola PA (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Akintola A (2019) Impact of culturo-techno-contextual (CTC) approach on students’ achievement on perceived difficult topics in biology. Unpublished research project report for the degree of Bachelor of Science Education, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos

84

P. A. Okebukola

Amabeoku GJ (2013) Integrating indigenous medicine into public health systems. In: Ogunniyi MB (ed) Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the science and indigenous knowledge project. University of the Western Cape, Cape Town Aparicio M, Bacao F, Oliveira T (2016) Cultural impacts on e-learning systems’ success. Internet High Educ 31:58–70 Atwater MM (2017, July) The glue: culture for science learning and teaching: glocalization of science education [Conference presentation]. International conference on glocalization in science education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodard U, Hillsman N (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful forecasters of science learning and performance. [Special issue] Theory Pract 52(1):6–13 Ausubel DP (1963) The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Grune & Stratton, New York Ausubel DP (2012) Reception learning and the rote-meaningful dimension. In: Readings in educational psychology. Routledge, London, pp 204–231 Awaah F (2020) Indigenous (cultural) knowledge related to the concept of politics as a difficult topic in public administration. In: Okebukola PA (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culturotechno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Babawale T (2012) Appreciating West Africa’s cultural resources. J Afr Cult Int Underst 2(1):22–24 Bajah ST, Okebukola PAO (1984) What is science? STAN position paper no. 1. Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, Ibadan Banks JA (2010) Multicultural education: characteristics and goals. In: Banks JA, McGee Banks CA (eds) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives. Wiley Publishers, Hoboken, pp 3–26 Banner I (2016) Valuing difference in students’ culture and experience in school science lessons. Cult Stud Sci Educ 11(4):1071–1079 Corbett K (2016) Gender, identity and culture in learning physics. Cult Stud Sci Educ 11(2): 371–378 Dei GJ (2013) Indigenising the school curriculum: the case of African universities. In: Ogunniyi MB (ed) Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the science and indigenous knowledge project. University of the Western Cape, Cape Town Egerue IC (2019) Impact of sociocultural factors on scientific explanations in genetics and ecology offered by senior secondary students in Lagos State. Doctoral thesis in progress, Lagos State University, Nigeria. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-technocontextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/India Esther H (2019) Potency of culturo-techno-contextual approach in improving achievement of secondary school students in algorithm and flowchart. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Fiske ST (2017) Prejudices in cultural contexts: shared stereotypes (gender, age) versus variable stereotypes (race, ethnicity, religion). Perspect Psychol Sci 12(5):791–799 Gbamanja SPT (2014) Nexus between science and culture: a panoramic view from Sierra Leone. J Afr Cult Int Underst 7:16–24 Herbert WE (2012) African cultures and Africa’s economic development. J Afr Cult Int Underst 2(1):5–9 Hungbeji E (2020) Potency of culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students in algorithm and flowchart. In: Okebukola PA (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Jacobs MD, Hanrahan NW (eds) (2016) The Blackwell companion to the sociology of culture. Wiley, London Joshua O (2019) BASIC programming as a difficult concept: exploring the efficacy of the culturotechno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culturetechno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Lawal R (2020) Exploring the efficacy of the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students in adaptation. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi

3

Fostering Science Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Environment. . .

85

Ocholla DN (2007) Marginalised knowledge: an agenda for indigenous knowledge development and integration with other forms of knowledge. Int Rev Inf Ethics, 7. [Online] http://www.i-r-ie.net Ogunbanwo G (2019) Relative effectiveness of the culturo-techno-contextual approach on students’ performance in genetics and evolution. Unpublished research project report for the degree of Bachelor of Science Education, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos Nigeria. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Ogunniyi MB (2013) Harnessing indigenous knowledge systems in fostering quality education in Africa. J Afr Cult Int Underst 5:1323 Okebukola PAO (2012) Sustaining indigenous science and technology culture in Africa. J Afr Cult Int Underst 1:15–18 Okebukola PAO (2013) Coordinating indigenous knowledge systems policies in Africa. In: Ogunniyi MB (ed) Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the science and indigenous knowledge project. University of the Western Cape, Cape Town Okebukola PAO (2015a) Towards the development of the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). OSF, Lagos Okebukola PAO (2015b) Harnessing culture for sustainable development and human security in Africa. UNESCO, Abeokuta Okebukola PAO (2020) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Okebukola PA, Jegede OJ (1990) Eco-cultural influences upon students’ concept attainment in science. J Res Sci Teach 27(7):661–669 Okebukola PAO, Ige K, Oyeyemi A Olusesi O, Owolabi O, Okebukola F, Osun G (2016) Exploring the impact of culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in tackling under-achievement in difficult concepts in biology. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore Olabiran J (2020) Relative effectiveness of culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students in computer ethics and human issues. In: Okebukola PA (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culturo-techno contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Onowugbeda F (2020) Variation and genetics as difficult topics for secondary school students in biology: exploring the impact of indigenous (cultural) knowledge for better understanding. In: Okebukola PA (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culturo-techno contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Onwu G (2012) Cultural issues in science education in South Africa. J Afr Cult Int Underst 2:18–24 Onwuchekwa N (2015) Disaster management systems in Africa: are we responding fast enough? In: Okebukola PA (ed) Harnessing culture for sustainable development and human security in Africa. UNESCO, Abeokuta Onyewuchi F (2020) Refractive index as a difficult topic in senior secondary physics: tackling under-achievement in difficult concepts in biology. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore Owolabi I (2019) Exploring the efficacy of the culturo-techno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students in nutrition. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Parsons ER, Bulls DL, Freeman TB, Butler MB, Atwater MM (2018) General experiences + race + racism ¼ Work lives of Black faculty in postsecondary science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13(2):371–394 Radhakrishnan S (2019) Religion, science and culture. Orient Paperbacks, Delhi Reddy V, Visser M, Winnaar L, Arends F, Juan AL, Prinsloo C, Isdale K (2016) TIMSS 2015: Highlights of mathematics and science achievement of grade 9 South African learners Roth W (2019) Ethnoscience. In: Atkinson P, Delamont S, Cernat A, Sakshaug JW, Williams RA (eds) SAGE research methods foundations. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036744802

86

P. A. Okebukola

Saanu T (2015) Exploration of the effect of the culturo-techno-contextual approach on the achievement and attitude of students in logic gate. Unpolished M.E d Project Report, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culturetechno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Scheitle CP (2018) Politics and the perceived boundaries of science: activism, sociology, and scientific legitimacy. Socius 4:2378023118769544 Serote MW (2012) The African agenda and indigenous knowledge systems. J Afr Cult Int Underst 1:13–15 Sholanke OO (2019) Micro-organisms as difficult concept: exploring the efficacy of the culturotechno-contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi Sugimoto M, Swain DL (2016) Science and culture in traditional Japan. Tuttle Publishing, North Clarendon Tella A (2012) African culture, environment and Rio+20. J Afr Cult Int Underst 2(1):9–13 Thomas R (2016) Being religious, being scientific: science, religion and atheism in contemporary India. In: Science and religion. Routledge India, pp 148–165 UNESCO (2003) UNESCO MOST database of best practices. UNESCO, Paris UNESCO (2020) ICT and teaching in schools. UNESCO, Paris Victor A (2019) Potency of culturo-techno contextual approach (CTCA) in improving achievement of secondary school students in networking. In: Okebukola P (ed) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture-techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough/Delhi

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a Multicultural Lens Robert H. Tai

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Various Approaches to Longitudinal Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Qualitative Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Experimental/Quasi-Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Small-Scale Quantitative Design with Inferential Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Large-Scale Quantitative Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Summary: Common Challenges Across Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the methodology of longitudinal research as a means of examining change over time or the lack of change over time. This approach to research follows the same set of participants for the duration of a study, examining growth, understanding transitions, and documenting stability. Longitudinal research can take many forms ranging from qualitative studies to large-scale nationally representative surveys. The importance of longitudinal research on communities of color is potentially transformative. Longitudinal analysis examines that change within the study participants and can offer insight into how and why these changes occurred and provide knowledge about the impact of educational and other experiences. This chapter will provide an overview of different applications of longitudinal research and its salience to multicultural research and education. The aim of this chapter is to offer some insights into the varied types and approaches to longitudinal research and offer some directions for future research.

R. H. Tai (*) University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_2

87

88

R. H. Tai

Keywords

Longitudinal surveys · Quantiative data analysis · Longitudinal analysis · Statistical analysis · Longitudinal research

Introduction Identifying and documenting change in the behaviors of learners is at the heart of research to examine the impacts of educational experiences on learners. How have people changed as a result of their learning experiences? How long does a particular learning experience persist over time? One way to glean insights into answering these types of questions is through longitudinal research, the tracking of study participants in order to link each participant’s status over a period of time. Longitudinal research has the capacity to document change or the lack of it. The importance and potential impact of this research approach to the understanding of multicultural issues is immense. Longitudinal research, to examine social and economic impacts of public policies, has at times in the past ignored a multicultural lens of analysis. For example, The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray published in 1995 arrived at a series of specious claims regarding racial differences. While many responses to counter this misguided analysis were rhetorical, the most effective over time have been well-designed research studies debunking this volume’s claims. Particularly important among these research studies have been longitudinal research designs because this approach to research speaks directly to change over time, matching characteristics with outcomes within specific individuals. Rather than more commonly applied associative counterfactual analyses, longitudinal research has a temporal component that offers a deeper level of analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the variety, scope, and impact of longitudinal research as well as outline some longitudinal data resources. This chapter defines longitudinal research in an inclusive sense. This chapter begins with an examination of different approaches to longitudinal research varying from qualitative design to large-scale quantitative design, examining research questions and research methods for answering these. It concludes by reviewing publicly available large-scale data sets and resources for longitudinal research studies. Across this review of varying longitudinal research designs, multicultural factors are a critical consideration. As readers think about potentially designing a longitudinal study, consideration must be given to the sociocultural and multicultural contexts of the study participants and the study itself. Many studies have included variables accounting for “Hispanic/Latinx” participants, but the variation in Latinx communities across the United States is wide ranging, bringing into play the historical origins of these communities. The Cuban community in South Florida is immensely diverse and includes Cubans arriving in the United States because of the Communist insurgency led by Fidel Castro, Cubans arriving in the United States decades later in the Mariel Boatlift, and the descendants of these two waves of immigrants. The same is true among Asian groups. The experiences of Chinese

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a. . .

89

Asian American growing up in the rural sections of the United States differs wildly from the experiences of those growing up in urban or even suburban communities. As a Chinese Asian American naturalized US citizen with roots in the Deep South during the 1970s and 1980s, I have found that my personal experiences, perspectives, and preferences are impacted by these contexts. As a child, I experienced the post-Brown v. Board of Education educational system of Georgia, when I existed between Black and White with the only other Asian in my school system being my brother. He was more than 4 years younger than me, so we were rarely in the same school at the same time. The fact remains that the racial/ethnic categorization of “Asian” common in so many studies accounts for a population consisting of half the world’s population, and yet, accounting for differences across racial/ethnic categories is important, because an individual’s experience is many times determined not by how individuals see the world, but how the world sees the individual. The goods and serves, the economic and educational opportunities, the anxiety and fear that we as individuals engage with are many times determined by the communities and the greater societies we live in. As a result, analyses uncovering categorical differences in the experiences of groups play a critical role in research and public policy. It is these categorical differences that point to systemic problems such as institutionalized racism and sexism. It is with this multicultural lens that I ask readers to critically view the following longitudinal research designs.

Various Approaches to Longitudinal Research While longitudinal research can take many different forms, it has one common characteristic: it is highlighted by repeated forays (called waves) of data collection, which are matched to specific individuals. This approach allows researchers to document how participants have or have not changed over the period of time between “waves” of data collection. In this chapter, we will examine longitudinal research studies in science education that applied different longitudinal research designs to answer their respective research questions. It is important to note that longitudinal research in science education is relatively rare. Longitudinal research requires tremendous focus and dedication to carry out with respect to smaller-scale studies or a strong background in statistical analysis with respect to large-scale studies. Yet, despite the high degree of dedication, focus, and technical expertise necessary to undertake well-designed longitudinal research many times yields high impact findings. The following sections examine longitudinal studies that have applied: (a) qualitative design with focused small-scale samples; (b) experimental/quasiexperimental design applying treatment versus control group comparisons; (c) small-scale quantitative design with inferential analyses; and (d) large-scale quantitative design with nationally representative data. This chapter will conclude with an overview of many publicly available, large-scale nationally representative quantitative data sets.

90

R. H. Tai

Qualitative Design Qualitative research has numerous forms and formats, each of which may employ a longitudinal approach by tracking participants over a period of time in order to investigate research questions related to change. Fadigan and Hammrich’s (2004) longitudinal qualitative study of an out-of-school time (OST) program presents one example. In this work, researchers carried out a descriptive case study of an OST program designed to engage high school females with science and science-related career and educational options. These students ranged from Grade 9 to Grade 12. The study tracked them for 4–9 years after high school in order to gather information on their career trajectories and educational outcomes. All study participants were from low-income single-parent homes with 90% Black or Latina. This study had a total of 152 participants. The researchers explored the following research questions: 1a. What were the desired (preparticipation) educational and career trajectories of 1992 to 1997 [study] participants prior to their acceptance into the [study] program as obtained from their program application forms? 1b. What were the actual (postparticipation) educational and career trajectories of 1992 to 1997 [study] participants from the time they left high school to the present as obtained from program records and survey? 2. What differences exist between 1992 to 1997 [study] participants’ desired. (preparticipation) educational and career trajectories and their present (postparticipation) educational and career trajectories? 3. Which program elements do the 1992 to 1997 [study] participants perceive as having affected their educational and career trajectories as obtained from survey and semi-structured interviews? (Fadigan and Hammrich 2004, p. 841)

Note that in each of these research questions, participants’ pre- and postparticipation responses were compared for each individual, with the postparticipation responses collected 4–9 years after high school. In addition, data on participants’ perception of the study program’s impact on their lives was also included in the analysis. This study used a longitudinal approach to offer evidence from individual’s perspective on the program impact many years after their participation. This form of data allows researchers to gather information from regarding which program elements seemed to have long-term impact from the perspective of program participants – an example of two cultural groups – Black females and Latinas. It is important to note that the longitudinal aspect of this study’s methodology undergirds the central point of this work, which is that outof-school time science engagement programs for young women can have lasting impacts on the educational trajectories and science career outcomes of the female participants. Qualitative longitudinal studies can, and most times do, have further considerations with regard to participants. For instance, the passage of time may influence how participants come to see themselves described in their past actions. An example is Reiss (2005) who notes in a reflection on his 5-year ethnographic longitudinal

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a. . .

91

research study that some participants expressed their distress with the depth of detailed description. This study spanned the time from when the participants were 11-year-old students in a mixed-ability science classroom in the United Kingdom until they were 16-year-old students. In another discussion on the implementation of a qualitative longitudinal study, Johnson (2005) carried out a 3-year longitudinal study involving students between ages 11 and 14. He notes several hurdles he needed to overcome, such as student attrition through either declining to continue to participate in the study or leaving the locality of the study. A challenge shared by all longitudinal study designs. While the advent of social media, tracking, and maintaining contact offers options for reestablishing contact, many times families relocate for economic reasons and therefore, social media, cell phones, and digital technology, in general, is beyond their reach. Socioeconomic status plays a large role in participant relocation and hence attrition from a study. Families that struggle severely financially are often faced with unstable home situations, homelessness, and underemployment which all play a role in family’s decisions to relocate. As a result, researchers should take great care in accounting for potentially biased sampling due to greater attrition of participants from some socioeconomic groups over others. The 2019 Census Bureau report for poverty rates in the United States is stark (Semega et al. 2020). The overall poverty rate in the United States is 10.3%, but the distribution across the different demographic groups is uneven. Among single parent families, homes headed by a single mother with children under the age of 6 make up 45.3% of these families living in poverty. Among homes headed by single fathers with children under 6 years old, 18.4% are below the poverty line. Differences in racial groups are even more dramatic, the average median income of White householders in 2019 was $72,204, while the averages for Blacks and Latinx were $45,438 and $56,113, respectively. The impact of these socioeconomic differences on longitudinal research studies can be immense, especially for longitudinal studies that might span years.

Experimental/Quasi-Experimental Design Longitudinal experimental research studies involve research designs typical of experimental educational research. Treatment group participants and nontreatment control group participants are identified and engage in the study beginning with a pre-study assessment. Once the treatment participation has been completed, study participants are commonly reassessed and the results compared. Longitudinal versions of this research design involve tracking and reassessing participants following the first post-study assessment. An example of this type of work is Novak (2005). Here the researcher engaged Grade 1–2 students in the treatment group in an audio tutorial science instructional sequence. A matched control group of students was identified and these two groups of “instructed” (n ¼ 191, base year) and “uninstructed” (n ¼ 48, base year) students were tracked for 12 years following the original treatment implementation

92

R. H. Tai

over eight follow-up waves of data collection. This study was carried out in five representative public schools in Ithaca, New York beginning in 1965. Ithaca is located in New York and is home to Cornell University and Ithaca College. The sample sizes of both groups shrank, treatment group sample falling to n ¼ 38 and control group sample falling to n ¼ 17. Both groups were assessed on their conceptual knowledge of basic science concepts such as particulate nature of matter and energy transformations throughout the course of this study using concept mapping. In the latter waves of data collection, the focus of the analysis turned to the outcomes of individual participants. In these instances, multicultural differences might play an immense role in which students remain within the study. As discussed earlier regarding poverty rates and study attrition, differences in racial/ethnic demographic representation are highly unlikely to remain consistent through any given study, with a greater likelihood of Black and Latinx participants leaving the study at greater rates. Other studies using similar longitudinal research designs include Chen et al. (2014) and Pei et al. (2020). Both studies used a treatment-control design with unmatched sample sizes with Chen et al. (2014) reporting treatment n ¼ 39 and control n ¼ 87 while Pei et al. reported treatment n ¼ 68 and control n ¼ 57. Chen’s et al. (2014) examined the outcome of participation of low-achieving Grade 4 youth in an after-school inquiry-based science intervention in Kaohsiung City in southern Taiwan. This approach compared the pre-post assessment results at the completion of the treatment stage of the study, but then rather than track the entire sample, chose to focus on a subgroup of eight participants selected based on their pre-post assessment results. These eight participants were tracked for three semesters and observed for 10 weeks during each of these semesters reporting detailed assessments for each of these students related to the study. Pei’s et al. (2020) study examined the longitudinal effect of a technologyenhanced learning environment of the learning of grade 6 youth in Shanghai, China. In this study, all participants were tracked and assessed immediately after the treatment, 1-month after the treatment, and 1-year after the treatment. Only the results for students completing all assessments were included. The original total number of participants was 149, but 24 students did not complete the assessments and were dropped leaving the total at 125 participants. In addition, this study also focused on two selected participants for more in-depth analysis. Each of these three longitudinal experimental studies included both an analysis of participants’ pre-post treatment assessment results using comparative statistics such as t-tests and ANOVA as well as a targeted analysis of individual student’s results to offer a more detailed look at how students responded over time. Despite the large difference in the time spans of these studies, 1–12 years, the approaches taken by researchers included close examination of individual results, which took advantage of the depth of detailed data longitudinal research makes possible. In the end, these three studies all engaged children from highly stable communities with relatively narrow cultural differences. Longitudinal studies have come to rely heavily on the stability of the home circumstances of families of participating youth.

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a. . .

93

Small-Scale Quantitative Design with Inferential Analyses In the case of smaller-scale studies, inferential quantitative analysis may also be undertaken. Interestingly, the statistical power of quantitative analytical techniques such as multivariate regression analysis does not require enormous sample sizes in order to offer significant statistical power. Statistical power is the likelihood of an analysis to detect an association or exclude an association. For example, for a linear regression analysis that includes five covariates, a sample size of n ¼ 100 would have a statistical power of approximately 0.85 at a 0.01 level of significance. (See Linear Regression (Multiple) statistical power analysis Fig. 1, top graph.) This statistical power calculation indicates that for a multiple linear regression analysis with these parameters has about an 85% chance of detecting or excluding an association at the 0.01 level of significance.

Fig. 1 Power analyses for linear multiple regression (top graph) and logistic regression (bottom graph)

94

R. H. Tai

Another common statistical analysis technique employed when the outcome variable is binary is logistic regression. Examples of binary outcomes include Student Persistence in the STEM Education Pathway (yes ¼ 1; no ¼ 0); Enrollment in Out-of-School Time STEM Learning Activities (yes ¼ 1; no ¼ 0); and Aspiration for a STEM-Related Career (yes ¼ 1; no ¼ 0). In the case logistic regression analysis, more robust statistical power levels such as 85% at a 0.01 level of significance would require a sample size greater than 620 participants. (See Logistic Regression (Continuous covariates) statistical power analysis Fig. 1, bottom graph.) The Linear Regression (Multiple) and Logistic Regression (Continuous covariate) Graphs show how statistical power varies with sample size and level of significance. Alexander et al. (2012) applied yet another quantitative analytical approach. This study used path analysis, which has been replaced with the technique of structural equation modeling. This study engaged 192 children from age 4–5 to age 6–7. In this 3 year longitudinal study, children were observed and parents were interviewed and surveyed. The children in the sample were 86% White, 6% Black, and 3% Latinx. The data from this analysis were used to construct a path analysis model. Figure 2 shows an adapted form of the model taken from this study. Note that each of the three columns of boxes represents Years 1–3 of the study, while each of the rows indicates the constructs that are being analyzed. The arrows between the boxes suggest an association between the constructs. For example, the arrow from the Science Interest Age 4–5 box to the Science Interest Age 5–6 box suggests that Science Interest at Age 4–5 is linked with Science Interest at Age 5–6. The asterisk indicates a significant and positive association. Significant associations can also be found to be negative, though none were negative in this example. The arrows without asterisks indicate that a suggested association is not significant. This model showed that over 3 years, science interest among young children remained consistent and

Fig. 2 Path analysis model adapted from Alexander et al. (* indicates significant associations)

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a. . .

95

interest did not seem to be associated with opportunities to learn science. Also, children with science interest at Age 4–5 appeared to have more science learning opportunities at Age 5 suggesting that children with science interests were offered more science learning opportunities. The nonsignificant associations indicate that science learning opportunities at an early age do not appear to be associated with science interest. This type of longitudinal analysis directly links each individual’s status across different times while also detecting trends in behavior. The result is a pattern of behavior that may be generalized across the group of children being studied and also suggests that these patterns might exist in other settings. Many statistical techniques do not require hundreds of participants in order to produce significant results, but the caution here is that the conclusions must be limited to the sample population engaging in the study. In the case of Alexander et al., the sample was 86% Caucasian, 6% African American, and 3% Hispanic/Latinx. As a result, these findings suggest that this study would be worth repeating with children of different racial/ethnic backgrounds in different educational settings. As it stands, this study is culturally very narrowly focused on White students. The trend is strong across all the longitudinal studies discussed in this chapter and among longitudinal studies in general that non-nationally representative studies over time become focused on culturally narrow participant groups due to attrition, with attrition impacted by poverty that overwhelmingly impacts communities of color at greater rates. Because, longitudinal research offers a type of insight into the lives of youth that is critical to producing the type of clarity necessary to inform the public and the policymakers, longitudinal research on communities of color are critically missing from the body of work in science education.

Large-Scale Quantitative Design In order to offer findings with significance to wide populations, it is necessary to broaden the sample to include people from Black and Latinx populations. Larger samples are often used to address lack of inclusion. This approach does not always provide the solution for representation. Simply put, it’s not the size of the sample, but its representativeness. As a result, representation within a data set of diverse populations is always important when the findings might be extrapolated to the wider population of a state, nation, or even people in general. Given the overwhelmingly differential impact of poverty on Black and Latinx communities and the impact of poverty on study attrition rates, there must be special effort put forth to track and engage Black and Latinx participants. An example of this type of effort comes from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) where researchers employed phone banks to call the homes of nonrespondents and request their participation. The sample size of NELS:88 was n ¼ 24,599. This effort was necessary since one of the mandates for the National Center for Educational Statistics is to carry out nationally representative longitudinal studies on the educational experiences of US youth.

96

R. H. Tai

There are several examples of national longitudinal studies. The National Center for Educational Statistics is responsible for gathering longitudinal data on the educational experience of US youth. The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, which is within the National Institutes of Health, collects a longitudinal data set called National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). The Bureau of Labor Statistics within the US Department of Labor has carried out longitudinal studies that have spanned decades. In addition, the Longitudinal Study of American Youth is a study that has generated a series of longitudinal data sets, but headed by the principal investigator Jon Miller, professor at the University of Michigan rather than by a federal agency. The challenge for researchers using large-scale data sets comes from having to use an existing data set. Since the data set has already been collected, the types of data are usually in the form of surveys or existing documentation, e.g., transcripts. The researcher must use what is there. However, these data sets do ask many thousands of questions across a wide array of topics and often turn to researchers for advice and consultation. Tai (1999) is an example of a study that began with a question about a cultural issue and led to an analysis using a national longitudinal study. The study focused on questions related to the Asian “model minority” stereotype. It addressed one characteristic of this myth, the belief that Asians have garnered economic advantages by focusing their educational endeavors in science a field associated with well-paying jobs and stable incomes. The research question focused on whether Asians as a demographic subgroup were more likely to enroll in science courses in high school than their White, Black, and Latinx peers. The analytical approach applied a nested series of logistic regression models with the binary outcome Grade 12 Science Achievement (yes ¼ 1; no ¼ 0). The technique of nesting models implies that a series of variables are fitted on the outcome variable. This approach allows for the direct comparison of the variance each step of the nesting accounts for and importantly in this analysis, when the variance accounted for by an earlier set of variables is subsumed by a subsequent set of variables. In this instance, the earlier nested model involved the set of race/ethnicity categories. This earlier model indicated that Asians as a group had 2.5 times greater odds of enrolling in Grade 12 Science than White, Black, and Latinx students, even when accounting for differences in Science Achievement. This result clearly supported a characteristic of the Asian model minority stereotype. But then the analysis went a step further and included another variable, Immigrant Status (Recent Immigrant ¼ 1; Nonimmigrant ¼ 0). While recent immigrants formed a large portion of the Asian student population, this was the case for Latinx students as well. As a result, including the immigrant status variable in the analysis tested an alternative hypothesis, rather than ascribing persistence and achievement in science to a racial category, science achievement might be indicative of the hard work and striving for success by new immigrants to the United States. When the recent immigrant status variable was included in the analysis, indeed, all significance of the racial/ethnic demographic subgroups disappeared, while immigrant status subsumed the variance accounted for earlier

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a. . .

97

by race/ethnicity. The two graphs display the results. Had the analysis not continued beyond race/ethnicity categories, the first graph would have offered a convincing argument supporting the Asian model minority stereotype. However, the second graph provides the more accurate picture. Indeed, it was the students who were either recent immigrants or had parents who had recently immigrated that had more than two-times greater likelihood to choose to enroll in Grade 12 Science. The results suggested that students who were immigrants, regardless of racial/ethnic categorization were more likely to enroll in science courses during their senior year of high school. The sample included n ¼ 2355 students. In the end, this result was not really a surprise. New immigrants to the United States have characteristically been high achievers despite daunting economic circumstances in many cases regardless of their racial/ethnic backgrounds. There are instances when initial conclusions are drawn regarding particular groups that offer some appearance of truth, but when a deeper level of analysis is employed, the findings contradict these initial conclusions (Fig. 3). This approach is particularly useful for researchers examining research questions targeted toward policy makers. Using large-scale longitudinal data sets that have a nationally representative sampling provides a broad view of an issue to complement the deep, but focused perspective offered by smaller-scaled studies. An example of this type of analysis grew from a question many policy makers wrestled with regarding how important early engagement in science was to an individual eventually choosing a science-relate career. That is, is it important for young school children to aspire to science-related careers? In this longitudinal analysis, a long time span is critical. The National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 was a data set that spanned the 12-year grange from eighth grade to age 25–26. In this analysis, bachelor’s degree concentration was used as the outcome (Tai et al. 2006). The approach groups the various degree concentrations into three groups, life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, and nonscience. The primary predictor in the inferential statistical model being developed would be students’ aspirational interest in science and science-related careers. Fortunately, a question in the Base Year survey of the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 asked the eighth grade students in the study what career they aspired to as adults. Basically asking students, what do you want to be when you grow up? This particular variable had nearly 100 responses, each a career or job. These aspirational careers or jobs were categorized into science-based careers or not. The inferential analysis also included a series of control variables accounting for gender differences, racial/ethnic group differences, as well as differences in academic achievement. Given that the outcome variable consisted of three categorical outcomes, multinomial logistic regression was employed. The results were clear and robust, eighth graders who reported aspiring to science-related careers had 2–3 times greater odds of earning bachelor’s degrees in science-related concentrations. The sample size was n ¼ 3359, and the analysis was weighted to give a nationally representative finding. Variables not found to be significant were also important. Neither gender nor race/ ethnicity produced significant outcomes. The results indicated that engaging young students’ science interests were linked with similar positive outcomes.

98

R. H. Tai

1 Estimated Probability of Continuing into Grade 12 Science

0.9

Analysis Using Only Race/Ethnicity Not Accounting for Immigrant Status

0.8 0.7 0.6 Asian 0.5

White

0.4

Black

0.3

LatinX

0.2 0.1 0 10 20 30 Grade 10 Science Achievement Score

1 Estimated Probability of Continuing into Grade 12 Science

0.9

Analysis Accounting for Immigrant Status

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Immigrant

0.4

Non-Immigrant

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 20 30 Grade 10 Science Achievement Score

Fig. 3 Comparison of the Results from Two Nested Logistic Regression Models, Not Accounting for Immigrant Status (top graph); Accounting for Immigrant Status (bottom graph)

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a. . .

99

Research Design of US Longitudinal Data Sets 60

Year in School (Kindergarten = 0, Grade 1 = 1 , etc)

50

40

30

20

10

0 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

-10

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year NLS 1972 ECLS-B NLSY 1997

HS&B ECLS-K98 Add Health

NELS88 ECLS-K10 LSAY

ELS2002 MGLS2017

HSLS2009 NLSY 1979

Fig. 4 Publicly available national longitudinal data sets

While the use of large-scale nationally representative surveys is a challenge; these data sets do offer an invaluable resource to researchers. Figure 4 shows a graphic representation of the age ranges and time spans for 13 national longitudinal data sets available through three federal agencies and the Longitudinal Study of American Life Project, LSAY. The data sets include nine from the National Center for Education Statistics (National Longitudinal Study of 1972, NLS72; High School

100

R. H. Tai

& Beyond, HS&B; National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, NELS88; Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002, ELS2002; High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, HSLS2009; Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth, ECLS-B; Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten of 1998, ECLS-K98; Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten of 2010, ECLS-K10; Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017), two from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (National Longitudinal Study of Youth of 1979, NLSY79; National Longitudinal Study of Youth of 1997, NLSY97), and both Add Health and LSAY noted earlier. For those seeking additional information regarding longitudinal data sets and other resources associated with nationally representative longitudinal research studies, a list of resources has been included at the end of this chapter after the reference list.

Summary: Common Challenges Across Designs While longitudinal research designs may take a variety of forms, there are challenges that are common to all these designs that researchers should be aware of as they embark on their projects. These common challenges for the most part stem from time span. Some researchers with a dry sense of humor have come to refer to longitudinal research as the study of questions one should have asked. The importance of considering not only past and present trends, but also potential future trends is important. Failing to gather data on characteristics that did not seem important at the time of data collection is an experience shared by many researchers. While there is no way of knowing for certain where trends will lead, researchers should gather a wide ranging set of ideas and opinions before moving forward. Another challenge of longitudinal research is asking the questions that will be the most relevant in the future. A colleague once characterized longitudinal research as “research on questions you should have asked.” While it may be true that there are some instances when opportunities were missed and some questions left unaddressed at the beginning of the study that later on prove to be important, the fact remains that longitudinal research allows researchers to examine change and the potential causes of these changes. Since longitudinal research focuses primarily on individuals, change is something that can be identified and tracked. Having the potential to ask and answer questions reaching into the future is a critical characteristic of strong educational research. Aside from data collection, shifts in the study sample may lead to serious complicating outcomes. Attrition is chief among these changes. Longitudinal studies are notorious for problems of attrition among the study samples. There does not appear to be a solution to mitigating participants from leaving a study. However, losing participants does not always mean that the study loses its viability to produce useful findings. Participants withdrawing or simply not responding to inquiries may reduce the effect size of the data set by very large portions. For example, Novak’s 12-year longitudinal study saw his sample size drop from 191 to 38 in the treatment group and from 48 to 17 in the control group. Rather than deciding to abandon this

4

A Look at Longitudinal Research in Science Education Through a. . .

101

study due to the reduction in sample size, Novak’s tactic was to switch his research approach from experimental to qualitative. This approach allowed him to continue pursuing some questions regarding the resilience of conceptual development. Large-scale longitudinal data sets suffer from similar levels of attrition. For example, NELS:88 began with an original sample size of 24,599 students in eighth Grade in 1988. When the final follow-up wave of data was collected in 2000, only 12,144 participants continued to participate. Yet, despite the fact that less than 50% of the original respondents continued to participate, the resulting final follow-up wave of data is still immensely valuable. The key to retaining a viable data set is to understand if the missing respondents are missing completely at random or did some trend of behavior lead nonrespondents to decline participation. There exist analytical techniques for examining missing data (Little and Rubin 2002; Schafer 1997) and determining whether there are trends or patterns in the missing data. Data missing completely at random indicates the remaining data is relatively robust for further analysis assuming that the sample size remains viable. In short, attrition is a challenge, but there are ways (imperfect as they may be) for coming to grips with diminished respondents. It is critically important for researchers to understand which participants are leaving the study, taking care to examine trends and similarities among them. Especially in the case where researchers are examining questions related to multicultural issues. It is precisely here that differences often reveal themselves. Even the examination of differences between remaining participants and those who leave might uncover critically important findings. And here we have come full circle. The lens of multiculturalism offers both insight into the research design and the interpretation of findings. Many times, reliance on methodology leads to overreliance. Longitudinal research is a method of research that offers the potential to produce great insight, but without proper attention paid to the sociocultural, multicultural factors impacting the study, even well-designed and strictly implemented studies can fail and when researchers do pay close attention to these factors, outcomes can be both surprising and impactful.

References Alexander JM, Johnson KE, Kelley K (2012) Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science and the development of interests related to science. Sci Educ 96:763–786 Chen H-T, Wang H-H, Lin H-S, Lawrenz FP, Hong Z-R (2014) Longitudinal study of an afterschool, inquiry-based science intervention on low-achieving children’s affective perceptions of learning science. Int J Sci Educ 36(13):2133–2156 Fadigan KA, Hammrich PL (2004) A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. J Res Sci Teach 41(8):835– 860 Johnson P (2005) The development of children’s concept of a substance: a longitudinal study of interaction between curriculum and learning. Res Sci Educ 35:41–61 Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

102

R. H. Tai

Novak JD (2005) Results and implications of a 12-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. Res Sci Educ 35:23–40 Pei X, Jin Y, Zheng T, Zhao J (2020) Longitudinal effect of a technology-emhanced learning environment on sixth-grade students’ science learning: The role of reflection. Int J Sci Educ 42(2):271–289 Reiss MJ (2005) Managing endings in a longitudinal study: respect for persons. Res Sci Educ 34: 123–135 Schafer JL (1997) Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton Semega J, Kollar M, Shrider EA, Creamer JF (2020) Income and poverty in the United States: 2019. (Publication no. P60-270). US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.pdf Tai RH (1999) Investigating academic initiative: countering Asian and Latino educational stereotypes. In: Tai RH, Kenyatta M (eds) Critical ethnicities: countering the waves of identity politics. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham Tai RH, Liu CQ, Maltese AV, Fan X (2006) Planning early for careers in science. Science 312(5777):1143–1144

Resources National Center of Education Statistics (Department of Education). https://nces.ed.gov/training/ datauser/COMO_07.html?dest¼COMO_07_S0330.html Bureau of Labor Statistics (Department of Labor) Links below NLSY of 1979. https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79 NLSY of 1997. https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy97 NICHD (National Institutes of Health) Links below National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). https://www.cpc.unc.edu/ projects/addhealth Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) (Jon Miller, University of Michigan). https://www. icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/30263?q¼LSAY Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge Theorizing the Relations Between Methodology and Digital Visual Research Methods Marilyn Fleer, Glykeria Fragkiadaki, and Prabhat Rai

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Cultural-Historical Methodology for Studying Children in Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural and Biological Development as a Dialectic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coexistence of Contemporary and Historical Nature of Human Development . . . . . . . . . . . . Research as a Dynamic Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Dynamics of the Ideal and Real Forms of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Age of the Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dialectical Relation Between Social Situation and Social Situation of Development . . . . . Principle 1: Creating in a Condensed Form Scientific Concept Formation as an Educational Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vignette 1: Science as a Cultural Form of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principle 2: Core Concepts for Showing the Process of Scientific Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principle 3: Understandings Formed in Social Relations in Cultural Communities Rather than in the Head of the Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principle 4: The Researcher’s Role Should Be Included in the Data Collection Rather than Made Invisible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example 1 Augmented Reality Tools to Amplify Children’s Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example 2 Conceptual PlayWorld Starters and Virtual Reality Tools in Conceptual PlayWorld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104 106 107 108 109 110 112 112 115 117 121 125 129 130 131 132 135 137

Abstract

As digital technologies have become more developed, new ways of researching have emerged and greater insights into the cultural nature of science established. Yet methodologies have not kept pace with the new methods that have become available. M. Fleer (*) · G. Fragkiadaki · P. Rai Conceptual PlayLab, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: marilyn.fl[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_60

103

104

M. Fleer et al.

This is not a new problem. Vygotsky wrote that the core issue for researchers was to show the relations between the method and the methodology. In his time, his system of concepts gave insights into this theoretical problem. The principles he developed included the following: (a) creating in a condensed form scientific concept formation, (b) the processes rather than the end product of development should be studied, (c) understandings form in social relations rather than in the head of the individual, and (d) the researcher’s role should be included in the data set rather than made invisible. In this chapter we build upon what is known theoretically about a culturalhistorical methodology by presenting an overview of the central cultural-historical concepts that we have identified in the collected works of Vygotsky that are relevant to digital visual methodology for researching in science education. We showcase examples of new digital tools that we have designed and used in our Conceptual PlayLab (https://www.monash.edu/conceptual-playworld/about-research) when studying teachers, young children, and their families engaged in STEM learning. We argue that the introduction of new digital visual tools will continue to emerge, and therefore theorizing a cultural-historical methodology is urgently needed for framing the rich conceptual work that takes place when researchers study learning in science education across multiple cultural contexts. Keywords

STEM learning · Cultural-historical pedagogy · Multicultural science education · Digital methodology · Augmented reality app

Introduction This chapter examines the relations between method and methodology in the context of Western science education. The chapter is situated within a volume that is focused on multicultural science education. Specifically, this chapter draws on culturalhistorical concepts to theorize a methodology and methods that use digital tools for studying children’s cultural learning of science. But this is not a simple task. First, tools which support understanding how children make meaning in contexts of science learning need to be conceptualized as part of a political system of human relationships in a particular place and time. Human relationships and ways of being in the world are framed in research as a cultural practice and way of entering into the cultural community in which one is born (El-Hani and Mortimer 2007). In line with the focus of this handbook, we draw upon Atwater et al. (2013), who suggest that culture creates patterns of shared values or worldviews that are not static and where intergenerational knowledge about the meaning of the world are constructed, shaped, and transmitted. In the context of this book: It must be understood that there is not a one-fit solution the diversity issues in science education. Science teachers, science teacher educators, and science education researchers must work together to find constructive ways for all students to experience quality science teaching and learning. (p. 12)

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

105

The definition by Atwater et al. (2013) is in keeping with the foundational culturalhistorical concepts of Vygotsky (1987) whose focus was on the cultural development of the child. In line with this logic, Western science has to be thought of as a valued cultural practice that has been developed in support of societal needs and political imperatives (whether good or bad). Second, educational institutions create conditions to support young children to learn these knowledge forms that society values and says are important for children to learn (Hedegaard 2014). What we know is not only do education systems reproduce concepts that have evolved over time (Martínez-Álvarez 2019); the concepts are used by school graduates who become scientists and further build knowledge of the world and its inhabitants and ecosystems (Le and Matias 2019). What is learned can be thought about as cultural constructions and expressions that guide societies and institutions and help individuals to navigate (Billingsley 2016). However, these systems of concepts introduced through schooling support the development of particular worldviews which can become conceptualized as universal understandings (Aguilar-Valdez et al. 2013; Le and Matias 2019). Going beyond these potentially solidified universal ways of thinking about the world is an important practice in researching in schools. This chapter introduces concepts and tools to deal with this problem by studying how the cultural development of Western science forms, using powerful tools to unearth how groups of people make particular meaning of their world. Cultural insights emerge when we follow how children enter into, are shaped by, and shape societal values, institutional practices, and the cultural conditions in which children find themselves (Hedegaard 2014). Third, culturally diverse contexts, where the intersection of worldviews arises (Aguilar-Valdez et al. 2013), can create disjunctions and tensions as contractions become visible in these intersecting fuzzy zones (e.g., Aikenhead 2006). What we know is that universal understandings of science have come into question, and new ways of making these knowledge forms visible as cultural expressions through research continue to emerge (e.g., Aikenhead and Michel 2011). Having a broader range of understandings about how to explain the world gives more tools to societies, communities, families, and individuals faced with a dynamic and changing world. In this chapter we contribute methodological insights into better understanding how cultural knowledge of science are dynamically produced and reproduced in educational settings. Fourth, alongside disrupting notions of universal views of science, and studying Western constructions of knowledge, is the idea that cultural knowledge is always in a state of change. The idea that cultural knowledge of science is known and static has been questioned throughout the history of scientific thought (see Hawking 1988). But also, this conception of cultural expressions and knowledge generation in science is in keeping with the orientation of this volume. This perspective demands a dynamic set of methods for studying how cultural development of science concepts emerges and continues to develop over time. In this chapter we offer examples of digital tools which align with this orientation and go beyond a static view of culture. Taken together, the problem of this chapter is to theorize methods and methodology in ways that capture the complexity of ongoing cultural knowledge production

106

M. Fleer et al.

of science in educational settings. The discussions in this chapter recognize that science as a body of knowledge has been historically developed to support particular societal needs and ways of understanding the world. It is also recognized that Western science in particular has come to be known as a way of explaining how the world works, and this orientation is reproduced in education systems as valued forms of knowledge. Therefore, in this chapter, we suggest that Western science represents a particular worldview of how a specific group of peoples come to understand their natural and human-made environment. In line with the focus of this volume, Western science must then be conceptualized as a set of shared values, beliefs, languages, behaviors, artifacts, and knowledge forms (Atwater 1996; Atwater et al. 2013; Atwater and Riley 1993) and formed at particular times and in particular ways to support specific societal needs. The goal of this chapter is to feature theorized visual methods and tools for studying how young children and their families develop culturally shared meaning of science in a context of multicultural science education. In order to achieve the goal of this chapter, we begin with a theoretical discussion of methodology from a Vygotskian perspective, where the focus is on presenting the central concepts for the methods that foreground culture when studying science learning. This is followed by examples of a set of digital tools which illustrate the methodology in action and showcase how science learning can be visually represented. Digital tools and analytical techniques are discussed in relation to how knowledge forms culturally develop in contexts of science education. In the final section of the chapter, we theorize the relations between method and methodology for the cultural formation of the child in science learning contexts. Here we say more about the cultural nature of science and science learning for young children. We conclude the chapter by bringing together the insights gained and making suggestions on how researchers in science education can conceptualize their methods in ways that encompass culture, rather than consider culture as a variable to be added on to the study design (Rogoff 2003).

A Cultural-Historical Methodology for Studying Children in Science Education In this section we draw on a system of concepts that make up Vygotsky’s culturalhistorical methodology to build a discussion around method and methodology for researching the cultural nature of science learning and teaching. For smooth scholarship, we do not distinguish between knowledge forms here, such as multicultural science education, but leave this until the latter part of the chapter. Important for the theoretical argument we build in this chapter is making explicit how we conceptualize what it is we are researching and what data we are seeking to capture with the tools we introduce, in relation to the cultural construction and development of Western science. Therefore, in seeking to capture some form of change in the human condition, we need to conceptualize what we mean when we study the cultural development of science knowledge. As such, we cannot showcase

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

107

research methods without a foundational view of a cultural-historical conception of development. Therefore, we begin by discussing the cultural nature of human development, followed by a theoretical exposition of concepts relevant for researching in science education contexts where we expect to see development in the human condition. Specifically, the theoretical concepts we discuss underpins the sections that follow. We now turn to six characteristics of a cultural-historical conception of development as foundational for a methodology which speaks directly to researching in science education.

Cultural and Biological Development as a Dialectic The central argument we make is that a child is born into a cultural community and, through everyday life with their families and the educational institutions they attend, becomes oriented to the practice traditions of the places they inhabit (Andersson et al. 2020). In being an active member of their community, children do not simply reinvent the history of scientific thought but act in relation to what a community already knows and does. This means that children do not begin their learning journey in science on their own (Avraamidou 2019). Cultural knowledge and the cultural construction of science concepts are invented by humans to explain the world in which they live and do not exist in nature or in the DNA of a human. Cultural development of scientific thought and action is a human invention at a particular point in time and is inherited as part of a child’s social practice (El-Hani and Mortimer 2007). This is the basic premise of a cultural-historical view of science education that we present. Yet children do not enter the world with the biological capacity to simply understand what is already known. From birth, children are biologically developing at the same time as being oriented to the cultural forms of knowledge valued in their family, community, and society. This dynamic is complex and is in constant motion and therefore difficult to capture in research. In conceptualizing the cultural and biological processes of development of children, Vygotsky (1997) differentiated, but he did not “sharply separate the one process from the other” (p. 22). He wrote, “In our research, we are far from indifferent to the biological background against which cultural development of the child occurs, or to which forms and at which level a merging of both processes occurs” (p. 22). In this theoretical reading of development, research must be seen to capture “the basic uniqueness of child development [which] consists in the merging of cultural and biological processes of development” (p. 23). This means researchers need methods that will capture this dynamic. The biological and the cultural development of children exist within the societal values and institutional practices that shape a child’s emerging developmental trajectory. For example, an infant who begins to walk as a result of their biological development has agency in accessing culturally formed practices simply because they can now walk and reach things in their environment that previously had to be given to them by an adult. Exploration and curiosity become realized because of the biological development of a child. Conversely, a child who has been introduced to a digital microscope on a tablet and has experiences with looking at pond life or

108

M. Fleer et al.

microbial actions in the compost bin is more likely to make sense of viruses in a context of COVID-19. This cultural knowledge of science and the associated social practices of handwashing, physical distancing, and mask wearing to foil aerosol droplets into the air give new ways of thinking about how their world works – furthering and stimulating biological development of the human brain. Taken together, a cultural-historical methodology needs methods and tools to capture dialectically cultural and biological development of the child in contexts of science learning in everyday life and in the educational institutions s/he attends.

Coexistence of Contemporary and Historical Nature of Human Development Cultural development in contemporary times as realized in family homes and educational settings is always located historically (Le and Matias 2019). History does not mean learning about the past, as facts or interpretations of past events. That is an everyday reading of history. A cultural-historical conception of history is more dialectical. As Vygotsky said in bringing together the historical with the cultural, it becomes evident that cultural-historical research seeks to, “study something historically [and this] means to study it in motion” (Vygotsky 1997, p. 43). Therefore, researchers need to pay close attention to cultural practices of the past that have their remnants in the present. In research this is not as evident as a biological trait of the child, but rather it has to be seen as a cultural pull of particular practices that are released in the dynamics of the cultural (and not biological) development of the child. But many cultural practices and beliefs formed in relation to societal needs at different historical times are difficult to notice, because communities and researchers can become blind to these. This is particularly so in Western science (e.g., GallegosCÁzares et al. 2020). For instance: . . .the timing of one or another stage or form of development to certain points of organic maturity, occurred over centuries and millennia and led to such a fusion of the one process and the other that child psychology stopped differentiating the one process from the other and became convinced that mastery of cultural forms of behavior is just a natural a symptom of organic maturity of any bodily trait. (Vygotsky 1997, p. 23)

Researchers need powerful tools to be able to notice what may have become historically fossilized in everyday practices of the human condition. Our psychological fossils show, in a petrified and arrested form, their internal development. The beginning and end of development is united in them. They actually are outside the process of development. Their own development is finished. ...making them incomparable material for study. (Vygotsky 1997, p. 44)

But a great deal of research tends to study their subject as a postmortem of already developed children (Vygotsky 1997). It has been suggested by Vygotsky (1997) that in this type of research, the focus is on the study of the product of development rather than on the process of development. Therefore, cultural-historical researchers need:

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

109

To encompass in research the process of development of some thing in all its phases and changes-from the moment of its appearance to its death-means to reveal its nature, to know its essence, for only in movement does the body exhibit that it is. (Vygotsky 1997, p. 43)

Taken together, a cultural-historical methodology must theorize the historical nature of human development in the present moment as part of the study design. This means that the “historical study of behavior is not supplementary or auxiliary to theoretical study, but is a basis of the latter” (Vygotsky 1997, p. 43) and is always in motion, when researching how children culturally construct scientific knowledge.

Research as a Dynamic Whole There is a growing sense in contemporary research for the need to study children’s learning and development in science more holistically (Fleer et al. 2014; Fragkiadaki et al. 2020). It is suggested that a child and the child’s environment must be studied as a dynamic whole. This view has its roots in Vygotsky’s (1998) conception of child development. To explore this methodological principle, we present one of Vygotsky’s most powerful and consistently cited quotations of the metaphor of analyzing water into the elements of H and then of O: . . .analysis begins with the decomposition of the complex mental whole into its elements. This mode of analysis can be compared with chemical analysis of water in which water is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen. The essential feature of this form of analysis is that its products are of different nature than the whole from which they were derived. The elements lack the characteristics inherent in the whole and they possess property that it did not possess. (Vygotsky 1987, p. 45)

When researchers study the child acquisition of the concepts of science like elements, they miss in their analysis the institutional practices that create the conditions, how the child enters into the activities of science learning, and how worldviews are formed. By only paying attention to the child, they only achieve a narrow elemental analysis. In contrast, when we take into account the cultural development of scientific thought in all its forms, this gives a more holistic view of the child’s acquisition of scientific concepts. Returning to the metaphor of H2O, we can see that when H and O are conceptualized together as a whole we better understand these elements relationally as H2O: The chemical formula for water has a consistent relationship to all the characteristics of water. It applies to water in all its forms. It helps us to understand the characteristics of water as manifested in the great oceans or as manifested in a drop of rain. (Vygotsky 1987, p. 45)

Consequently, we need an approach in research that is not about the decomposition of something into its elements, as in the case of water – hydrogen and oxygen – but research needs to catch the relational essence of what characterizes water regardless of where and in what form it can be found. If we only study hydrogen and oxygen as

110

M. Fleer et al.

separate elements, we know little about its characteristics of water (essence is captured in the relational formulae of H2O). Further, when researching the cultural development of science knowledge, if we, for example, find that children learn that the concept of force in friction is captured as the formula F ¼ μN to calculate friction, with N standing for the normal force and μ incorporating the characteristics of the surface, then we know little about the worldview of the child who embodies force in everyday life when riding a bike across different surfaces. Similarly, we do not know how the conditions were created for the cultural development of scientific knowledge and activities for how to study force when it is not directly visible to a child. Further, we do not know how the word force is used in everyday life to explain coercion or is spiritually important or is used as a popular expression from the media, such as, “May the force be with you.” By theorizing the research holistically and by conceptualizing what might be its relational essence, we can dialectically understand person and environment. Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) have introduced the concept of a double move to catch in research this dialectic between school discipline concepts and how they become personally meaningful to the child. This is part of a broader contemporary framing for the study of children that Hedegaard (2019) has named as a wholistic approach to research. Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) have studied how in an afterschool program educators needed to find ways of making school concepts personally meaningful to children, and they did this by determining what were the motivating conditions that were part of their everyday life in their cultural community. At the same time, they determined the germ cell of the discipline concept the children were to learn, so that children could create relational models that captured the essence of the concept. This wholistic theorization is in keeping with the focus of this volume of multiple cultural constructions of science learning and is an example in contemporary times of how the characteristics of the whole and its essence are drawn upon and developed to show the motivating conditions for making learning more meaningful to children. In line with Vygotsky (1998), a change in a child’s motives is suggestive of a change in their development. A cultural-historical methodology frames the research holistically so that methods used can show how children make meaning of science concepts in relation to their lives, interests, and what matters in their families and communities. Rather than a study of elements, researchers look for the relational essence of the concept in the context of the meaning-making processes. This dialectic gives a perspective that supports researchers to unearth the characteristics of what is being studied more holistically at the same time realizing how science concepts become personally meaningful to children. This brings forth research which can interpret how societies and communities create conditions for the development of cultural knowledge of science in educational institutions and in the lives of families.

The Dynamics of the Ideal and Real Forms of Development A cultural-historical methodology theorizes research methods that can study what might constitute the ideal cultural form of science knowledge that is made available

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

111

to children, not as concepts introduced one concept at a time, but rather as something that is available to the child at the beginning of their development of scientific thought about how the world works, such as when families explain in everyday life why they need to close the door for keeping the room warm. Understanding air movement and intensity as molecular activity, in a context of temperature differences of the air, is not expected to be understood immediately for a young child. Vygotsky (1994) asked: Will the child be capable of mastering this ideal form, will he [sic] simply assimilate and imitate it in one or one and a half years of his life? He will not. But, nevertheless, can a child this age [sic], moving from the first to the last step, gradually adjust his primary form to this final one? Yes, investigations show that this is exactly what does happen. (p. 349)

If a child is to develop a scientific conception of how the world works in everyday life, then what is expected to be known needs to be made available to the young child from the very beginning. Vygotsky (1994) wrote about this in relation to human development, stating that: . . .in child development that which it is possible to achieve at the end and as the result of the developmental process, is already available in the environment from the very beginning. And it is not simply present in the environment from the very start, but it exerts an influence [cultural pull] on the very first steps in the child’s development. (pp. 347–348, emphasis in original)

The cultural back and forth pull toward particular explanations bring practices and concepts together in everyday life for a child. Studying how institutions create these conditions for the development of scientific thought means we have to look at what kinds of cultural knowledge forms are being presented holistically to children in their complete and meaningful form – the ideal. How a child responds to the cultural back and forth pull of the ideal form must also be considered as part of the study design. Vygotsky (1994) conceptualized the child’s agency and actions in relation to the ideal form as her or his real form of development. In research it is the dialectical relation between the child’s present form of development and the ideal form of development that is made available in the environment of the child. A cultural-historical study is interested to research this dialectical back and forth pull: An ideal or final form is present in the environment and it interacts with the rudimentary form found in children, and what results is a certain form of activity which then becomes a child’s internal asset, his [sic] property and a function of his personality. (Vygotsky 1994, p. 353)

The complexity of capturing the dynamic between the ideal form of scientific thought and action and the real form of a particular child’s development is realized in cultural-historical research. This theorization of the process of development can help researchers interested in understanding how it is that different communities create different knowledge forms and practices for explaining how the world works.

112

M. Fleer et al.

Therefore, in capturing through the research process what is the valued cultural expression and knowledge forms of science that is available at the beginning of the development of children, it becomes possible to trace the relation between the child and this knowledge and practice. In so doing, researchers can show how societal values become part of the institutional practices that a child attends and more rigorously understand the nature of scientific thought and action of an individual child who is a participant in the research context. The dialectical concepts of ideal and real form help researchers to conceptualize how to study in one setting diverse cultural knowledge systems from diverse populations that are brought together into the context of learning science concepts.

Cultural Age of the Child When the dynamics of biological and cultural development in historical/present context is studied in relation to the ideal and real forms of science thought being developed, we are still missing a piece of the research puzzle. We know that when children enter the same institutional setting to learn science, each child is unique and has their own social situation of development that they bring to this social situation (Vygotsky 1994). How teachers create the conditions for the dynamic between the ideal and real form of development has to be thought about in relation to the cultural age period of children and their leading motive for play, learning, imagining, communicating, etc. (Vygotsky 1998). The cultural age of the child is a specific cultural-historical conceptualization. Unlike biological conceptions of human development which attribute the age of the child to a predetermined set of biological stages, a cultural-historical conception seeks to understand development in relation to the societal values and institutional practices and how they create developmental conditions (Hedegaard 2019). For instance, in many Western countries, preschools are charged with creating playful conditions to support children’s development, and on entering school, a more formal structure is created so that learning becomes the leading activity of children. In Australia this transition happens at 5, while in Nordic countries this takes place at 6 or 7. The practices of the institutions create different conditions, and children’s motive orientation develops in relation to those practices rather than specifically to the biological age of the child. The cultural age of the child highlights to researchers how children develop different cultural knowledge of science in institutions where play or learning is the practice tradition of the settings being researched.

Dialectical Relation Between Social Situation and Social Situation of Development The cultural age of the child has to be conceptualized in research as part of the dialectical relations between the child’s social situation and their social situation of

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

113

development. To theorize development of cultural knowledge in science in a study which includes a broad range of worldviews from diverse participants, we need to draw on this dialectical concept of the social situation and the social situation of development (Vygotsky 1994). To explain the relations between the child and the conditions created for their development of scientific thought and action, three key interrelated principles need to be introduced in relation to the methodology that frames the methods of using digital tools for unearthing the cultural development of scientific knowledge. First, any study of children in science education should recognize that all children come from diverse backgrounds and bring with them their own experiences, emotions, motives, knowledge, and worldviews, to name but a few (Boda 2019). Therefore, each child will bring a different attitude and experience base to the same learning situation, and this means they will experience the same situation differently (Davis and Callihan 2013). This interaction with the same environment based on different attitudes to the same situation has been named by Vygotsky as the child’s social situation of development. But it is not a one way process of simply an attitude, but it is a way of experiencing the social situation: what they notice, the cultural pull of the situation, how they enter into the social situation, how they contribute and change their social situation, how the social situation shapes what they can do, and how they understand it or feel about the social situation of science learning. Second, researchers following a cultural-historical tradition in designing their studies pay attention to the child’s conscious awareness of what they are experiencing. For example, when researching a social situation where a child is experiencing border crossing between worldviews in science (Aikenhead 2006), there is a need to make visible this self-awareness of contradiction and possible emotional crisis. But this is difficult to do. As Vygotsky (1994) says, research: . . .ought to always be capable of finding the particular prism through which the influence of the environment on the child is refracted, i.e. it ought to be able to find the relationship which exists between the child and its environment, the child’s emotional experience [perezhivanie], in other words how a child becomes aware of, interprets, [and] emotionally relates to a certain event. (p. 341, emphasis in original)

This conception is related to the methodological point of Vygotsky, where he argued that we have to consider in research a unit of emotional experience as part of the whole research context and in our conception of studying the cultural construction of knowledge in science for a child; this means not just going beyond elements to be studied but rather to be looking for relational units to be analyzed. That is: An emotional experience [perezhivanie] is a unit where, on the one hand, in an indivisible state, the environment is represented, i.e. that which is experienced – an emotional experience [perezhivanie] is always related to something which is found outside the person – and on the other hand, which is represented is how I, myself, am experiencing this, i.e., all the personal characteristics and all the environmental characteristics are represented in an emotional experience [perezhivanie]. (Vygotsky 1994, p. 342, emphasis in original)

114

M. Fleer et al.

This brings attention to not only the emotional nature of how knowledge in science are culturally constructed but suggests that there is always an emotional relationship between context and person. Yet many approaches to research are not interested in the relations between thoughts and feelings during the process of learning science knowledge and practices (Avraamidou 2020). However, cultural-historical research foregrounds the relations between emotions and cognition, and in science education, this is particularly important because a great deal of research has identified the importance of capturing in research the emotional nature of science learning in schools (e.g., Bellocchi et al. 2013, 2017). But also, as mentioned by AguilarValdez et al. (2013), “How students are perceived deeply affects the space we give to students’ ways of knowing and student voice, or to the oppression of that voice” (p. 853). Third, the cultural-historical concept of the social situation of development also makes visible in research the motive orientations of the participants. How a child enters into the science activity settings within institutions is dependent on their leading motive. A child who is oriented to learn will enter a setting differently to a child whose leading activity is to play. This means that a child with a leading motive to play and a child with a leading motive to learn will experience the same science activity setting differently (Vygotsky 1994). A child who wishes to play may take the science objects to create an imaginary situation, such as when a tub of water and different objects are available to test for buoyancy, and create a pirate boat adventure. A child who is oriented to learn is more likely to take the object and systematically test them to determine buoyancy, explore the forces that are acting, and consider the density of the materials when trying to make meaning from the same objects. How each child enters into and experiences the same activity setting is dependent on their leading motive to play or learn. The meaning they make at the same time as how the activity setting puts demands upon them can be conceptualized as their social situation of development. When the science activity setting places new demands upon children (Hedegaard 2008), such as asking children why their clay pirate boat does not sink but the clay ball does, it can also create a contradiction for them, which can result in a change in their motive orientation from play to learning. Contradictions at different times in the context of the accepted institutional practices for learning or play can over time lead to a change in motives for children (Vygotsky 1998). In cultural-historical research, conceptualizing the social situation of the science activity setting with all of its demands (e.g., emotions and cognition) can only be understood in relation to the child’s social situation of development – their leading activity or motive orientation. Framing research in science education to capture the dialectical relations between the social situation of science learning and the social situation of development of the child can yield conceptually rich data that meaningfully shows the cultural development of scientific knowledge and emotions in motion. This section has shown six central characteristics of a cultural-historical methodology which informs and shapes the methods when using digital tools for studying the cultural development of scientific knowledge and actions in educational settings. In summary, what is promoted in the study of the development of

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

115

science knowledge and actions is a methodology to guide a set of methods that can make visible in analysis the: • • • • • •

Interplay of cultural and biological development. Contemporary and historical nature of human development. Dynamic whole of child and activity setting within educational institutions. Ideal and real forms of development. Cultural age of the child. The social situation and social situation of development.

In building on these six characteristics of development that act as the backbone for the methodology and method for studying the cultural formation of science in educational institutions, we discuss in the section that follows a series of methodological principles with a selection of methods that we have designed in our Conceptual PlayLab. Together, they showcase a cultural-historical approach to researching the cultural nature of learning and development in science from infancy into schooling contexts in ways that productively inform thinking about multicultural science.

Principle 1: Creating in a Condensed Form Scientific Concept Formation as an Educational Experiment Cultural-historical researchers studying the formation of scientific knowledge in educational settings prepare their study designs in ways that show the dynamic processes of development. For this first principle, we discuss how researchers can follow children in naturalistic settings to observe how they develop scientific understandings relevant for their cultural community. Although well recognized in anthropology and ethnography, this practice is time-consuming for researchers and may not lead to the relational dimensions that underpin a cultural-historical conception of the formation of scientific knowledge. However, it is possible to create specific research conditions so that researchers can study in a condensed form the development of scientific concepts by children in educational settings. But there are challenges for setting up these developmental conditions. Vygotsky (1997) said that, “The greatest difficulty in genetic analysis consists precisely in using experimentally elicited and artificially organized processes of behavior to penetrate into how the real, natural process of development occurs” (p. 94). What is key here is being able to create conditions which allows for an unfolding of what would normally occur slowly in naturalistic settings, but in a shorter period of time and under certain observational and relational conditions that are of interest to science education researchers. That is: having unfolded a certain form of behaviour as a process, it helps to note, in a condensed form, the more important instances of cultural development and to find their relations to

116

M. Fleer et al.

each other. . . .it is still necessary to trace the path along which the cultural form of behavior develops. (Vygotsky 1997, pp. 93–94, emphasis added)

We can capture this theoretically as a living laboratory for studying the cultural formation of scientific concepts by children in educational settings. As was discussed in the previous section, there is a dialectical relation between the biological and the cultural forms of development that merge at different periods throughout the life course of a human being. Different age periods of children (preschool age, school age) are realized in cultural practices as the cultural age of the child, and this conception influences how educational institutions create conditions for learning in science (through play, through concrete activities, through abstraction). Creating these developmental conditions in a condensed form through research within the living laboratory can be achieved through an educational experiment. Hedegaard (2008) originally introduced the method of an educational experiment as part of studying children in schools to build theoretical models that allow school discipline concepts, such as science, to become personally meaningful to children. Captured through the concept of a double move, she says that a planned intervention in an educational experiment looks at both the planned activities of the teachers (motivating conditions) and the actual activities of the students (motive orientation). According to Hedegaard (2002), a double move foregrounds both the child’s interests and motives and the motivating conditions created by the teachers to support concepts becoming personally meaningful to children. She says, the educational experiment should reveal: • How group activity, cooperation, and division of work influence children’s problem solving and development of motives. • How using models in teaching helps students to formulate their own models which create connections between theoretical concepts and specific events. • How subject matter methods and teaching strategies lead to personal thinking strategies and changes in children’s conceptual models. • How using procedures influence children’s active explorations and their development of motives (Hedegaard 2008, p. 187). An educational experiment is designed as an extended collaboration between the participants and the researchers where the problem of the research is theoretical rather than a problem of practice. She said: The teaching activity must consider children’s engagement with each other and the demands of solving tasks together; it should also ensure that the tasks draw on the children’s everyday knowledge and interest, and promote shared engagement. The teaching activities should seek to combine these elements with the educational goals and subject matter knowledge in ways that transform and combine children’s everyday knowledge and goals with their motives and interests, into new motives. (p. 188, emphasis added)

An educational experiment can be thought about as a particular type of teaching activity in schools. Lindqvist (1995) has also used an educational experiment, but

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

117

rather than focusing her research on school settings, she was interested to study preschool children in early childhood play-based settings. She defined an educational experiment as, “a form of action or intervention research, where everyday situations are systematically intervened, and an educational perspective is combined with a research perspective” (p. 67). Relevant to the example that is to follow, Lindqvist introduced a playworld intervention into practice in order to study the development of preschool children. Although her orientation was not on discipline concept of science, her approach does align with that of Hedegaard (2008) and is generally reflective of creating in a condensed form the cultural development of the child in educational settings. Lindqvist’s (1995) methodology for researching young children in a common playworld and Hedegaard’s (2008) conception of a double move as core for creating this dialectical unit are contemporary examples of an educational experiment. Their research captures the process in motion, is mindful of the past in the present research setting, and goes beyond conceptualizing the development of children’s higher mental functions as fossilized and studying these in their complete form. Both Lindqvist’s (1995) and Hedegaard’s (2008) conception of an educational experiment informed the methods we now show for researching in the living laboratory of the Conceptual PlayLab. Key for the example of our educational experiment was capturing the ongoing practices of the teachers in social relations with the infants and toddlers as scientific concepts become personally meaningful in imaginary situations. A Conceptual PlayWorld model creates in condensed form the developmental conditions we were interested to study, and this informed how we proceeded with our educational experiment. We sought to create developmental conditions in a condensed form for the infant/ toddler for the cultural formation of science through an educational experiment. We give a theoretical overview of characteristics (column 1), developmental concepts (column 2), and examples of the activity setting (column 3) (Table 1). We used digital tools to make visible the cultural formation of science knowledge for the infants and toddlers in social relations with their teachers. Data from our living laboratory were captured through using two cameras – one camera on a tripod to catch holistically the science activity setting and a handheld camera to follow how infants and toddlers enter into this activity setting as part of their social relations with educators. We showcase how the theorized concepts (column 2) framed how the camera captured the activities of the infants and toddlers under a condensed form of developmental conditions where science knowledge were being studied in our educational experiment of a Conceptual PlayWorld.

Vignette 1: Science as a Cultural Form of Knowledge The vignette that follows (Vignette 1) illustrates how the science (biology) concept of ecosystem can be introduced within a Conceptual PlayWorld inspired by the children’s book a Possum in the House written by Kiersten Jensen. The story talks

118

M. Fleer et al.

Table 1 Creating in a condensed form the developmental conditions for the cultural formation of science concepts

Planning your problem to be solved

Developmental concepts of the dynamic whole Drama/crisis/cultural age Imagination as a source of development Social situation and social situation of development Ideal and real form of development

What role the teacher will take in the conceptual PlayWorld

Interplay of cultural and biological development

Characteristics of a Conceptual PlayWorld Selecting a story for the conceptual PlayWorld Designing the imaginary spaces Entering and exiting the PlayWorld in character

Cultural construction of science knowledge Possum in the house by Kiersten Jensen House in the story

Following possum prints in collective imaginary play Finding the family a possum belongs to: The concept of the biological characteristics of possums (furry, habitat, diet, mammals, marsupials, nocturnals) Searching for a possum (the concepts of sound, sound’s travelling, vibration, unique footprints) Finding a place suitable for possums to live in: The concept of ecosystem and the differences between diverse ecosystems (characteristics of the physical environment, the fauna, the flora) Designing a habitat for a possum (the concepts of design process, mechanics, modeling, controlling materials) Teachers: Introduce advanced/ideal forms of imagining into child’s environment Introduce props, artifacts, tools, and signs to amplify child’s imagining Are constantly in role as co-players with different role: leading the imaginary situation, be led by the child within the imaginary situation, participating in joint or collective imagining (Fragkiadaki et al. 2020)

about a possum that has lost her way to her habitat and entered a human house. The problem scenario is based on the inspiration of finding a place suitable for the possum to live in. The vignette shows how the concepts can emerge within the imaginary situation of a Conceptual PlayWorld and how it can be related to everyday concepts that young children are already familiar with in daily life and everyday routines within their social and cultural environment. Early childhood teacher’s cultural practices in introducing the science concepts and supporting young children to culturally form the scientific concepts are mapped.

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

119

In this vignette, Gigi, the early childhood teacher, sets up the Conceptual PlayWorld space on the rug of the indoors space of the classroom, while toddlers are gathered together as a group. Toddlers are already familiar with the story and the problematic situation since they are participating in the Conceptual PlayWorld as a group for the last 2 weeks. Gigi is introducing a set of self-made boxes to the children. The boxes are models that represent different ecosystems: (a) desert, (b) ocean, (c) forest, and (d) urban area. The boxes are covered outside with an image of each ecosystem accordingly. Within the boxes there are miniatures of the animals that live in each ecosystem such as camels in the case of desert as well as characteristics of the ecosystem such as sand. The science (biology) concept that lies behind the imaginary situation introduced through the boxes is the concept of ecosystem with emphasis on the differences between diverse ecosystems such as characteristics of the physical environment, the fauna, and the flora and the interrelations between them. Toddlers’ engagement with the boxes is led by the drama introduced by the story: finding a proper place to relocate the possum that entered the house. The crisis that follows this drama motivates the toddlers since finding a resolution key to this problematic scenario is in line with their cultural age. Gigi picks up the boxes in turn and introduces one at the time. An ideal form of imagining is there from the beginning of the Conceptual PlayWorld activity setting. This could be seen in the way Gigi is orienting the toddlers toward the imaginary situation by keeping the box closed and calling them to imagine each place (e.g., “What is this place? It is hot during the day and cool during night.” “What animals do you think live in there?”). Toddlers enter the imaginary situation and start making and expressing assumptions about what the box represents (e.g., It is a desert!). Gigi is introducing an advanced and ideal form of imagining into the toddlers’ environment by pretending there is heat coming out of the box and making a gesture like she is burnt by the heat (e.g., “Oh, I feel it’s hot in there!”). After toddlers have made some predictions about what animal may live in there (e.g., “A kangaroo!”), she encourages the children to open the box and check what they can find in there (e.g., “Open the box and see what is in there?”). Toddlers open the box and observe, identify, describe, and name what they can see in each box. How toddlers are engaged with the box could be seen in the above figure (Fig. 1). The figure illustrates how Ivette, a toddler, is enthusiastically pointing to the specific elements of the box using words to name what she can observe there. The children respond to Gigi’s invitation of imagining (e.g., “I imagine how hot it is in there!”). After interacting with the box, Gigi poses the question “Is there any food or water for the possum?” As a team, they discuss if this environment is appropriate for a possum to live in, and they come to a conclusion that this is not a friendly environment for the possum because it needs water, fruit, and vegetables. The team continues in the same way with the other boxes too (e.g., “Have you seen a possum living in an ocean? Why is that?” “Possum can’t live in the ocean. . .. It is cold and deep and wet!”). Gigi poses two criteria about understanding if a place can be the habitat of a possum: (a) the existence of food that a possum can eat and (b) the existence of water. The toddlers use these criteria in the narratives that they are crafting within the Conceptual PlayWorld. As a team, the

120

M. Fleer et al.

Fig. 1 Using artifacts to support children’s cultural formation of the science (biology) concept of ecosystem

toddlers with support from Gigi come to the conclusion that a forest and in an urban environment are the places where a possum can live. This vignette showcases how the early childhood teacher introduced and used a cultural artifact, a self-made box, in order to support toddlers to form the concept of ecosystem. What is important here is that the early childhood teacher used this artifact as a mediating means to change the dynamics within the Conceptual PlayWorld activity setting creating new motives and demand on the toddlers. The cultural artifact advanced toddlers’ learning experience in science by expanding their experience over the physical space, such as the classroom, toward an imaginary space, such as the desert, the ocean, the forest, and the city, creating new learning opportunities, such as learn how physical environment, flora, and fauna are related to each other, and new understandings such as understanding the conditions for sustainable living of beings. The principle of creating in condensed form science learning conditions is shown through this example. And in following the cultural practice of mediating the activity, the early childhood teacher allowed researchers to study the amplified conditions for toddlers’ formation of the concept of ecosystem. What was critical in this process was how the condensed form of science learning could make visible toddlers’ imagination, and this allowed for the conceptual mapping of the expansion of the experience, as well as the new meanings of the object, to be studied. This example is indicative of how Principle 1 can show how imagination acts as a source of toddlers learning and development in science and how the cultural formation of scientific concepts occurs in dialectic interrelation to the child’s social and cultural reality within the new cultural practice of the Conceptual PlayWorld activity setting.

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

121

Principle 2: Core Concepts for Showing the Process of Scientific Development As Blunden (2014) argues, “every concept has within it two roots, two paths of development” (p. 5). Both of these paths are conceptualized as equally critical and necessary for the development of a concept. Everyday and scientific concepts are present and coexist within a young child’s everyday reality. These two forms of concepts are dialectically interrelated as the child lives, plays, learns, and develops across different settings and in diverse social and cultural contexts. As everyday concepts are conceptualized the concepts that reflect a child’s early forms of understandings and knowledge. The basic characteristics of everyday concepts are as follows: • Constitute basic and spontaneous conceptualizations. • Are formed and shaped in naturalistic settings as part of the daily reality, the reallife routines, and the everyday experience of the child. • Are developed through the social interactions and exchanges of the child at home and the wider community and through the use of multiple cultural media such as signs and tools. • Are combined with specific contexts, repetitive activities, and familiar situations. Everyday concepts are central and not contradictory to the development of scientific concepts (Fleer and Pramling 2015; Fragkiadaki et al. 2019). They are necessary and significant because they act as a critical baseline from which the scientific concepts will emerge, be formed, and developed as the child grows up. As scientific concepts are conceptualized the concepts that reflect a child’s later forms of understandings and knowledge. The basic characteristics of scientific concepts are as follows: • Constitute advanced, abstract, and academic conceptualizations. • Emerge and develop within organized and/or formal contexts and institutions, most notably the school settings. • Follow norms and regularities and can be generalized. • Are independent of specific contexts, activities, and situations. One concept lays the foundation for and empowers the development of the other concept (Fleer and Pramling 2015). Everyday concepts are realized, further explored, and better understood by the child through the knowledge of scientific concepts. A deeper and extensive understanding of everyday life is gained through scientific understanding. Scientific concepts are related to familiar everyday concepts to become meaningful for the child. Learning and development of scientific concepts become purposeful through everyday concepts. Taken together the above understandings highlight the critical interrelation between everyday concepts and scientific concepts. But how can this be shown in

122

M. Fleer et al.

research methods when exploring the cultural nature of science concept formation? In the following table (Table 2), we show the iterative capacity of digital data for showing science concept formation and the interrelation between everyday and scientific concepts in Science when theorized from a cultural-historical perspective. Different to some study frames, we identify in digital data collection the process and the development of a motive orientation rather than simply presenting the end result of the research (Vygotsky 1997). As presented in Table 2, the digital data gives evidence of the process of development. Firstly, digital tools make the science concept easily visible in the data set through showcasing how it is introduced, how it is used in practice, and how children play using the concept. This could be seen in Fig. 2. In this example, the early childhood teacher introduces the scientific concept of ecosystem to the toddlers by exploring collectively a set of diverse biological communities. Being in the Conceptual PlayWorld Possum in a House, the early childhood teacher supports children to identify and conceptualize the interrelations between flora, fauna, and physical environment, living and nonliving within each ecosystem. As shown in Table 2, the early childhood teacher uses a cultural artifact, self-made boxes, to introduce into the toddlers’ environment an ideal form of the development of the concept. She then invites the toddlers and creates the condition for them to interact with the boxes as a team, to wonder about the concept, express their understandings, and develop their thinking about what diverse ecosystems mean, while playing with the boxes and

Table 2 A dialectical unit of concepts and practices to inform the development of digital tool design

Scientific concept The science (biological) concept of ecosystem

Scientific explanation Diverse biological communities with interrelations between flora, fauna, and physical environment (living and nonliving) Macro ecosystems are complex networks of several microsystems

Each ecosystem creates unique conditions of living both for animals, plants, and humans

Everyday concept within condensed forms Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Digital tools Digital tools make the science concept easily visible in the data set – through how it is introduced, how it is used in practice, how children play, etc. Digital tools can show holistically and over time how a science concept develops during human relations in practice contexts Can show the relation between the ideal and real form of the concept by digitally tracing how the concept is changing/ being used/discussed by children and teachers

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

123

Fig. 2 Exploring how diverse ecosystems look like

imagining being in each ecosystem. The whole process is mapped and studied by the digital tools and the illustrative practice used in the research. Secondly, digital tools can show holistically and over time how a science concept develops during human relations in practice contexts. This can be seen in Fig. 3. In this example, a year after the example presented above, the early childhood teachers in the same early childhood center support toddlers to form the concept of microsystem and develop their understanding about how macro ecosystems are complex networks of several microsystems. The toddlers and the early childhood teachers are within the imaginary situation of the Conceptual PlayWorld inspired by the book We’re Going on a Bear Hunt written by Michael Rosen. Together they plant seeds of grass in a box to create an imaginary pasture for the characters of the story. The toddlers and the early childhood teachers watch the grass growing, indoors and outdoors. Together they explore the conditions that allow the grass to grow such as water and sun, as well as the potential insects, arthropods, and microorganisms that may develop or leave in the microsystem. The use of digital tools allows us here to map how the same concept travels within the same early childhood center and the multiple opportunities of learning that can be introduced to advance children’s understanding about the concept over time and in different everyday educational realities. Thirdly, digital tools can show the relation between the ideal and real form of the concept by digitally tracing how the concept is changing, being used, and discussed by children and the early childhood teachers. This could be seen in Fig. 4. In this example, the early childhood teachers and the toddlers explore how each ecosystem creates unique conditions of living both for animals, plants, and humans. The early childhood teacher created and then introduces to the toddlers a set of sensory bottles. Each bottle has different materials in it. The materials are inspired by and related to different environments that are introduced in the We’re Going on a Bear Hunt story: pasture, river, muddy area, woods, snow area, and a cave. For example, a bottle has leaves in it to represent the woods. Being in the imaginary situation, children move

124

M. Fleer et al.

Fig. 3 Creating a small ecosystem in the classroom

Fig. 4 Experiencing diverse ecosystems

the bottles to listen to the sound of the woods. The added value of the use of digital tools is seen through the way that diverse forms, qualities, and dynamics of forming the concept are captured. Using a set of digital tools such as digital video cameras (e.g., GoPro camera, 360 camera, wearable cameras) and applications such as Fleer’s Conceptual PlayWorld research tool gives us a flexible way of conceptualizing how science concepts are dialectically interrelated with everyday concepts during everyday educational reality and how they are developed over time. By using digital tools to follow the diverse forms of engagement with the science/biological concept of ecosystem as presented in Table 2, we argue that this allows us to show the conditions for scientific development within the social and cultural reality of a child within the early childhood settings. In our theorization we do not just focus on the science/biological concept but study how the interrelation between the

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

125

scientific concept and the everyday concept develops through different social situations within the activity setting of the Conceptual PlayWorld and across the early childhood setting. This innovative process allows us to capture scientific conceptual development in the process of becoming within a child’s social and cultural reality. At the same time, it gives different possibilities in research where digital tools and the appendant illustrative practices allow the researcher to build through a deep and extensive engagement with the research data. Within this fruitful and promising research environment, the need for more dialectical concepts as analytical tools such as ideal and real form, imagination and creativity, emotions, and feelings is foregrounded to study the process of development of higher mental functions. The dialectic use of cultural-historical concepts along with the digital tools and illustrative practices introduced in this chapter constitutes a systematic and innovative framework for researching with children and understanding the cultural constructions of knowledge in science.

Principle 3: Understandings Formed in Social Relations in Cultural Communities Rather than in the Head of the Individual We know that Western science has been traditionally oriented toward preparing “students for the next level of science courses by focusing on intellectual knowledge acquisition. Its ultimate purpose has been to funnel capable students into science and engineering degree programs, a phenomenon or ideology often called ‘the pipeline’” (Aikenhead 2006, p. 1). But not all students feel comfortable with this scientistoriented approach ideology because only certain forms of knowledge are privileged (Le and Matias 2019). For some a form of cultural invasion is felt as students navigate between different knowledge systems to explain how the world works (Aguilar-Valdez et al. 2013). How to capture the many ways that knowledge and understandings are formed has to be seen as part of a system of social relations in which society “celebrates science as a human endeavor, embedded within a social milieu of society and conducted by various social communities of scientists” (Aikenhead 2006, p. 1). What we know from cultural studies in science is that there are many education systems that take the latter form of embeddedness and create conditions for “everyday-life approach that animates students; self-identities, their future contributions to society as citizens, and their interests in making personal utilitarian meaning of scientific and technological knowledge” (Aikenhead 2006, p. 2). Recognizing these ways of thinking scientifically is important. The increasing diversity of students in schools calls for a shift in understanding how science education is understood and practiced. Relying on Wester, Anglocentric models will not surface, and to exclusively push those models into diverse populations and disparage students who do not take to it readily is an act of symbolic violence. (Aguilar-Valdez et al. 2013, p. 852)

126

M. Fleer et al.

But to study how diversity in cultural formation of science knowledge happens in social relations needs new kinds of tools. We present an example of a tool that gives possibilities for showcasing how understandings form in social relations in cultural communities. The method is presented through the use of a research app and is shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5 the main menu of an app is shown. The app gives the user the possibility to study an ideal form of the condensed developmental conditions created to support infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and school-aged children’s learning of science in a Conceptual PlayWorld. The five characteristics are shown in video form of the activity setting and the new practice tradition of the institutions for the learning of science concepts. In Fig. 6 is shown the digital video recording capabilities of the tool. Teachers and researchers working in collaboration can video record imagination in play and imagination in science moments. The idea is for teachers to have their device with the app with them during the intentional teaching of science in the context of the educational experiment. The app allows researchers to easily capture and manage files of the ideal form of infants/toddlers/preschoolers/school-aged children’s scientific development in the moment. Long video segments or continuous 30-second video recordings are possible through the app. This can be achieved as shown in Fig. 6 or in selfie mode if the teacher is working on their own. By capturing in the moment and ongoing video recordings of the educational experiment in action, it becomes possible to capture the developmental conditions. Through this dialectical process of capturing everyday practices but under educational experimental conditions of the ideal form of development for the study of the cultural development of science knowledge, “the subject matter of research on learning science learning, is identical with the movement of the science itself (a form of everyday life) because its development is a result of a (individual collective) learning process” (Roth 2012, p. 256). But to achieve these needs more. The app also

Fig. 5 App of the ideal form of development of a Conceptual PlayWorld

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

127

Fig. 6 App to capture the real form of development of infants in a Conceptual PlayWorld

has the possibility for the user in research to tag each video clip recorded with text regarding what happened before and later to add what happened afterward, as is shown in Fig. 7. All tagged video clips are stored within a video list, and the user can then categorize the clips in relation to the five characteristics of the Conceptual PlayWorld (Fig. 5), thereby giving them the opportunity to reflect on the developmental conditions as a dialectical relation between the ideal form showcased (Fig. 6) and the real form as captured in the moment or continuously as a series of 30-second video clips (Fig. 7). As an educational experiment is a collaboration with researchers and teachers, it was important to design a tool that could give the possibilities for ongoing discussion and changes to practices and the activity setting of the Conceptual PlayWorld. Figure 8 shows how the app gives teachers and researchers a tool for identifying and discussing through stimulated recall techniques (see Lyle 2003) significant cultural lines of development of science in a condensed form. This process is important for the merging of “Indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge [which] . . . allows teachers and educators to rethink how knowledge is meaningfully constructed over time and through real life experiences, as well as through experiments and verifications of experimental results” (Regmi and Fleming 2012, p. 483). Significantly, we argue that our app makes this possible and is in keeping with the cultural-historical theoretical methodology theorized above and that other culturalhistorical researchers, such as Roth (2012), have identified as important: A dialectical, reflexive approach to learning, however, would theorize the movement of an educational science (its learning and development) as a special and general case-subject matter and method-of the phenomenon of learning (in/of) science. In the dialectical approach to the study of science learning, therefore, subject matter, method, and theory fall together. (p. 255)

128

M. Fleer et al.

Fig. 7 App to support holistic presentation of a Conceptual PlayWorld

Fig. 8 App to support collaborations between teachers and researchers in an educational experiment

Our app shows how this theoretical position and methodology that we have adopted can be realized in the method and practice of researching cultural knowledge formation in science. It also speaks directly to the challenge of existing experimental and formal research settings noted by Roth (2012): Research on learning science in informal settings and the formal (sometimes experimental) study of learning in classrooms or psychological laboratories tend to be separate domains, even drawing on different theories and methods. These differences make it difficult to compare knowing and learning observed in one paradigm/context with those observed in the other. (p. 255)

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

129

In the context of this volume on multicultural science education, we suggest that the app can make visible in the activity setting within the educational institution how cultural knowledge and worldviews coexist. This is in keeping with respectful milieu of diverse knowledge noted by Regmi and Fleming (2012) who said, “Indigenous knowledge and Western scientific knowledge frameworks should not be pitted as traditional versus scientific, rather these two knowledge frameworks should be viewed as connected and contributing to each other’s progress and development” (p. 483).

Principle 4: The Researcher’s Role Should Be Included in the Data Collection Rather than Made Invisible Long-standing traditions in research emphasize that the researcher must be absent from the study context to avoid contaminating the data. We suggest the researcher needs to be included. As will be shown below, this methodological principle will be showcased through digital methods, where the researcher is an active participant in cultural-historical research. This does not mean that the researcher is an everyday member of that community being researched, as we see in ethnographic and anthropological studies. The researcher is also not someone who observes as though they were a distant fly on the wall, completely removed from the context of the research (Hedegaard 2008). Rather in studies that follow a cultural-historical methodology, the researcher is positioned as someone who is part of the research context, as identified by Vygotsky and Luria (1994): The source of development of these activities is to be found in the social environment of the child and is manifest in concrete form in those specific relations with the experimentalist which transcend the entire situation requiring the practical use of tools and introduce into a social aspects in order to express in formula the essence of these forms of infant behaviour characteristics of the earliest stage of development, it must be noted that the child enters into relations with the situation not directly, but through the medium of another person. (p. 115)

An example of a Conceptual PlayWorld in a family home setting is presented here to showcase how Conceptual PlayWorld as an educational experiment brings together the dialectical relationship between method and methodology. Creating motivating conditions in home settings for children’s STEM learning using technology is guided by Vygotskian insight that “each higher form of behaviour enters the scene twice in its development-first as a collective form of behaviour, as an inter-psychological function, then as an intra-psychological function, as a certain way of behaving” (Vygotsky 1997, p. 95). This movement from inter- to intrapsychological plane is not a mere reflection of the outside world on an internal/mental scheme but rather a dynamic and dialectical process that transforms a child’s existing relationship with their social situation. In this background the question worth asking is how can digital technology help with understanding the dialectical relationship between children’s interpsychological and intrapsychological functioning? A child’s intrapsychological

130

M. Fleer et al.

functioning is not seen as mere reflection of their interpsychological plane. Rather, children and their parent’s agentic role in children’s concept formation is acknowledged and valued as part of research inquiry. Virtual/digital tools are often considered to have a bewitching power which can captivate human. The popular imagery is that virtual world leads to passive consumption of content and hence absolute immersion in an unreal world. Parent’s dominant understanding of technology use is that it is a tool for social networking and gathering information about the world (Engel et al. 2019), and often parents are not very clear on how it can be used as a tool for learning in their everyday world. The other clear understanding is that information communication technology (ICT) hinders children’s learning. This fear draws on two interrelated lines of arguments. One facet of it is the binary between real world and virtual (non-real) world, and second is the developmental appropriateness of using technology. Picking up on these binaries, Fleer (2019) has argued that boundary framing of digital tools and a clear binary between the digital and the real make it difficult to conceptualize children’s engagement with digital tools in early years. Derry (2007) has highlighted that there is a need to think more carefully about the design of the technology to avoid pliant relationship with technology. As part of the educational experiment at the Conceptual PlayLab, digital tools are used in two broad ways. One is to record institutional practice (family’s everyday practices and their practices in the Conceptual PlayWorld for families); two is to introduce digital tools as an auxiliary mean that further amplify children’s conscious engagement with the problem scenario in the activity setting (this is further explained in the examples 1 and 2 below). Mentioned below are two such technology-based interventions.

Example 1 Augmented Reality Tools to Amplify Children’s Experience One of the streams at Conceptual PlayLab is exploring use of augmented reality (AR) in children’s Conceptual PlayWorld. This project being jointly developed with the Faculty of Engineering at Monash University is specially looking at the use of AR tools in contributing to children’s spatial learning (Dang et al. 2020). The technology in this research is used to create new affordances from a design principle rather than merely a tool for replicating what otherwise can happen in the presence or proximity of human participants. The children’s book is carefully chosen for this purpose. The example shown in Fig. 9 from children’s book of Rosie’s Walk by Pat Hutchins has vivid illustrations of a fox chasing Rosie, the hen. The story also weaves in the use of prepositional language which is central to children’s spatial concept learning. When a mobile phone or iPad with the AR app is hovered over the book, it offers the possibility for children to explore Rosie’s predetermined path like across the yard and over the haystack as she walks in the farm yard. The digital tool thus is used to contribute to children’s developmental conditions by creating further possibilities of exploration which otherwise do not exist with the book. Technology here is in-service of

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

131

Fig. 9 Figure representing use of augmented reality tool on children’s story book Rosie’s Walk

children’s inquiry to sustain and often amplify their intentional projects. Like in the example shown above, children can explore multiple pathways which Rosie can take; the difference is that instead of being limited to the drawing of Rosie’s path in the book now they can explore multiple paths Rosie could take. This conscious engagement with story could be a site for learning foundational concepts in spatial reasoning. Moreover, drawing on Vygotsky’s work in the cultural-historical conception of play, adults have an important and valued role that could sustain and introduce new excitement and drama to children’s play but also model new ways of playing and engaging with their worlds. This is very true for digitally mediated Conceptual PlayWorld as well. It is worth indicating here that an adult’s role does not end here merely by designing the digital AR tool but also being a coparticipant in the setting with the child. The emerging data shows (Dang et al. 2020) that these digital devices create new cultural conditions for children’s development where adults take a role in offering ideal forms of concept’s understanding. Using prepositional language (in, under, across, below, before) in this case helps in creating temporal and spatial relationships which children can later use in learning of other science concepts. These ideas could help children to further understand the concepts of planets and solar system and start a new set of investigations about our relative size in the galaxy. The central methodological idea here is the conscious role of the researcher in creating new developmental conditions for the child/children.

Example 2 Conceptual PlayWorld Starters and Virtual Reality Tools in Conceptual PlayWorld The other equally important idea is to use digital tools in educational experiment to create a transformative-dialectical relationship between the digital and non-digital

132

M. Fleer et al.

world. Digital tools in this context offer at least two clear possibilities: one to share information and co-construct practice (using Conceptual PlayWorld starters here on referred as CPW starters) and two to offer a virtual experience of being in a Conceptual PlayWorld using 360 recording tools. In our research with families, the CPW starter is a tool that discerns elements of children’s story book from the perspective of the five characteristics of the Conceptual PlayWorld (mentioned in Table 1). The CPW starter teases out the drama, various plots, subplots, and roles parents and children could take in the Conceptual PlayWorld. The CPW starter is a format for initiating dialog with the family. It is not a script which families have to follow; it is rather a tool for collaborating with the families. It presents to families how ideal form of the practice may look like. As an educational experiment, the agency here is not only with the researcher but also with the participants. This CPW starter is redeveloped with the families in conversation with them based on their home settings and children’s specific interests. The discussion on designing practice based on family’s interest and motivations is central part of Conceptual PlayWorld research. The adult thus is not invisible but constantly working with children’s emerging and developing motives to design a practice that could best respond to their learning trajectory. The ideal form of the practice that could facilitate children’s concept formation is thus not merely intellectual property of the researcher but transforms in practice as children and their parents inhabit practice. In the example from one of the home setting mentioned below, the parents carefully thought about their children’s interest and science concepts which best aligns with their emerging concept formation. The section below reports data from the home setting of one of the authors with his 4-year-old daughter.

Data Generation The data presented here is part of a pop-up Conceptual PlayWorld; the activity was done for 70 minutes with a 4-year-old child and her parents. The data were recorded using two 360 cameras and one standard video recording camera. All the cameras were mounted on a tripod. One camera was kept at the child’s height and the other at an adult’s height to best record data from both perspectives. An image of the setting is shown below in Fig. 10. Data generation procedure for the educational experiment was based on the implementation of the Conceptual PlayWorld model (Fleer 2017, 2019) which was initially designed as a play-oriented model of teaching STEM in early childhood settings. In this case its use in the home setting follows the same five key characteristics of the Conceptual PlayWorld: (a) selecting a story that has drama and a complex plot that could engage children and introduces a problem situation regarding a STEM concept; (b) designing an imaginary play space to give children the opportunity to explore in different ways the STEM concepts; (c) entering and exiting the space creating collective STEM experiences; (d) planning inquiries, based on the story plot, in order to approach the STEM concept; and (e) planning teacher’s role as he/she joins the imaginary space in order to interact with the children. The children’s

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

133

Fig. 10 Figure representing position of different cameras and activity setting

story book of Rosie’s Walk was used to develop this pop-up Conceptual PlayWorld. The data collection was done over 3 days and in total 8 hours of video data were recorded. As the Conceptual PlayWorld developed, the child initially explored the concept of mapping and spatial relationship at a later stage; she asked, “When the fox was chasing Rosie, the hen she could see his shadow. Where was the fox’s shadow?” The child took the role of a friend of Rosie (the hen in the story) who wants to help her so that she can find out when the fox is behind her. The father (in this case also researcher) took the role of a hen scientist, who is interested in shadows. The interesting curiosity of the child around shadows laid the foundation for further exploring the idea of light and how are shadows formed. The father used this opportunity to reread the story with the child and tried to see in the illustrations if there was any moment where they can see shadow. The illustrations do not show any shadow. The father pointed out to the child that most of the images in the book has a sun. The child was curious if she will go out into the sun and would there be a shadow or not. At this stage the father further sustained this curiosity by drawing a circle on their car parking ramp so that the child could come and mark her shadow at multiple time points of the day. This exploration was done so that the child could find a way to know when Rosie the hen is following her (Fig. 11). The observation about the length and direction of the shadow was recorded for the day. This helped in understanding when the angle of light changes the direction of shadow also changes. Light has a role to play in making of shadow. The hen scientist (father) designed the game of shadow detective to find out places where there could be no shadow. The child became more curious about the shadows in her everyday life. Later a few experiments were designed to know if there is any shadow in the dark room at night, if there is any shadow in the living room when the light is not turned on. Multiple possibilities were explored which helped the child to be more conscious of her everyday world. This heightened consciousness of the everyday practice serves as a foundation for developing robust scientific concepts. Hedegaard (2008) has

134

M. Fleer et al.

Fig. 11 Figure showing different images of child’s shadow during different time points of the day

pointed that to offer children theoretical knowledge we must make this part of their everyday practice. The Conceptual PlayWorld in this example made these explorations part of children’s everyday practice. Later the child was also shown a YouTube video of Raymond Crowe, an Australian artist and entertainer who does hand shadow shows (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼i_QjpNwDzX8). The child mentioned in the above study at this stage is still exploring how to design a tool so that Rosie, the hen, could see the fox’s shadow when the fox is behind her. She is thinking of the directions when the fox’s shadow could be visible to Rosie (the hen) and when it could not be. She is also thinking about how long would be the fox’s shadow. The VR tools, video recording, and CPW starters facilitated the research inquiry in the following ways: • Unpacking the dynamic moment-moment interactions: It is worth highlighting that the video recording of the activity setting using 360 camera and using multiple camera positions helped in better understanding the perspectives of the parents and children. These perspectives offer a window to further unpack the process of conscious learning of concepts by the child. The 360 data creates an opportunity to better understand the child’s perspective and see what the child was looking and responding to within the educational experiment. The technology thus helped to observe data from multiple perspectives. Given the scope and purpose of this chapter, a microgenetic analysis of the episode is not presented here (for further details refer to Rai et al. 2021). • Understanding children’s social situation and developing social situation of development: The developmental condition of children being researched here is not a one-way flow of information and instructions from the experimenter to the participant but offered a unique possibility using Conceptual PlayWorld starters for the researcher and participants to co-create a motivating condition that can ensure children’s engaged participation in the activity setting. Thus, the developmental conditions hence created are not merely to be observed by the researcher but also co-created to help children’s concept learning. Seen in this way an educational experiment gives conditions for transforming practice rather than

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

135

observing a contrived environment. It is against the fly in the wall model of experimentation where the researcher is primarily concerned about manipulating variables to see the clean effect of the independent variable on dependent variable. The research approach of the living laboratory brings into focus how Conceptual PlayWorld transforms children’s development. In essence it follows Vygotskian claim to focus not only on how the child came to be what she/he is but to work toward what she/he is not yet. Educational experiment as a methodology seeks to achieve this ideal in practice. There are two aspects worth noting to this educational experiment of a living laboratory: • Relational nature of digital tools: The data shows that digital tools were part of the inextricable weave of the Conceptual PlayWorld settings. The child was in the character of being Rosie, and a number of her own curiosities were expressed by the character. Thus, the digital tool creates the possibility for children’s exploratory playfulness either through the use of AR tools or even with the help of showing YouTube videos. In the example mentioned above, Raymond Crowe’s video helped the child to imagine creative possibilities with shadow. It is not then a thing to be observed but could be created. This does not reflect mere mimetic character of play but children’s agency in creating a new meaning of their existing world. This relational nature of technology highlights that there has been a boundary dissolution between technological and human world. Similar to Fleer (2017), it can be argued that digital tools acts as an auxiliary tool that amplifies children’s engagement in their everyday home settings. • Affective engagement of children in Conceptual PlayWorld: Conceptual PlayWorld as an educational experiment does not see children’s development or participation to achieve an already determined end but to use children’s imaginations to explore scientific concepts which enhance the playfulness of their already existing play setting. In the example mentioned above, child’s engagement was further supported by introducing new problems of helping Rosie to find out when the fox is chasing her. This empathy for the characters helps children to transcend their existing and given world and think of multiple imaginative possibilities. When taken together, these two examples in this section foreground why and how researchers have an active and visible role in the research context.

Conclusion We addressed the goals of this chapter by theorizing the problem, outlining the essence of a cultural-historical methodology that we used to advance research, introducing examples of methods for studying children’s development that drew

136

M. Fleer et al.

on these principles, and concluding by discussing the nature of the living laboratory and the ongoing challenges faced by researchers. The coherent and consistent relations between methods and methodology that we showcased in this chapter foreground a systemic, holistic, and in motion digital visual methodological approach for capturing conceptual development in science as a cultural form of knowledge. The added value of the cultural-historical methodology introduced here is the ability to step us through the qualities and the dynamics of the cultural and social nature of a child’s learning and development in science. Taken together, the above innovative research practices allow us to realize the learning experience in science as a dialectic interrelation between the child and her/his social and cultural environment as well as an ever-changing group relation between the child, her/his peers, and the early childhood teachers. This is different to traditional research approaches that exclude the researcher and the dynamics of cultural, institutional, and personal motives of the participants. We also go beyond a simple reading of studying children in multicultural science education or those approaches to research that are close to cultural-historical understandings. For example, in the three foci of analysis multilevel method developed by Rogoff (2003), emphasis is given to the different levels of a child’s experience: the personal, interpersonal, and contextual levels that coexist. In the concept of funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al. 2005), emphasis is given into diverse practices within different contexts such as home settings, classroom, and the community and how these practices are connected. In Aikenhead’s (1996) border crossing methodology, emphasis is given in science learning experiences as cross-cultural events where diverse subcultures such as the family’s subculture, the peers subculture, or the science education subculture are brought together. These methodological approaches cast the net around the child’s social and cultural reality. However, the dialectical nature of the conceptual development in science remains a challenge. As Vygotsky (2004) argued, “the process is the key to the understanding of the organisation structure and methods of activity in child development” (p. 114). Common to the examples that were showcased in this chapter was a Conceptual PlayWorld of STEM as an educational experiment, where we showed how visual digital tools support researchers interested in understanding the appearance of qualitative changes in children’s mental functioning in science. Following a cultural-historical approach, the interest here is not to develop an associative model of clean effect between independent and dependent variable. Instead of intentionally simplifying the research inquiry, the effort here is to develop transformative practice with the participants which could help in understanding, “Not one stimulus, but a whole series of stimuli, sometimes complexly constructed groups of stimuli and, corresponding to this, not one response, but a long chain of responses or their complex combinations” (Vygotsky 1997, p. 31). In the process of observing the clean effect in traditional experiment approach, we often also undermine the agency of the participants. Educational experiment as a methodological innovation offers to see practice as transformative and agentic for the participants; thus it is a valuable practice that matters for the children, families, and teacher/educators. This conceptualization is also guided by the theoretical ability

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

137

to see science concepts as developing in children’s everyday engagement with their world. Moreover, the remnant of the older psychological functions is seen as the living proofs of the developing psychological functions. Research in the educational experiment as mentioned in the examples from the early childhood centers and family homes designed their pedagogical intervention in collaboration with the participants. It is not a value neutral practice where the researcher tries to reduce its influence on the activity setting. As a multifaceted planned intervention using digital visual tools, researchers’ theoretical and moral commitment becomes more visible. These commitments thus serve as a design principle that guides the process of development of optimal conditions for children’s learning and development. The theoretical foundations discussed here as the basis of a living laboratory for studying the cultural nature of science learning guide the content and importantly give a theoretical position on children’s development. We suggest that a cultural-historical methodology for studying children in diverse cultural contexts of science education foreground: 1. In condensed form scientific concept formation. 2. The processes rather than the end product of scientific development should be studied. 3. That understandings form in social relations in cultural communities, rather than in the head of the individual. 4. The researcher’s role should be included in the data collection rather than made invisible. The digital visual tools are illustrated in this chapter through extracts of data from case examples. We theorized these through the four cultural-historical principles, and this helps researchers interested in capturing and analyzing children’s cultural realities as part of the process of learning science at home and in educational settings. But as digital tools continue to be invented, the new tools will need to be further theorized as part of the dialectical relation between method and methodology. These principles could act as a beginning point for this important work in science education research when studying culturally diverse contexts. Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the funds received from the Australian Research Council [FL180100161] for the establishment of the Conceptual PlayLab and the programmatic research undertaken.

References Aguilar-Valdez JR, Lopez Leiva CA, Roberts-Harris D, Torres-Velasquez D, Lobo G, Westby C (2013) Ciencia en Nepantla: the journey of Nepantler@s in science learning and teaching. Cult Stud Sci Educ 8:821–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9512-9 Aikenhead G (1996) Border crossing into the culture of science. J Res Sci Teach 27:1–52. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_354 Aikenhead GS (2006) Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press, New York

138

M. Fleer et al.

Aikenhead GS, Michel H (2011) Bridging cultures. Indigenous and scientific ways of knowing nature. Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto Andersson K, Gullberg A, Danielsson AT, Scantlebury K, Hussénius A (2020) Chafing borderlands: obstacles for science teaching and learning in preschool teacher education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:433–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09934-x Atwater MM (1996) Social constructivism: infusion into multicultural science education research. J Res Sci Teach 33:821–838. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:83.0.CO;2-Y Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspectives, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77(6):661–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770609 Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodard U, Hillsman N (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful forecasters of science learning and performance. [Special issue] Theory Pract 52(1):6–13. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/23362853 Avraamidou L (2019) Stories we live, identities we build: how are elementary teachers’ science identities shaped by their lived experiences? Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:33–59. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11422-017-9855-8 Avraamidou L (2020) Science identity as a landscape of becoming: rethinking recognition and emotions through an intersectionality lens. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:323–345. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11422-019-09954-7 Bellocchi A, Ritchie SM, Tobin K, Sandhu M, Sandhu S (2013) Exploring emotional climate in preservice science teacher education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 8(3):529–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-013-9526-3 Bellocchi A, Quigley C, Otrel-Cass K (2017) Exploring emotions, aesthetics and wellbeing in science education research. Springer, Cham Billingsley B (2016) Ways to prepare future teachers to teach science in multicultural classrooms. Cult Stud Sci Educ 11:283–291 Blunden A (2014) The problem of the environment. A defence of Vygotsky. Retrieved from https:// www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/The%20Problem%20of%20the%20Environment.pdf Boda PA (2019) Conceptualizing the margins in science education: the limits of multicultural analyses. Cult Stud Sci Educ:493–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09926-x Dang H, Li J, Fleer M, Rai P (2020, December) Digital games for spatial reasoning in the early years: building the foundations for STEM learning. Paper presented at the Australasian Association of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Sydney Davis NT, Callihan LP (2013) Integral methodological pluralism in science education research: valuing multiple perspectives. Cult Stud Sci Educ 8(3):505–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-012-9480-5 Derry J (2007) Epistemology and conceptual resources for the development of learning technologies. J Comput Assist Learn 23(6):503–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00246.x El-Hani CN, Mortimer EF (2007) Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2:657–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9064-y Engel A, Fauré J, Membrive A, Merino I, Coll C (2019) The influence of parents in the discursive construction of technology-mediated learning experiences. Mind Cult Act 26(4):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1685549 Fleer M (2017) Digital role-play: the changing conditions of children’s play in preschool settings. Mind Cult Act 2(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2016.1247456 Fleer M (2019) Conceptual PlayWorlds as a pedagogical intervention: supporting the learning and development of the preschool child in play-based setting. Obutchénie 3(3):1–22. https://doi.org/ 10.14393/OBv3n3.a2019-51704 Fleer M, Pramling N (2015) A cultural-historical study of children learning science. Foregrounding affective imagination in play-based settings. Springer Science & Media, Dordrecht Fleer M, Gomes J, March S (2014) Science learning affordances in preschool environments. Australas J Early Childhood 39(1):38–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911403900106 Fragkiadaki G, Fleer M, Ravanis K (2019) A cultural-historical study of the development of children’s scientific thinking about clouds in everyday life. Res Sci Educ 49(6):1523–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9665-8

5

The Cultural Formation of Science Knowledge

139

Fragkiadaki G, Fleer M, Rai P (2020) Collective imagining: the early genesis and development of a sense of collectiveness during infancy. Retrieved from https://www.monash.edu/education/ research/projects/conceptual-playlab Gallegos-CÁzares L, Flores-Camacho F, Calderón-Canales E (2020) The co-existence of cultural and school science models in indigenous Mexican teachers: the mixing colors case. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:211–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9901-1 Gonzalez N, Moll LC, Amanti C (2005) Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah Hawking S (1988) A brief history of time: from the big bang to black holes. Bantam Books, New York Hedegaard M (2002) Learning and child development. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus Hedegaard M (2008) The educational experiment. In: Hedegaard M, Fleer M (eds) Studying children: a cultural historical perspective. Open University Press, New York, pp 181–201 Hedegaard M (2014) The significance of demands and motives across practices in children's learning and development: an analysis of learning in home and school. Learn Cult Soc Interact 3:188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.008 Hedegaard M (2019) Children’s perspectives and institutional practices as keys in a wholeness approach to children’s social situations of development. In: Edwards A, Fleer M, Bottcher L (eds) Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development. Societal, institutional and personal perspectives. Springer, Singapore, pp 23–42 Hedegaard M, Chaiklin S (2005) Radica-local teaching and learning: a cultural-historical approach. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus Le PT, Matias CE (2019) Towards a truer multicultural science education: how whiteness impacts science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:15–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9854-9 Lindqvist G (1995) The aesthetics of play. A didactic study of play and culture in preschools. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Education, 62. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED396824.pdf Lyle J (2003) Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. Br Educ Res J 29(6): 861–878. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1502138 Martínez-Álvarez P (2019) What counts as science? Expansive learning actions for teaching and learning science with bilingual children. Cult Stud Sci Educ 4:799–837. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-019-09909-y Rai P, Fleer M, Fragkiadaki G (2021) Digital tools in conceptual playworlds: transforming home practices in the time of Covid-19 for children’s STEM Concept Learning. Human Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00178-8 Regmi J, Fleming M (2012) Indigenous knowledge and science in a globalized age. Cult Stud Sci Educ 7:479–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9389-z Rogoff B (2003) The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press, New York Roth MW (2012) Science of learning is learning of science: why we need a dialectical approach to science education research. Cult Stud Sci Educ 7:255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0129390-6 Vygotsky LS (1987) Problems of general psychology. In: Rieber RW, Carton AS (eds) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, vol 1 (trans: Minick N). Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York Vygotsky LS (1994) The problem of the environment. In: Veer RVD, Valsiner J (eds) The Vygotsky reader. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 338–350 Vygotsky LS (1997) The history of the development of higher mental functions. In: Rieber RW (ed) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, vol 4 (trans: Hall MJ). Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York Vygotsky LS (1998) Child psychology. In: Rieber RW (ed) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, vol 5 (trans: Hall MJ). Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York Vygotsky L (2004) Imagination and creativity in childhood. J Russ East Eur Psychol 42(1):7–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210 Vygotsky LS, Luria A (1994) Tool and symbol in child development. In: Van Der Veer R, Valsiner J (eds) The Vygotsky reader. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 99–174

Part II Science Learning

6

Science Learning and Multicultural Science Education: Insights with Which to Move Forward Wesley Pitts

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Presence of Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identity, Learning and Sociocultural Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion: Mapping the Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

144 145 146 147 150

Abstract

Aligned with the overarching theme of the International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, the Science Learning part invites readers into a conversation across eight chapters about research in multicultural science education and science learning. The introduction to the Science Leaning section introduces several productive lines of inquiry at the intersection of multicultural science education and science learning explored by contributing authors. A central guiding question explored in this section is what challenges and opportunities in change processes in multicultural science education can help push understanding about science learning in professional practice and the public domain. A collective analysis across the section elaborates on several themes embedded in the experiences of identity, the cultures of individuals, collectives, and contexts. While many practices and research models of multicultural science education exist, collectively, the models explored in this section highlight themes that reinforce the crucial roles of equity and social justice in science learning. When situated within the systematic and authentic practice, the intent of these models of multicultural science education research is not to inoculate science W. Pitts (*) Department of Middle and High School Education, Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_62

143

144

W. Pitts

education from the vicissitudes of science education policy and standard reform initiatives. Instead, these models strive to address how science learning can thrive and improve the lives of marginalized groups. Keywords

Multicultural · Science learning · Culture · Identity · Social justice

Introduction Aligned with the overarching theme of the International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, the Science Learning section invites readers into a conversation about research in multicultural science education and science learning. A key point made here is that a goal of research in multicultural science education is to interrogate and promote unfragmented approaches to more equitable and socially just ways to facilitate science learning in a multicultural society. In this vein, we embrace the definition of multicultural science education as “a recognized field of disciplined inquiry devoted to research using quantitative and qualitative approaches and the development of educational policies and practices so all students can learn” (Atwater 1994, p. 1). Accordingly, multicultural science education as a process should be modeled by teachers, students, researchers, and all other stakeholders to guide the enterprise of science learning (Atwater and Riley 1993; Baptiste and Baptiste 1979). From this perspective of multicultural science education, research is also an enterprise that points to the significance of its conceptualizations and implementations across interdisciplinary and intersectional terrains. The multicultural science education terrain remains contested. Despite these contestations, productive lines of inquiry in multicultural science education help to push understanding about science learning in professional practice and policy as well as in the public domain. Over the years, research in science learning has encompassed several general areas, including the cognitive, behavioral and affective domain, while including investigation linking the relationship between multicultural science education and science learning. That is because multicultural science education incorporates paradigms, theories, assumptions, aspirations and pedagogy rooted in many fields, such as sociology, psychology, linguistics, legal and organizational studies (Atwater et al. 2013). Similarly, in its intersections with multicultural science education, research in science learning has leveraged both quantitative and qualitative approaches. However, at the very least, racial and social justice must be present and prioritized at this intersection. Research in this area of intersection can ask a lot of researchers, including deriving significance from a commitment to broaden questions to a much larger frame that reckons with racism and social justice. Yet as researchers ask questions and seek answers about science learning, it is important to proceed with the intentionality of interrogating social differences and diversity in unfolding contexts for science education. Paying attention to context together with the commonality and

6

Science Learning and Multicultural Science Education: Insights with Which. . .

145

the diversity of educational experiences create opportunities to advance knowledge and conception of practice in multicultural science education. This, of course, is no simple task. At another level, there are questions about what might be problematic in change processes in multicultural science education and science learning. The authors of this section help push boundaries to provide new opportunities to interrogate and challenge various approaches and findings in this space. They invite readers to interrogate their frames of references, interests, position, ideological approaches, privilege, miscues, and assumptions about multicultural science education as they engage in the conversations about science learning. In this way, research in multicultural science education is shown to not only be about interrogating the disconnections in approaches to science learning, but to also highlight successes about student of color and other underrepresented individual in science. Research highlighted in this section illuminates how paying particular attention to content and deployment of multicultural science education can facilitate community development in ways that fuel transitional learning spaces. These spaces can, in turn, empower individuals, particularly school-aged children, to learn science.

The Presence of Multicultural Science Education Sometimes linked to the miscues of urban education (Milner 2012; Tobin et al. 2005), multicultural science education in the United States, and internationally, has often emerged as important for some educators and researchers when students of color and other underrepresented groups become present. In these situations multicultural education is likely to be naively conflated with deficit models of students of color and underrepresented groups, constructed against a backdrop of and geography embedded in White and western supremacy. The contents and constructions of multicultural science education must provide contrasting themes against these naively conflated and deadly deficit models. Part of what has been understood about multicultural science education is that it is solely about considering heritage and traditional practices that shape teaching and learning science. This is often taken at face value and leads to preoccupations with making meaning in more fragmented and individualized subjectivities. It is important to consider the shifting and changing sociocultural practices, including priorities of students and their communities. The creation of new and powerful multicultural science education pedagogies and research agendas must pay attention to concerns about the material conditions as well as the subjectivities that underpin racism, power, privilege, success and injustices that make up the social order on a whole. Multicultural science education research often amplifies sites of struggle between the layered praxis of science learning and the perplexing positions that recognize education in wider sociocultural, structural, and geographical political forces (Butler et al. 2014). This perspective developed out of a concern that historical patterns of repeated racism still cause race and ethnicity to be powerful sociocultural forecasters of science learning and performance (Atwater et al. 2013; Walls 2016). Recognizing

146

W. Pitts

that race and racism are socially constructed, the counter narratives that frame an antiracist stance must also be socially constructed to expose structural and organized privilege in science learning. However, even in new and demanding learning environments there are constant glimpses into ways to engage multicultural science education to innovate, celebrate advances and challenge the dominant social order steered by notions of White supremacy, racism and social injustice. In conceptual terms, multicultural science education has been a response to long-standing patterns of racism including marginalization, omission and deficit portrayals of individuals from marginalized communities. The processes of science learning cannot be divorced from the complex intersecting systems of these forces and forecasters that help to shape learning and learning contexts.

Identity, Learning and Sociocultural Constructions One of the underlying premises of multicultural science education is that science learning is a form of sociocultural enactment (i.e., production, reproduction, and transformation) (Tobin 2006). Culture can be characterized as “an integrated pattern of shared values, beliefs, languages, worldviews, behaviors, artifacts, knowledge, and social and political relationships of a group of people in a particular place or time that the people use to understand or make meaning of their world” (Atwater et al. 2013). It is always repeating and at the same time changing. In other words, culture (schema and practices) enacted by students and teachers in one context can be enacted successfully and unsuccessfully in other contexts (Tobin et al. 2005). Terry Eagleton (2016) also reminds us that “culture is a functionally variable term, in the sense that what may be cultural in one context may not be so in another. This is particularly true if one thinks of culture as what makes life worth living rather than what keeps it going” (p. 53). Students often understand their learning and aspirations for success as they use resources to develop and negotiate identities and performances in their life worlds. Roth (2006) notes that the ensemble of things and conditions that provide for science learning help constitute resources for individuals to make plans, formulate goals and to enact culture and identities. As such, sociocultural relationships and the negotiation of identities emerge and become seedbeds to shape encounters both inside and outside related to science learning (Roth and Tobin 2007). Rethinking how we engage the shifts of identities and performances that can be involved through others and otherness provides ideas about how deeply entwined social life is constructed both as an individual and as part of a collective. Multicultural science education is one of the most important tools to use when trying to grasp a deeper understanding about the ways in which all students learn and use science to question their interests and their purposes in the world. In their own interpretation of life, what makes life worth living, and the lifeworld they traverse, students engage in dialogues, transformations and repairing to help affirm their own identities (Shanahan 2009). However, within this process, they are faced with social interactions that may often lead to cultural discord and disharmony. What happens as

6

Science Learning and Multicultural Science Education: Insights with Which. . .

147

they develop their praxis against the structural and social obligations of schooling, accountability via standardized test scores and external aspirations is a critical core concern rooted in multicultural science education and science learning.

Conclusion: Mapping the Search This section brings together various entry points and perspectives into multicultural science education all the while giving attention to some of the important dimensions of science learning. Although each chapter can stand alone, there is a collective analysis across the section that elaborates on several themes embedded in the experiences of identity, culture of individuals, collectives, and contexts. While many models of multicultural science education exist, collectively the models highlight themes that reinforce the important roles of equity and social justice in science learning. The uptake of these themes exemplified in these models combine to inform both practice and research in international and in local knowledge-building work in multicultural science education. For example, the themes include durable insights about how to use communication frameworks to approach conflict and decisionmaking in science learning spaces that take into consideration culturally sustaining practice and translanguaging strategies. In this sense, centering social assets including discourse repertoires can help to improve the design of digital readers used to teach and learn science. Use of design-based research combined with contemplative pedagogy can drive more dynamic investigations into how digital readers can help students abate conflicts in learning spaces and cultivate awareness and introspection to learn science and how science relates to their lives. When put into systematic and authentic practice, these models of multicultural science education research does not aim to inoculate science education from the vicissitudes of science education policy and standards reform initiatives. Instead, they strive to address how science learning can thrive and improve the lives of marginalized groups. Accordingly, ▶ Chap. 7, “Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education” by Smith and Pitts focuses on contemplative pedagogy and its implications for improving science learning in multicultural science classrooms. They present several contemplative practices that promote deep learning through focused attention and awareness enabling students to think critically and build the confidence to be drivers of their own learning. Contemplative pedagogy leverages the relationship between the first-person way of knowing and awareness of the self to improve learning. In this way students can see themselves as integral to science no matter how “Science” and the scientific endeavor has been previously depicted. In ▶ Chap. 8, “Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation, Engagement, and Belonging,” Meta Van Sickle and Julie Swanson use the idea of students’ life aspects to advocate for teachers gaining a deeper level of understanding about students to help them learn science. They indicate that a student’s life aspects, including gender, language, ethnicity, and sociocultural background, should be not interpreted by teachers as ancillary with presupposed binary

148

W. Pitts

features. The main idea underlying life aspects is that social differences matter but are not binary. Van Sickle and Swanson argue that keenly homing in on the increasing intersectionalities of students’ (and teachers’) life worlds will provide greater opportunities for effective, equitable, and socially just culturally responsive instruction. In turn, this approach will also help teachers explore their students’ passion for learning science. Van Sickle and Swanson wrap up their chapter by describing a communication framework that includes the lenses of style, attitudes toward conflict, approaches toward decision-making, perceptions of self and others, and personal stories. Using this framework, they briefly review two early childhood science curriculum exemplars, Project Clarion and Using Science, Talents, and Abilities to Recognize Students ~Promoting Learning for Underrepresented Students (U-STARS~PLUS) that emphasized culturally responsive approaches. In ▶ Chap. 9, “Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural Science Education,” Jordan Henley interrogates the deficit lenses that Black students are often ascribed with, including lack of interest in learning science. She argues that multicultural science education is a necessary approach to improving the experiences and achievement of Black students. Recognizing that science and science education is not value free and can have a negative and inequitable impact of Black students and other groups of students, Henley advocates for multicultural science education strategies. Implementing these strategies, including culturally relevant education, hip-hop education, and cogenerative dialogue, can improve the pathways to success in science learning for all students, particularly Black students. In ▶ Chap. 10, “Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in Multicultural Contexts,” Randy Yerrick and Erin Kearney examine ways to improve opportunities for engaging linguistically and culturally diverse students in science learning. They leverage their research to explore the challenges and productive pathways in balancing the use of culturally sustaining practice and translanguaging strategies. Yerrick and Kearney offer two vignettes reflecting efforts to provide teacher support for science educators in emergent bilinguals in urban contexts. These vignettes highlight asset-based pedagogies that draw on a range of student linguistic and cultural resources and seek to make space for all classroom participants to expand their disciplinary knowledge, language abilities, literacy, and cultural repertoires. Yerrick and Kearney show that culturally sustaining and translanguaging practices open instructional and participatory spaces which can empower all classroom participants. They also advocate for ways to improve current science standardized assessments of learning for emergent bilingual and for English speaking students in urban multilingual contexts. These standardized assessments continue to misrepresent current understanding of science culture and continue to marginalize students and stratify science learners. In ▶ Chap. 11, “Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of African American Girls,” Wade-Jaimes takes up the theme of multicultural science education and identity. Wade-Jaimes explores several overlapping conceptions of identity, including figured worlds, hybridity, and culture, to explore the idea of developing an identity as a “science person.” She argues that the culture of science, based on White, masculine, middle-class ideals, often conflicts with

6

Science Learning and Multicultural Science Education: Insights with Which. . .

149

students’ culture, impacting the development of science identity for African American girls. Wade-Jaimes argues that using funds of knowledge and valuing cultural identities can help resolve conflicts between students’ scientific and cultural identities and can be used to support science identity development in both classroom and out-of-school time contexts for girls of color. In addition, Wade-Jaimes calls for additional research about how African American girls’ in particular develop science identities and experience success in science learning. In ▶ Chap. 12, “Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in Multicultural US Classrooms and Beyond,” Maria Varelas, Eli TuckerRaymond, and a team of UIC doctoral students examine science education research over the last 20 years that explores how (multimodal) discourse is interrelated with science learning in elementary school classrooms and age-equivalent out-of-school learning environments in the United States. The chapter highlights perspectives that center the intellectual, social, and cultural repertoires of students from “minoritized” racial, ethnic, and linguistic communities (e.g., African diaspora, Latinx, Native American, and immigrant children). The chapter also addresses hierarchies of power and epistemologies in science learning and teaching. Based on their analysis, the authors elaborate on four themes: (a) hybridity and its relations to science understandings and discourses, (b) the relations of language, learning, and identity and the social and affective dimensions of knowing; (c) how negotiations of authority and power are intertwined with the structure-agency dialectic; and (d) the relations between epistemic heterogeneity and science understandings and discourses. Varelas, Tucker-Raymond, and the doctoral student team remind us that science discourses have been characterized as competing with everyday discourses, but more often, the heterogeneity and power of multiple and different discourses, epistemologies, identities, understandings, and communicative modes have been argued to enable opportunities for improving science learning that is defined as both knowledge and identity construction. They also advance that students of color thrive in a science education world under construction where they, and their cultures, communities, families, and ways of knowing and being are essential and indispensable dimensions of this co-construction–a core tenet of multicultural science education. Phillip Boda and Alison Riley Miller, in ▶ Chap. 13, “Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning,” review the arc of research over the last 20 years on technology-enhanced environments in science education design studies. They develop a framework that incorporates the dimensions of curriculum and evaluation, with the notions of reform and critical studies as a lens to assess key studies in this area. They find that innovations in pedagogy and curriculum design using instructional technologies under reform movements continue to lag behind more critical studies. Reform studies tend to treat Black and Brown youth as demographic details without centering their sociocultural assets, including identities, and experiences in both the research and the technology designs. Boda and Riley Miller argue that using design-based research approaches provide fertile grounds to meet critical and socially just multicultural science education goals particularly when researchers and technology designers center the experiences and identities of Black and Brown youth.

150

W. Pitts

In the final chapter of this part, Tzu-Hua Huang and Yi-Jium Li (▶ Chap. 14, “E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science”) use case analysis to explore culturally responsive teaching and instructional designs of e-books used to teach science to indigenous elementary students in Taiwan. Huang and Li combine emerging mobile learning e-book technologies that incorporate indigenous Atayal sociocultural frames of reference, language, and learning styles in a class that teaches reading comprehension in science using e-books. Results showed that Atayal students significantly improved their learning interests and success in science. Huang and Li argue that supports such as “reading more cultural information” and “seeking more consultation from elders, institutions, and personnel related to the Council of Indigenous Peoples” will help to develop the materials and pedagogy that use e-books to improve science learning.

References Atwater MM (1994) Introduction: invitation of the past and inclusion of the future of science and mathematics. In: Atwater MM, Radzik-Marsh K, Structchens M (eds) Multicultural education: inclusion of all. University of Georgia, Athens, pp 1–3 Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspective, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77(6):661–668 Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodward U (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful cultural forecasters of science learning and performance. Theory Pract 52:6–13 Baptiste HP Jr, Baptiste ML (1979) Developing the multicultural process in classroom instruction. Competencies for teachers. University Press of America, Lanthem Butler MB, Atwater MM, Russell ML (2014) Introduction: culture, equity, and social justice for science teacher educators. In: Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler MB (eds) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–7 Eagleton T (2016) Culture. Yale University Press, New Haven Milner HR (2012) But what is urban education? Urban Educ 47:556–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042085912447516 Roth W-M (2006) Learning science: a singular plural perspective. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam Roth W-M, Tobin K (eds) (2007) Science, learning, identity. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam Shanahan MC (2009) Identity in science learning: exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Stud Sci Educ 45:43–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057260802681847 Tobin K (2006) Aligning the cultures of teaching and learning science in urban high schools. Cult Stud Sci Educ 1:219–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-005-9008-3 Tobin K, Elmesky R, Seiler G (2005) Improving urban science education: new roles for teachers, students and researchers. Rowman and Littlefield, New York Walls L (2016) Awakening a dialogue: a critical race theory analysis of US nature of science research from 1967 to 2013. J Res Sci Teach 53(10):1546–1570. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea. 21266

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

7

Sunyata Smith and Wesley Pitts

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Birth of a New Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Practice Versus Contemplative Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Pedagogy in Multicultural Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning from the Inside Out: Contemplative Pedagogy in the Multicultural Science Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Pedagogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mindfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Reading and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Transitional Pedagogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Beginnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Transitions in the Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Transitions at the End of Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beholding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 5E Instructional Model + Beholding (5E + B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deep Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemplative Pedagogy and Sociocultural Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Education, Contemplative Pedagogy, and Multicultural Competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

152 154 156 156 158 159 160 162 164 164 165 165 165 167 167 169 170 171 172

S. Smith (*) Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] W. Pitts Department of Middle and High School Education, Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_58

151

152

S. Smith and W. Pitts

Abstract

This chapter focuses on a groundbreaking pedagogical movement termed contemplative pedagogy and its potential to revolutionize the way science is both taught and learned in multicultural science classrooms. Contemplative pedagogy is a philosophy of education that utilizes contemplative practices that allow students to focus internally and be the driving force behind their own learning. Examples of contemplative pedagogies include mindfulness, beholding (focusing on an image), contemplative reading and writing, deep listening, and contemplative transitional pedagogies. Contemplative pedagogy has the unique ability to foster greater concentration and attention, enhance analytical and problemsolving skills, and deepen understanding of and connection to the course material as well as promote multicultural competencies in teachers – attributes that clearly facilitate the understanding and learning of science content. Keywords

Contemplative pedagogy · Contemplative practices · Multicultural competency · Science learning · Multicultural science education

Learning in the true sense of the word is only possible in that state of attention in which there is no outer or inner compulsion. Right thinking can come about when the mind is not enslaved by tradition and memory – Jiddu Krishnamurti

Introduction During this current historical moment, one does not need to look long and hard to come to the conclusion that reform is imminently needed in science education. Electrified in the wake of the 25 May 2020 killing of George Floyd, thousands of scientists and academics participated in a 1 day strike to protest systemic racism in science (New York Times 2020). As stated by one of the organizers of the strike, Brian Nord a physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, “racism in science is enmeshed with the larger scheme of white supremacy in society.” Echoing this sentiment, Nature, a prominent scientific journal, put out the statement that, “the enterprise of science has been – and remains – complicit in systemic racism, and it must strive harder to correct those injustices and amplify marginalized voices” (New York Times 2020). The ripple effects of these persistent racial inequalities in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) can be glimpsed through analysis of the comprehensive report that was released by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2019. According to the report, Hispanics or Latinos earned only 13.5% of bachelor’s degrees in science and Black students earned only 9% (NSF 2019) in the USA. At the graduate level the results are much dimmer whereby only 9% of traditionally underrepresented groups earned doctorate degrees in science and engineering (NSF 2019). However, the root of the problem starts long before college; disparities in science education are detectable as early as elementary school. In another

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

153

report compiled by the NSF that analyzed the results of science students in grades 4, 8, and 12, results showed that traditionally underrepresented students scored 14–25 points below average on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science assessment, while Whites scored 10–16 points above average (NSF 2018). Based on these statistics, it is glaringly clear that something is amiss with regard to science education in the USA; obviously there is an urgent need to bridge this racial and ethnic divide. Fortunately, but not without remorse, the current racial landscape provides an optimal backdrop to continue to think deeply about strategies to mitigate issues that are hampering diversity in science. As is the case with most things, proper education is often the equalizing factor. If we are to change these dynamics, we must start at the root of the problem by addressing inequalities and injustices in K-12 science education. This call to action is far from new; it dates back to the 1960s and 1970s with the birth of multicultural education. Multicultural education, which originated in the USA as a direct response to the civil rights movement is defined as “a complex approach to teaching and learning that includes the movement toward equity in schools and classrooms, the transformation of the curriculum, the process of becoming multiculturally competent, and the commitment to address societal injustices” (Banks and Banks 2009; Bennett 2014, p. 2; Nieto and Bode 2019). Extending the definition to focus specifically on science, Mary Atwater, a scholar in the area of multicultural education, defines multicultural science education as “a field of inquiry with constructs, methodologies, and processes aimed at providing equitable opportunities for all students to learn quality science (Atwater and Riley 1993; Atwater 1996). Hence, it should be a dynamic and vibrant field of study in which many researchers are generating new knowledge” (Atwater 1996). Although the movement of multicultural education has had much success in the past four decades still more work needs to be done as evidenced by the lack of diversity that still exists in science. Key issues that continue to perpetuate this divide are (a) students from traditionally underrepresented groups have a difficult time seeing themselves in science and how science directly relates to their lives (Atwater 2000b; Walls 2012; Butler et al. 2013; Archer et al. 2015) and (b) a large portion of teachers lack multicultural competencies and are resistant to dealing with race issues and diversity (Gay and Howard 2000; Atwater et al. 2013b). A new pedagogical movement, known as contemplative pedagogy, has begun to sweep across the nation and has the potential to remedy these issues that continue to hinder the advancement of multicultural science education and its mission to promote meaningful science learning (Barbezat and Bush 2014). Contemplative pedagogy, also known as contemplative education, is a method of teaching and learning that fosters deep learning through the cultivation of awareness, attention, and introspection (Zajonc 2013; Barbezat and Bush 2014; Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning 2017). Some define contemplative pedagogy as a specific form of transformative learning that promotes inner development and transformation (Zajonc 2006; Keiser and Sakulkoo 2014). At the core, contemplative pedagogies provide a holistic, integrative approach to teaching and learning “that acknowledges the epistemic validity of first person ways of knowing” (Anderson et al. 2019). Contemplative pedagogy is perfectly poised to support and

154

S. Smith and W. Pitts

strengthen the integration of multicultural education into mainstream science classrooms. This chapter will journey to explore the pivotal and transformative role that contemplative pedagogy can play in promoting equity, enhancing multicultural competencies and deepening students understanding and connection to course materials. As stated by Butler et al. (2013, p. 3), Challenging the status quo in how science has been traditionally taught is the first step in changing the outcomes of “who does science” and ensuring that the STEM pipeline is more inclusive for all students both on the secondary level and beyond.

The Birth of a New Pedagogy Over the last two decades a silent movement has taken place that has begun to permeate the bedrock of our educational institutions (Ergas 2019). This movement termed contemplative pedagogy until recently has remained on the fringes of mainstream education in the west. Contemplative pedagogy is a philosophy of education that utilizes contemplative practices that allow students to focus internally and be the driving force behind their own learning (Barbezat and Bush 2014; Hart 2004; Zajonc 2013). Examples of contemplative practices include mindfulness, beholding (focusing on an image), contemplative reading and writing, contemplative transitions, and deep listening (Barbezat and Bush 2014; Lin et al. 2019). The use of contemplative practices is ancient. In regard to the wisdom traditions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and various forms of Yoga, contemplative practices have been utilized for thousands of years (Hart 2004). However, despite widespread belief, contemplation was not only practiced in the East but was also a central part of educational life in ancient western cultures (Stock 2006; Morgan 2015; Pizzuto 2018). For example, remnants of contemplative practice can be observed in ancient Greek philosophy, namely, the famous motto “Know thyself” that was inscribed on the ancient Greek Temple of Delphi (Pizzuto 2018). In this context “knowing thyself” refers not to knowing yourself in the everyday sense but a deeper knowing that is only acquired through contemplation and silent awareness. Although once part of the culture, erosion of contemplative practice in the West began to take place during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries leading ultimately to the development of institutions of education that were dominated by an Aristotelian emphasis in logic and the natural sciences (Hart 2004; Stock 2006). Prior to the “turn of the millennium,” contemplative pedagogies remained on the periphery of mainstream education; however, a shift began to take place that led to the “reemergence” of contemplative education in the West (Ergas 2019, p. 258; Morgan 2015, p. 198). According to the contemplative theorist Patricia Morgan (2015), five influences supported the return of contemplative education (a) the introduction of Buddhist and Hindu philosophy in the USA; (b) transpersonal psychology, a field of psychology that focuses on the spiritual and/or transcendent dimensions of the human experience; (c) the incorporation of mindfulness into medicine, psychology, sports, and business; (d) the introduction of Yoga into the west; and (e) research that investigated the effects of meditation and other contemplative practices on cognition and the brain. In the wake of these influences, Morgan (2015) postulates that the reemergence of

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

155

contemplative education took place in three successive waves. The first wave was the introduction of Buddhism in the USA in 1840, the second wave was the establishment of several contemplative-based institutions including California Institute of Integral Studies in 1968 in San Francisco and Naropa University in 1974 in Boulder, Colorado, and the third and current wave was initiated in large part by the establishment of the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society in 1995, which began offering fellowships to support contemplative curriculum development by college faculty (Barbezat and Bush 2014; Morgan 2015). As explained by the founding members of the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society Barbezat and Bush (2014), the goal of the fellowships was to “restore and renew the critical contribution that contemplative practices have the potential to bring to teaching, learning and scholarship” (p. xxi). By 2009, the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society had 152 fellows housed in over 100 different colleges and universities across the USA (Barbezat and Bush 2014). Recognizing the need for a full program that extended beyond the offering of fellowships in 2008, the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society formed the Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education (Barbezat and Bush 2014). Although the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society played a huge role in spurning the “reemergence” of contemplative pedagogy into higher education, as both Morgan and contemplative theorist Orgen Ergas (2019, p. 260) pointed out, this reemergence also was not only initiated by a “topdown” movement led by organizations but also by a “bottom-up” grassroot movement initiated by individual lecturers with the desire to bring contemplation into their classrooms. In addition to the influences outlined by Morgan (2015), another key driver in the “reemergence” of contemplative pedagogy was the growing movement to foster integrative holistic approaches to education (Pizzuto 2018). Contemplative pedagogy as reflected upon by Repetti (2010) can be conceptualized as an “outgrowth of earlier philosophies” that valued educating the whole student “as opposed to a banking model that consists of information deposits” (p. 5). Presently, the growing movement to incorporate contemplative pedagogy into institutions of education is blossoming and gaining much interest as evidenced by the exponential growth of publications in this area over the last decade. As outlined by Ergas (2019) to date “eight edited volumes have been written (Palmer et al. 2010; Barbezat and Bush 2014; Gunnlaugson 2014; Lin et al. 2019), three special issues have been produced (Hill 2006; Sanders 2013), and over 30 individual peer reviewed articles have been published” (p. 260). Additionally, several institutions including Brown University (Roth 2014), the University of Michigan (Sarath 2014) and Lesley University (Waring 2014) have started contemplative studies programs. Although there has been an explosion of interest to integrate contemplative pedagogies into the curriculum in higher education, the use of these pedagogies as a method of teaching and learning in K-12 education is virtually absent in the literature. Despite that being said, the use of contemplative practices like mindfulness in K-12 has spread like a wildfire, particularly as it relates to social and emotional learning (SEL) with astounding success. Extensive research on the impact of mindfulness training on students across all grade levels revealed that mindfulness enhances social and emotional competence by increasing social skills and coping skills, by enhancing emotional regulation and self-esteem, and by reducing stress and anxiety

156

S. Smith and W. Pitts

(Meiklejohn et al. 2012; Zenner et al. 2014; Schonert-Reichl and Roeser 2016). In addition to enhancing social and emotional competence, mindfulness training in education has been shown to improve attention and behavior. Based on the enormous success of the mindfulness movement on SEL in K-12 education, the migration of contemplative pedagogies into this realm is the next logical step, a step that will inevitably help to reshape the landscape of education as we know it.

Contemplative Practice Versus Contemplative Pedagogy Contemplative practice differs from contemplative pedagogy. As outlined by contemplative theorist Repetti (2010), contemplative practices are “self-reflective practices” that foster a “critical first person (inner) focus” (Barbezat and Bush 2014; The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society 2019). While there are various forms of contemplative practice at the core, all practices are geared toward the cultivation of present moment awareness and inner stillness. The Tree of Contemplative Practices figure that was developed by the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society provides a great snapshot that depicts the different types of contemplative practices (see Fig. 1). Contemplative pedagogy, on the other hand, is a philosophy of education that utilizes contemplative practices as a method of teaching and learning. Defining contemplative pedagogy a bit further, Ergas (2019) postulates that it is comprised of three elements (a) A “spatial” turning inward whereby one’s attention is focused inward toward the first-person experience, (b) A different engagement with time where “just being” versus “doing” is the primary mode of action, and (c) An intention to be aware and attend to experience in a different way, in the present moment, with acceptance, joy, and compassion. In essence, contemplative pedagogies engage the “mind, body, heart, and spirit to process information in new ways and to develop the fullness of our humanity” (Anderson et al. 2019)

Contemplative Pedagogy in Multicultural Education Contemplative pedagogies situate the student at the center of their learning and foster the development of compassion, empathy, social and emotional learning, and focused attention (Zajonc 2013). The objectives of contemplative pedagogies are to (a) cultivate self-inquiry, personal meaning, and creativity (b) deepen the understanding and connection to course content, (c) develop the ability to be compassionate and empathetic, and (d) enhance students focus and attention (Barbezat and Bush 2014; Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning 2017). The overarching objectives of contemplative pedagogy are synergistic to the core dimensions of multicultural education which are (a) equity pedagogy, which aims at achieving equal and fair opportunities for all students, (b) multicultural competence whereby teachers are equipped to interact and respond to individuals who are racially and ethnically different from themselves, (c) curriculum reform that is inclusive of multiethnic and global perspectives, and (d) socially justice-minded teachers and students

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

157

Fig. 1 CMind. (2021). The Tree of Contemplative Practices [Illustration]. The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. https://www.contemplativemind.org/practices/tree

(Bennett 2014, pp. 4–9.). Sonia Nieto (2000) argues that if teachers learn to challenge societal inequality, question unjust institutional practices, and learn how to use the diverse talents of students and their families in the curriculum, they will be better prepared to promote student learning. With regard to multicultural science education, contemplative pedagogies can serve a role in both K-12 science education and in science teacher education programs at the higher education level. In K-12 education, contemplative pedagogies can deepen student understanding of science concepts and help students form lasting connections to the content especially among students who are traditionally underrepresented in science and have difficulty connecting to the material. In science teacher education programs, contemplative pedagogy can foster multicultural competence by enabling teachers to become aware of underlying biases and equipping teachers with the mindsets needed to teach and interact with individuals that are ethnically and culturally different.

158

S. Smith and W. Pitts

Learning from the Inside Out: Contemplative Pedagogy in the Multicultural Science Classroom One of the persistent challenges that continues to hamper the success of traditionally underrepresented groups in science is the inability to see themselves in science and how science relates directly to their lives (Butler et al. 2013; Archer et al. 2015). Walls (2014) argues that for people of color, particularly females of color, to be successful in learning science they must see themselves as integral to science no matter how “Science” and the scientific endeavor has been previously depicted. Contemplative pedagogies can help to mitigate these issues by allowing students to gain a deeper understanding of and connection to the science content that they are learning, making the content more relevant and personally meaningful. Additionally, contemplative pedagogies allow students to look deeply into themselves, which can lead to the extinguishing of negative stereotypical mindsets that might be impeding their ability to succeed in science. Due to the sociohistorical exclusion of ethnic and racial minority groups from scientific knowledge and the antiquated perceptions of what it means to be a scientist (White, male, middle class, nerdy, etc.) underrepresent groups, particularly students of color, find it extremely difficult to envision themselves as scientists (Atwater 2000a; Archer et al. 2015). As pointed out by Archer (2015, p. 231), there is a “being/doing divide (liking science, but seeing science careers as not for me)” that is particularly prevalent among students of color. Contemplative pedagogies can work hand in hand with multicultural education to continue to erode these walls of “stereotypic oppression” that are currently limiting the potential of racial and ethnic minorities’ success in science by enabling them to form deep meaningful connections with the content that they are learning. Contemplative pedagogies utilize contemplative practices that incorporate students’ unique and varied experiences into their learning (Barbezat and Bush 2014). Although there is a wide variety of contemplative practices, one thing that they all have in common is that they promote introspection that allows students to “discover their [own] internal relationship” to the content (Barbezat and Bush 2014, p. 4.). This line of thinking is not new to multicultural education, others have thought about ways to integrate students’ lived experiences into their learning; one well-known example of this is culturally responsive teaching, which in addition to utilizing “cultural referents to impart knowledge” also seeks to utilize students’ prior experiences, frames of reference, and different ways of knowing to liberate and empower learners (Gay 2013; Johnson and Atwater 2013, pp. 81–102). With regard to contemplative pedagogy there is a radical epistemological shift in “what we take to be knowing and knowledge” (Zajonc 2013 p. 90) whereby learning is shifted from third-person way of knowing to a firstperson acquisition of knowledge. Currently, in the West, education is dominated by third-person learning, which entails “critical – rational – computational ways of knowing” versus a first-person learning, which incorporates “intuitive – perceptive – contemplative ways of knowing” (Anderson et al. 2019, p. 47). Learning from a first-person perspective involves a direct personal experience with what is being learned (Roth 2006). It entails learning through present moment awareness and silence where one is

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

159

not just aware of what one is directly learning but also aware of the “background activity” that is taking place such as thoughts, feelings, and emotions. In this sense learning from the first-person perspective essentially falls into the realm of metacognition where one is aware of one’s own thinking process but in addition to being aware of the thinking process one is also aware of everything else that is simultaneously taking place. In terms of contemplative pedagogy and first-person learning the quote by the great philosopher Jiddu Kristnamurti sums it up best, “Learning is not [just] the accumulation of knowledge (Krishnamurti 1953). Learning is movement from moment to moment,” which highlights the fact that gathering information via a third-person perspective is only one kind of learning; in order to truly learn, Krishnamurti (1953) postulates, one must also be aware of what is taking place internally from moment to moment. In our current educational system, we have been trained to pay less attention to inner ways of knowing. This imbalance of privileging one form of knowing over the another has “often invalidated or dismissed the ways of knowing of indigenous populations and people of color” (Rendon and Kanagala 2017, p. 16). To illustrate this imbalance, Rendon and Kanagala (2017, p.16), a Professor at University of Texas, San Antonio, highlighted this insightful quote from Lorde (1984) “The White fathers told us I think therefore I am, The Black mother within each of us—the—poet— whispers in our dreams: I feel therefore I can be free.” Further driving home the point, Rendon and Kanagala (2017, p.16) discusses the fact that in some cultures such as the Native American culture where different ways of knowing are highly valued there is no word for education “rather education is described as coming to know” depicted as a “journey, a process, a questioning for knowledge and understanding.” Opportunities to learn from a first-person perspective are critical and could help alleviate the issues that racial and ethnic minorities have with connecting to science. First-person learning allows the content to be covered in a way that legitimizes the students’ experience, deepens their understanding and ability to discover their own internal reactions, viewpoints, and biases (Barbezat and Bush 2014). As pointed out by contemplative theorists Barbezat and Bush (2014, p. 6), when the content is covered in this manner students don’t ask the questions “how [does] the material fit into the real world or [how is the content] relevant to their lives.”

Contemplative Pedagogies As insightfully noted by Francl (2016, p. 21), “contemplation and science are often placed at opposite sides of the spectrum” but in fact some of the greatest scientists to ever live such as Gregor Mendel, father of genetics and a monk, have been contemplatives and some of the greatest discoveries in human history such as the theory of relativity have manifested out of a contemplation. The next section takes a look into the world of contemplative pedagogy by dissecting some of the pedagogical methods that are commonly used in education including mindfulness, beholding, contemplative reading and writing, deep listening, and contemplative transitional pedagogies. I invite you to explore this section with this quote in mind:

160

S. Smith and W. Pitts

To educate the student rightly is to help him understand the total process of himself – Jiddu Krishnamurti

Mindfulness One contemplative pedagogy that is already sweeping across the nation in K-12 classrooms is mindfulness, currently it is mainly used to promote social and emotional well-being but it can be equally as impactful when utilized through the lens of teaching and learning academic content (Meiklejohn et al. 2012; Zajonc 2013). The official definition of mindfulness is, “paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn 2016). But what exactly does that mean? Paying attention refers to the notion that one chooses to pay attention to something in particular, which could be paying attention to the breath, paying attention to sound, paying attention to the body, or paying attention to a particular object, on purpose speaks to the fact that you are intentionally making the intention to pay attention to something, in the present moment means you are doing it in the here and now meaning you are not thinking about the past or thinking about the future you are 100% in the moment and you are doing it non-judgmentally meaning you are not judging the experience you are just being with what is. The purpose of mindfulness is to cultivate awareness and to quiet the mind, in fact mindfulness equals awareness. We like to use the analogy of a hypothetical snow globe being shaken up, once you shake up the globe all of the snow clouds up the globe and you can’t see through the globe clearly. In order to see through the globe clearly what must happen? Surely, all of the snow must first settle down to the bottom of the globe. In this analogy the globe represents our mind and the snow represents all of the thoughts, emotions, fears, anger, frustrations, etc., that are continuously cycling through our minds. In order for us to see “through” our minds clearly, all the background activity must first settle down. Mindfulness is the tool that is utilized to facilitate the settling down process. Simply defined, mindfulness is a mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness on the present moment while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations (Kabat-Zinn 2016). Paying attention in this manner reduces the background noise in our minds, which facilitates calmness, clarity, and the ability to respond to challenges and conflict in a productive non-reactive manner (Hanh 1999, 2010; Saltzman and Goldin 2008; Kabat-Zinn 2010). With regard to multicultural education, the fostering of peace through conscious awareness is paramount given the fact that youth of color face unique challenges such as discrimination, racial profiling, poverty, and anti-immigrant sentiment all of which promote inner turmoil, restlessness, and agitating conflict. Tragically and to the detriment of our youth, school stakeholders (i.e., policy makers, leaders, and teachers) tend to be more preoccupied with students’ academic achievement and far less concerned with the fostering of students’ emotional and spiritual well-being. The standard “oppressive” interventions such as suspension, expulsions, and incarcerations of youth only perpetuate negative outcomes and lead to further erosion of

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

161

the moral fabric of our society. While strides are being made to reverse the tides of repressive remediation, such as the promotion of peaceful resolution of conflict through restorative practices, more needs to be done because without addressing these underlying persistent issues true learning it not possible in any content area including science. In order to grow and learn, students must first feel supported and loved, this is a nonnegotiable perquisite. In K-12 schools, mindfulness has been shown to enhance social and emotional competence by increasing social skills and coping skills, by enhancing emotional regulation and self-esteem and by reducing stress and anxiety; in addition to enhancing social and emotional competencies, mindfulness training has also been shown to improve attention and behavior and to enhance academic success (Meiklejohn et al. 2012; Zenner et al. 2014; Schonert-Reichl and Roeser 2016). Mindfulness and awareness form the bedrock of all of the other contemplative pedagogies in that all of the pedagogies utilize awareness to bring attention to the particular activity that is being carried out whether it be observing an object (beholding), reading (contemplative reading), writing (contemplative writing), or listening to others with compassion (deep listening). Everyday examples of how mindfulness can be utilized in the class include having students focus on their breath for a minute or two, having students focus on sound, or engaging students in mindful movement such as Yoga. As stated above, most uses of mindfulness in K-12 education have focused on fostering social and emotional learning; however, mindfulness can also be utilized as a tool for learning in the classroom. Opening the contemplative mind provides true opportunity for learning. “One example of this is demonstrated by Elam Coalson et al. (2020), professor at Pzitzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago, who utilizes a form of mindfulness meditation in an undergraduate physics course to expand students awareness of the connection between fundamental principles in physics and personal experience by deliberately drawing students attention to electromagnetic phenomena (such as friction) in their surroundings” (p. 1). To accomplish this task, Coalson et al. (2020, pp. 14–15) gives students the following instructions: First students are informed that the purpose of the contemplative practice is to “explore their personal relationship with electromagnetic phenomena,” they are also told that “there is not right or wrong way to reflect on it,” and that the goal is to simply pay attention. Students are then asked to choose a place on campus where they can sit undisturbed for 30 min. After settling in to their chosen location, students are then guided in a mindfulness meditation practice as follows: Find a comfortable and upright position and simply become aware of your body, sense its position and weight and inner space, bring your attention to your seat, where your body is supported by the chair. Feel the weight of your body and how it is drawn to the Earth. Let your body really settle and be at ease. Appreciate the simplicity of being, bodily present here and now. Now close your eyes and concentrate on your hearing, be open and sensitive to sound. You can note sounds with a simple label – bird singing, traffic noise, refrigerator hum. At the same time, try to notice the larger quality of silence that surrounds whatever you hear from moment to moment. Now sense the whole space around you, experience the vast quality of your awareness. Finally, bring your attention to the center of your chest, placing

162

S. Smith and W. Pitts

your hands over your heart and experience the quality of your presence. You are simply here, alive, breathing, feeling, experiencing your basic existence. It is happening right now, at this moment. Let your attention encompass your whole body. Then gently open your eyes and extend your awareness into the space around you. (Coalson et al. 2020, pp. 14–15)

After the meditation while still maintaining an expanded awareness of their bodies and space around them, Coalson et al. (2020, p. 15) asks students to “contemplate the manifestation of electromagnetic phenomena in their surroundings” they are told that “some may be apparent, some may be less so and that questions, confusions, distractions and insights might arise and to just make room for all of it.” Students are also told that “whatever your unique experience may be, it is relevant and valuable.” Finally, students are asked to write a reflection about their experience. Analysis of reflection data collected from students revealed that most students were able to become aware of electromagnetic phenomena through carrying out the experiment. For example, as outlined by Coalson et al. (2020), students were able to become aware of the relationship between the normal force between the chair and their bodies and the frictional force between their feet and the floor, students were also able to become aware of the electrostatic interactions between electrons in different objects. In addition to being able to become aware of electromagnetic phenomena, students were able to make interdisciplinary connections to other areas of science such as biology and chemistry, for instance, one student noted the “subtle but pervasive effects of electrical forces on their bodies” and another student considered the role that electrons play in forming chemical bonds (Coalson et al. 2020, p. 5). Furthermore, students expressed that the mindfulness meditation practice stimulated their inherent curiosity and that they enjoyed experiencing an expanded state of consciousness and embodiment. Based on the inspiring and revolutionary example given by Coalson, it is clear to have a glimpse of the power of incorporating mindfulness meditation into the curriculum for when students are invited to step outside of their “normal” realm of existence and just become one with what they observe, without the interference of ruminating thoughts, the process of learning then truly becomes transformative.

Contemplative Reading and Writing Contemplative reading and contemplative writing are frequently paired together. Contemplative reading “allows students to slow down and engage deeply and intuitively with a given [text]. . .through contemplation and present moment awareness” (Naropa University 2020). This process deepens understanding and connection to the material, enhances student engagement, and builds focus and attention (Barbezat and Bush 2014; Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning 2017). Contemplative reading is especially beneficial for culturally diverse students whose native language may not be English and for those that have difficulty learning via text (for example, visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners).

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

163

Contemplative writing is not a new concept, teachers and scholars, particularly those working in Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC), often utilize contemplative approaches to writing; however the difference between contemplative writing as a pedagogy and contemplative writing as a practice is that as a pedagogy contemplative writing is used with the specific intention of “fostering awareness, embodied knowledge and self-inquiry and introspection into the process of learning” (Miller 2019, p. 2). As stated by Miller (2019), a professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, “It is the integrated and focused practice of contemplative writing [specifically] within the classroom that makes a qualitative difference” (Miller 2019, p. 2). Contemplative writing helps students “reclaim the scared art of writing” and focuses on the process rather than the final product (Barbezat and Bush 2014, pp. 110–111) leading to deeper understanding and enhanced connection to the content. Several examples exist in the literature that sheds light on how contemplative reading and completive writing can be utilized in multicultural science education classrooms. David Haskell (as cited in Barbezat and Bush 2014), associate professor of biology and environmental science at the University of the South, in his course on Food and Hunger connects academic work with both social action and contemplative practice. In Haskell’s course, students conduct research on food distribution systems and investigate hunger among the poor communities in surrounding areas. During class, students are exposed to various contemplative pedagogies including contemplative reading and contemplative writing. To utilize contemplative reading in the classroom, Haskell (Barbezat and Bush 2014, pp. 114–115) instructs students to first sit quietly and relax their mind and bodies, next he asks students to read an entire text aloud slowly, each student reads one to two sentences and then passes along the text to the next reader. After the entire text is read students are asked to reflect on the text in silence for a minute, after reflecting on the entire text a short passage from the text is chosen and read aloud and students are asked to again reflect in silence on the short passage. After this second round of reading and reflection students are then asked to share just one word or phrase from the shorter reading that caught their attention without discussing or explaining why they chose it. The short passage is then read again aloud and students reflect in silence for a third time on the passage. Following this round of silent reflection each student is asked to share a longer passage from the text, the other students just listen without responding. Finally, the short passage is read one last time and students again reflect for a minute. David Haskell states (Barbezat and Bush 2014, p. 115) that, “this participatory process of reading aloud immerses students in the text so that they are swimming in it rather than speed boating across the surface.” During the contemplative writing component of Haskell’s class, students are instructed to reflect in their journals about the disparities and embedded injustices that contribute to hunger among the poor, through the reflective process of journaling students are forced to think deeply and contemplate the realities that they are learning about allowing them to form authentic connections to the content. In a similar example, Victor Goode and Maria Arias (cited by Barbezat and Bush 2014), professors at CUNY Law utilized contemplative reading to have students reflect on historical accounts of social injustices and racism. One assignment for example was to read Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” as a class. As noted by

164

S. Smith and W. Pitts

the professors, the letter contains powerful and perhaps controversial statements such as “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” and “society must protect the robbed and punish the robber” – statements that have the potential to illicit strong emotional responses. During the contemplative reading practice, each student had to read one sentence from the letter aloud thereby allowing the class to collectively reflect and consciously internalize the meaning and ramifications of what was being read. Reading in this manner builds a shared sense of community and mutual understanding that in turn enhances comprehension. These examples not only highlight how contemplative reading and writing can be utilized in the classroom but also how these contemplative pedagogies can work synergistically with other types of equity pedagogy such as culturally responsive teaching to promote greater connection to the material and to ensure that the content is relevant to students. Additionally, these pedagogies provide an excellent platform to discuss difficult topics such as racism and disenfranchisement in science and tragic events that took place in science, like the Tuskegee experiment, which lead people of color to inherently and justifiably have a distrust in the scientific and medical fields. Conversely, these pedagogies could also be utilized to highlight inspiring topics like the accomplishments of famous scientists of color, such as Percy Julian, pioneer in the chemical synthesis of medicinal drugs or Mae Carol Jemison, first black astronaut, so that marginalized students can begin to embrace the notion that they too can have a seat at the table.

Contemplative Transitional Pedagogies Contemplative transitional pedagogies here refer to the use of contemplative practices during transitional phases in the classroom to deepen student learning. Throughout the unfolding of a class several transitions take place, the question is how can we utilize those transitions as platforms to maximize learning? Richard Brown (2014), director of the Contemplative Teaching Initiative at Naropa University in Boulder, Co, in a book chapter entitled, Teaching Between the Spaces, describes how his program has adapted the principles of a Japanese tradition called “Ja, Ha, Kyu” as a basis to incorporate contemplative pedagogies into the naturally occurring transitions in the classroom. As outlined by Brown, Ja refers to an “orderly beginning,” Ha, the middle refers to an “intensification” and Kyu refers to “the culmination” or “exit from an activity.” Utilizing these precepts, Brown masterfully outlines how the beginning, middle, and ending of the classroom trajectory can be infused with contemplative pedagogies to drive positive student outcomes (Brown 2014, pp. 277–279).

Contemplative Beginnings Brown (2014) suggests that one effective technique that can be utilized to transition into the beginning of class is mindfulness. Utilizing mindfulness at the beginning of class can serve to focus students’ attention and allow them to drop into a space of

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

165

receptivity that helps to facilitate the transfer of learning. Additionally, it can help to foster a positive learning environment where there is a strong sense of community and belonging among all students. Given the difficulty that some students have from traditionally underrepresented groups to be able to situate themselves in the field of science, this honing in process can open their minds to new possibilities and allow them to see themselves as potential practitioners in STEM-related fields.

Contemplative Transitions in the Middle In terms of transitions in the middle of class, one technique that was highlighted by Brown (2014) was the infusion of silent moments into the classroom by the incorporation of a mindfulness bell. The premise is that when the mindfulness bell is rung, all students are signaled to engage in a moment or two of silence. Utilization of this technique can serve to focus students’ attention by bringing them back to the present moment, which can be particularly helpful during teacher-directed instruction when students’ minds tend to wander off or during group discussions to ensure that students are paying attention to each other.

Contemplative Transitions at the End of Class With regard to the ending of class one useful technique that Brown (2014) suggests is including journaling and reflection activities to give students a chance to assimilate what they have learned. Given the need to cover a massive amount of content at a hurried pace, teachers might overlook the need to give students time to process and reflect on what they have learned. By strategically making the time for silent reflection it allows students to internalize and “be with” what they have learned allowing them to make authentic connections to the content. Transitional pedagogies, which infuse moments of silence into the classroom, can play a key role in both science and multicultural education. With regard to science education, these silent moments can enhance student focus and attention, deepen student understanding and allow students to make deeper connections to the content. With regard to multicultural education, these spaces of silence can allow teachers time to reflect on their own thoughts, feelings, and emotions and help them to better connect to their students (Brown 2014).

Beholding Beholding is a practice of silently and carefully examining an image or object with sustained attention and awareness. During this process all of one’s “power of observation” are solely focused on an object, which is much different than the way that we currently look at things with a hurried rushed pace. In the ekphrastic tradition, creative works, for example poetry, are produced in rhetorical response

166

S. Smith and W. Pitts

to an artifact or another art form such as a painting, photograph, or an ancient structure (Gulla 2018). This often requires beholding the artifact with sustained attention and awareness. In contemplative pedagogy, beholding allows students to pay attention to detail, develop new perspectives, construct their own knowledge, and be imaginative and creative, attributes that are paramount to success in the sciences (Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning 2017). Beholding has been shown to be a valuable pedagogical tool in various disciplines including art, architecture, and science. Zieger, a visual arts professor at one of the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society’s Fellows, utilized this process with her students by having students behold an image of an abstract painting for a designated period of time and concluded that through this process students were able to go “beyond their limited perspectives” and “discover [a] sense of connectedness” (Barbezat and Bush 2014, pp. 151–155). Similarly, Don Hanlon, an architecture professor, utilized the technique of beholding to sharpen students’ ability to observe and to enhance design skills (Barbezat and Bush 2014). With regard to science education, Michele Francl, a professor of chemistry at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania regularly utilizes the technique of beholding graphical data in her chemistry class to deepen student understanding. For example, when utilizing the beholding process, Francl (2016) instructs students to spend 3–5 min observing an image of a graph that is displayed on the board. After the students observe the graph, Francl removes the image of the graph and asks students to sketch what they observed. Francl then turns the image of the graph back on and asks students to tell her what they noticed about the graph. Next, she compiles a list of student responses on the board and selects the responses that were most frequently mentioned to focus her lectures on. If crucial points are missed by students, Francl fills in the gaps by lecturing on important features in the graph that she observed. This simple technique of having students focus their attention on graphical data can be a powerful pedagogy to incorporate into science instruction, by allowing students to observe and draw their own conclusions they take ownership of their learning and forge lasting meaningful links to science concepts. In fact, end-ofterm evaluations in Francl’s class reveal that students find the beholding exercises to be one of the most helpful activities that they do throughout the semester (Francl 2016). As alluded to above, the process of beholding can be an ideal complement to inquiry-based science learning and can equip teachers with the tools that are necessary to lead students through the inquiry process in a way that enhances science literacy and achievement in science. To investigate how this might look in action let us envision how beholding could be embedded into the widely utilized 5E inquirybased instructional model to bolster student outcomes. The 5E inquiry-based instructional model is a research-based planned sequence of instruction that promotes student engagement, active learning, collaboration, and inquiry (Bybee et al. 2006). Grounded in educational theory, the 5E model is based on constructivism, psychology of learning, and best practices for teaching science (Bybee et al. 2006; Bybee 2015). The instructional model divides instruction into five phases that serve to bring coherence to inquiry-based instruction and allows teachers to guide students along a journey of exploration that sparks curiosity and critical thinking (Walls 2014). The five phases of the model are: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate.

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

167

The 5E Instructional Model + Beholding (5E + B) During several phases of the 5E model, particularly the engage and explore phases, beholding can be integrated to enhance the effectiveness of the phase. This is particularly important because as counter intuitive as it may sound, recent studies have shown that high levels of student-directed inquiry is associated with lower science achievement and science literacy (Schroeder et al. 2007; Minner et al. 2010; Furtak et al. 2012; Forbes et al. 2020). These findings might be a reflection of the idea that before we instruct students to inquire, we must first teach them how to inquire, how to look. Contemplative pedagogies such as beholding can help to bridge this divide, let us hypothesize how. The first phase of the 5E model is the engage phase, the purpose of this phase is to grab the student’s attention, create interest, and arouse curiosity (Bybee 2015). Often during this phase students are asked to observe an object, phenomenon, or discrepant event – but the question arises do students truly know how to observe? Here is where beholding can come into play. Through the process of beholding students can learn how to pay attention to detail with sustained focus. By focusing students’ attention again and again on a single event they began to not only recognize details that were not immediately apparent to them, they also begin to notice changes in themselves and the way they view and interact with the world (Dietert 2014; The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society 2019). Beholding, as pointed out by Haynes (2005), “offers an epistemology based not on data [and] information. . . .but on [inner] knowledge, wisdom and insight,” essentially it is learning through silent reflection and present moment awareness. Similar to the engage phase, in the explore phase, observation plays a key role in developing student understanding. During the explore phase, students are given time to explore; they test, observe, predict, hypothesize, and form predications thereby constructing their own bridges of understanding (Bybee 2015). Ultimately, their constructed knowledge is utilized as a backdrop for them to formally understand science concepts. Coupling the process of beholding with the exploration phase can open students’ minds to new possibilities and lead to new insights, allowing them to see what otherwise might have been masked had they not been trained in the art of observation. Through beholding, students can begin to internalize the information that they are acquiring through the exploration process at a deeper level. Opening the contemplative mind gives them access to a greater storehouse of information than was previously available to them. Learning via this format is akin to whole person learning in that learning takes place via both cognitive and intuitive ways of knowing. Looking through the lens of multicultural education, the technique of beholding is in direct alignment with equity pedagogy particularly given its focus on visual and experiential learning. It allows students to draw upon and incorporate their lived experiences into the content, leading to enhanced relatability and deeper understanding.

Deep Listening Deep listening is listening from the space of present moment awareness. It is hearing without judgments, without opinions, it is hearing that takes place in the moment without the normal background mental activity (Barbezat and Bush 2014; The

168

S. Smith and W. Pitts

Center for Contemplative Mind in Society 2019). Deep listening involves more than just focusing on sounds that are taking place externally, it also includes “listening” deeply to what is taking place internally such as thoughts feelings, and emotions (Laryea 2018), often it is this internal noise that prevents us from truly hearing. To really listen, we might first be aware of the background activity that is taking place within us, for a “a clouded mirror cannot reflect accurately,” as stated by David Rome (2010) who teaches the technique of deep listening. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that most of us, including students, have not mastered the fine art of listening. By teaching students to listen deeply we can enhance their ability to focus, pay attention, and retain information (Barbezat and Bush 2014). Additionally, deep listening can help students form deeper connections and relationships with others. Sometimes during conversations we fail to really hear what others are saying because we are so wrapped up in our own minds; listening from this distracted space hinders the ability to fully connect with others. Naz Beheshti, author of Pause, Breathe, Choose, states that, “the more deeply we give of ourselves as listeners, the more deeply the other person will be willing to share and connect with us” (Beheshti 2020). Deep listening, like beholding, can play a key role in inquiry-based science learning. Returning to our example of the 5E model, let’s look at how deep learning can be incorporated into the various phases, particularly the explore and explain phases. Recall that during the explore phase students are given time to test, observe, hypothesize, and form predictions (Bybee 2015). Throughout this phase, a large emphasis is placed on cooperative learning, which is the use of small group work to maximize learning. In order for cooperative learning to be effective, students first need to learn how to listen to and interact with each other. However, as pointed out by Johnson and Johnson (2021), teaching students “how [to] interact with each other is [often] a neglected aspect of instruction.” Incorporating the pedagogy of deep listening into inquiry-based cooperative learning activities can help students learn how to better interact with one another leading to a more inclusive learning environment where all voices are heard and respected thereby facilitating the transfer of knowledge and learning. It is one thing to say teach deep listening, but what does that look like in action? How can we go about teaching students to listen deeply? To make this tangible, let’s consider an example that was outlined by Barbezat and Bush (2014, p. 144–145) in the book, “Contemplative Practices in Higher Education.” To instruct students how to listen deeply, first two students can be partnered together, one student can be instructed to be the speaker and the other student can be instructed to be the listener. The speaker can be asked to spend 3–5 min discussing class content, for example, the speaker might talk about what they observed during the engage and explore phase of the 5E instructional model. While the speaker is talking, the listener just listens and “suspends” all internal activity. If thoughts, feelings, opinions, and judgments arise the listener is instructed to simply notice them and then gently return to paying full attention to the speaker. After the speaker is finished talking, the listener can be instructed to paraphrase what the speaker talked about and at this time can ask any clarifying questions that might have arose while they were listening.

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

169

Once the speaker is certain that what they spoke about was understood by the listener, the listener and speaker can switch roles and repeat the exercise. Upon completion of the exercise, students can then be asked to reflect on how it feels to be listened to with care, respect, and attention and how it feels to deeply listen to others; reflecting in this manner can help students internalize the profound importance of listening deeply. After students have become attuned to listening to one other in this manner, during cooperative learning activities students can be reminded to bring these skills into their group work, which will serve to enhance student learning. In a similar manner, students can be asked to employ these deep listening skills during the explain phase of the 5E inquiry-based model when the teacher typically provides direct instruction to explain the scientific concepts in formal terms. Having students focus their attention in this way during the explain phase will increase student understanding and retention of the content. Deep listening pedagogy does not apply only to student–to–student interactions it also considers teacher–student interactions (Laryea 2018). Teachers can utilize deep listening skills to help them listen deeply to what students are saying without bias, judgment, or opinions. When teachers truly listen, it can help them to build trust, strengthen relationships, and connect to all students, particularly students that might be racially and ethnically different from themselves.

Contemplative Pedagogy and Sociocultural Learning Contemplative pedagogy used in combination with sociocultural learning practices can produce opportunities leading to successful learning interactions in science. The Framework for K-12 Science Education indicates that science and science education is a social endeavor with its own social systems, norms, and tools (National Research Council 2012). As such, teaching and learning science is a form of sociocultural enactment that is guided by schema and related social learning practices (Tobin et al. 2005). Two primary goals of sociocultural learning practices in science education are (a) to help teachers guide students in constructing understanding across multiple experiences of science learning and (b) to help students construct and communicate understanding of core content knowledge by engaging in ways of thinking and practicing science with others. Progression in meeting both of these goals can serve as a traceable way to link contemplative pedagogy with sociocultural learning. Contemplative pedagogies, such as deep listening, can play a role in sociocultural learning while both intentional and unintentional cognitive adjustments are being made in schema by individuals learning science; this alludes to the fact that contemplative pedagogies may carry forward schema as organizing mental states that shape learning during social interactions in the classroom. Contemplative practices can be understood as part of the process of integrative learning that can profoundly shape social events in the classroom and help to build productive social and emotional relationships that can enhance learning. While we do not argue for a specific formula for conceptual integration, we argue that learning, including learning science, passes through threshold forms of conceptual events and

170

S. Smith and W. Pitts

lived experiences that can be guided by contemplative pedagogies. For example, contemplative pedagogies, such as deep listening, can converge with accessing schemas in new ways that become a deliberate part of communication and discourse strategies in the classroom, which can serve to help both teachers and students recognize intentional goal-directed learning opportunities previously not recognized. As we know, classroom practices involve more than mechanical approaches to structure learning opportunities. In contemplative pedagogy, the lived experience of learning includes the immediacy of being in the present moment even when other forms of contemplative practice appear to be absent. The goal then is to engage contemplative practices in ways that connect ideas across learning experiences to help sustain students’ willingness to learn from others and to help teachers structure activities to address students’ interests and create more opportunities that resonate with learning. However, there is a tendency to try to formalize the connection between contemplative practice and learning outcomes within traditional models of science instruction that isolate the experiences of students. The problem with this line of thinking is that social cues and shared epistemologies that are realized during contemplative practice may be carried to future learning opportunities making it difficult to directly measure the impact of contemplative pedagogy on student learning. Illustrating this point is the fact that, contemplative pedagogies connected across the lived experiences of learning science can ignite meaningful social intention that fuels the continuation of learning (Berila 2015). Furthermore, these pedagogies can instill a thematic set of dispositions in both teachers and students that become both socially and emotionally appropriate to future learning environments (Barbezat and Bush 2014). The convergence of contemplative pedagogy, integrative learning, and sociocultural learning can come into play through sequences of social events in the classroom that form the basis for connectedness in learning experiences and relationships, which in turn can drive positive student outcomes.

Teacher Education, Contemplative Pedagogy, and Multicultural Competency In addition to playing a key role in K-12 science classrooms, contemplative pedagogies can also play a key role in teacher education particularly by helping teachers to develop multicultural competencies. One of the key issues still plaguing science education, and frankly education in general, is that a large portion of teachers harbor a “fear of teaching students of color and are resistant to dealing directly with race and racism” in the classroom (Gay and Howard 2000, p. 3). Furthermore, a lot of teachers particularly in the STEM fields hold the view that these content areas are the same regardless of the cultural background of the students (Banks and Banks 2009). Banks, a renowned scholar in multicultural education, points out that, “teachers who cannot easily see how their content is related to cultural issues will easily dismiss multicultural education with the argument that it is not relevant to their disciplines” (Banks and Banks 2009, p. 20). If we are to succeed in bridging this divide in science education and education in general, it is absolutely imperative that

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

171

teachers not only understand diverse cultures but also understand how to meet the needs of a diverse multicultural student population (Atwater 2010). Incorporation of contemplative pedagogy into teacher education can help teachers acquire the ability to be critically reflective and to “unlearn the conditioned responses that uphold systems of oppression” and confront implicit biases that they may hold (Berila 2015, p. 15). Additionally, these pedagogies, particularly mindfulness, can cultivate awareness and emotional intelligence making conversations about racism, oppression, and other sensitive topics less intense and reactive (Berila 2015). As elegantly stated by Berila (2015), professor in Ethnic and Woman’s Studies at St. Cloud State University It is not enough to simply learn about oppression. We have to literally unlearn oppression: examine our role in it, dismantle deeply held ideologies, and create alternative, more empowering, ways of relating to another (p. 3).

The right kind of education starts with the teachers who must deeply understand themselves so that they can be free from established habits of mind and biases “for what they are, they impart” (Krishnamurti 1953, p. 98). Krishnamurti (1953) continues this line of thought by postulating that “unless the educator understands himself, unless he sees his own conditioned responses and is beginning to free himself from existing values [he cannot properly educate the student]. . .the problem is not the student [but rightly educating the teachers]” (pp. 98–104). It is paramount that as part of teacher education we train teachers in the art of true self-reflection through present moment awareness and contemplation so that they are ready to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century multicultural education.

Conclusion A famous Zen teacher once said “the problem in America is racism” and while he made this statement over 50 years ago the same statement still rings true. The ripple effects of this persistent cancer that has plagued our nation since its inception can be seen in every facet of our society and science education is no exception (Atwater et al. 2013a; Walls 2014). Given this landmark time in history, it is abundantly clear that now is the time for radical transformative change. While educational reform movements such as multicultural education have made great strides, there still exists an equity and achievement gap in education, particularly in the sciences. Compounding the problem is the complacency surrounding issues of race, culture, and diversity among educators. Based on these facts, it is clear that we need to rethink our approach to multicultural education in the twenty-first century. Over the past two decades a “contemplative turn” has begun to take place that has spawned a “quiet revolution” in education. This revolution termed contemplative pedagogy is a movement to reintegrate intuitive ways of knowing back into academia, “to return to a time before logic” and cognition dominated (Lin et al. 2019). As stated by Hart (2004 p. 28), and cited by Miller (2019 p. 1), “the rational-empirical-

172

S. Smith and W. Pitts

approach has set the standard for knowledge across the disciplines. . . .contemplative knowing is the missing link, one that affects student performance, character, and depth of understanding.” Learning through awareness and contemplation empowers students and places them at the center of their own learning allowing them to make authentic connections to the content, to think critically, to be creative, and to discover who they are from within. For teachers, contemplative practice fosters the ability to be critically self-reflective, cultivates multicultural competency and emotional intelligence, and enables teachers to connect deeply to their students through compassion, love, and empathy. In closing I will share the thoughts of the great spiritual teacher and philosopher, Jiddu Krishnamurti, according to J. Krishnamurti education should be an “integrating process in which there can be comprehension of the whole, total process of life not merely a segment,” he contended that “the mere acquisition of knowledge is not intelligence and does not make an intelligent human being” (Krishnamurti 2016 p. 53). In J. Krishnamurti’s view, “To educate the student rightly is to help him to understand the total process of himself. . .the ignorant man [he states] is not the unlearned but he who does not know himself” (Krishnamurti 1953 p. 45).

References Anderson L, Miyakawa M, Mangat M (2019) Pedagogical infusion of the contemplative SFU’s contemplative inquiry Master’s of Education Program in Canada. In: Contemplative pedagogies for transformative teaching, learning, and being. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte Archer L, Dewitt J, Osborne J (2015) Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Sci Educ 99:199–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21146 Atwater MM (1996) Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. J Res Sci Teach 33:821–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736 (199610)33:83.0.CO;2-Y Atwater MM (2000a) Equity for Black Americans in precollege science. Sci Educ 84:154–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:23.0.CO;2-R Atwater MM (2000b) Females in science education: white is the norm and class, language, lifestyle, and religion are nonissues. J Res Sci Teach 37:386–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982736(200004)37:43.0.CO;2-M Atwater MM (2010) Multicultural science education and curriculum materials. Sci Act 47:103–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121003631652 Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspectives, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77:661–668 Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodard U, Johnson NH (2013a) Race and ethnicity: powerful cultural forecasters of science learning and performance. Theory Pract 52:6–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07351690.2013.743757 Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler MB (eds) (2013b) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice, 2014th edn. New York, Springer Banks JA, Banks CAM (2009) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives, 7th edn. Wiley, Hoboken Barbezat DP, Bush M (2014) Contemplative practices in higher education: powerful methods to transform teaching and learning, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Beheshti N (2020) Reclaim the lost art of deep listening. In: Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ nazbeheshti/2020/01/30/reclaim-the-lost-art-of-deep-listening/. Accessed 22 Feb 2021

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

173

Bennett CI (2014) Comprehensive multicultural education: theory and practice. Pearson eText with loose-leaf version – access card package, 8. Pearson, Boston, MA Berila B (2015) Integrating mindfulness into anti-oppression pedagogy: social justice in higher education, 1st edn. Routledge, New York Brown R (2014) Transitions: teaching from the spaces between. In: Contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines, Reprint edn. SUNY Press, Albany, p 424 Butler MB, Atwater MM, Russell M (2013) Introduction: culture, equity, and social justice for science teacher educators. In: Multicultural Science Education, 2014th edn. Springer, New York, pp 1–7 Bybee RW (2015) The BSCS 5E instructional model: creating teachable moments. National Science Teachers Association, Arlington, VA Bybee RW, Taylor JA, Gardner A, et al (2006) The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness. In: BSCS Sci. Learn. https://bscs.org/resources/reports/the-bscs-5e-instructionalmodel-origins-and-effectiveness/. Accessed 9 Feb 2021 Coalson E, Feldman AL, Krusberg ZAC (2020) Contemplative practice and classical electrodynamics: discovering electromagnetic phenomena in lived experience through somatic meditation. ArXiv Phys Educ Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2017) Columbia center for teaching and learning. In: Columbia Cent. Teach. Learn. https://ctl.columbia.edu/resources-and-technology/resources/ contemplative-pedagogy/. Accessed 13 Jun 2020 Dietert RR (2014) Integrating contemplative tools into biomedical science education and research training programs. J Biomed Educ 2014:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/239348 Ergas O (2019) A contemplative turn in education: charting a curricular-pedagogical countermovement. Pedagog Cult Soc 27:251–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2018.1465111 Forbes CT, Neumann K, Schiepe-Tiska A (2020) Patterns of inquiry-based science instruction and student science achievement in PISA 2015. Int J Sci Educ 42:783–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500693.2020.1730017 Francl MM (2016) Practically impractical: contemplative practices in science. J Contempl Inq 3:14 Furtak EM, Seidel T, Iverson H, Briggs DC (2012) Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 82:300–329. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0034654312457206 Gay G (2013) Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curric Inq 43:48–70. https://doi.org/10. 1111/curi.12002 Gay G, Howard TC (2000) Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. Teach Educ 36:1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555246 Gulla AN (2018) Ekphrastic conversations: writing poems as dialogues with works of art/conversations ekphrasiques: écrire des poèmes pour converser avec les œuvres d’art. Can Rev Art Educ 45:23–31. https://doi.org/10.26443/crae.v45i1.56 Gunnlaugson O (2014) Contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines, Reprint edn. SUNY Press, Albany Hanh TN (1999) The miracle of mindfulness: an introduction to the practice of meditation, 1st edn. Beacon Press, New York Hanh TN (2010) You are here: discovering the magic of the present moment, Reprint edn. Shambhala, Boston Hart T (2004) Opening the contemplative mind in the classroom. J Transform Educ 2:28–46. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1541344603259311 Haynes DJ (2005) Contemplative practice and the education of the whole person. ARTS Arts Relig Theol Stud 16:7 Hill C (2006) Introduction to special issue: contemplative practices and education. Teach Coll Rec 9:1723–1732 Johnson NH, Atwater MM (2013) The impact of beliefs and actions on the infusion of culturally relevant pedagogy in science teacher education. In: The impact of beliefs and actions on the infusion of culturally relevant pedagogy in science teacher education, 2014 edn. Springer, New York

174

S. Smith and W. Pitts

Johnson D, Johnson R (2021) What is cooperative learning? In: Cooperative learning Institute. http://www.co-operation.org/what-is-cooperative-learning. Accessed 22 Feb 2021 Kabat-Zinn J (2010) Wherever you go, there you are: mindfulness meditation in everyday life, 1st edn. Hachette Books, New York, NY Kabat-Zinn J (2016) Mindfulness for beginners: reclaiming the present moment and your life(book & CD)), Reprint edn. Sounds True, Boulder Keiser DL, Sakulkoo S (2014) Thai and U.S. perspectives on contemplative pedagogy. In: Contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines. SUNY Press, Albany Krishnamurti (1953) Education and the significance of life, 1st edn. HarperOne, New York Krishnamurti J (2016) Insights into education: bringing about a totally new mind. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Ojai Laryea K (2018) A pedagogy of deep listening in E-learning. J Conscious Evol 11:22 Lin J, Culham T, Edwards S (eds) (2019) Contemplative pedagogies for transformative teaching, learning, and being. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte Lorde A (1984) Sister outsider. Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press Meiklejohn J, Phillips C, Freedman ML et al (2012) Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: fostering the resilience of teachers and students. Mindfulness 3:291–307 Miller M (2019) Contemplative writing across the disciplines. https://wac.colostate.edu/atd/special/ contemplative/. Accessed 20 Jun 2020 Minner DD, Levy AJ, Century J (2010) Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. J Res Sci Teach 47:474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347 Morgan PF (2015) A brief history of the current reemergence of contemplative education. J Transform Educ 13:197–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614564875 Naropa University (2020) Contemplative reading practice | Naropa University. https://www.naropa. edu/academics/cace/pedagogy-trainings/contemplative-reading.php#:~:text¼The%20practice %20of%20contemplative%20reading,contemplation%20and%20present%2Dmoment% 20awareness. Accessed 20 Jun 2020 National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10. 17226/13165 National Science Foundation (2018) Report – S&E Indicators 2018 | NSF – National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/elementary-and-secondary-math ematics-and-science-education/student-learning-in-mathematics-and-science. Accessed 16 Jun 2020 National Science Foundation (2019) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019 | NSF – National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/ nsf19304/digest/field-of-degree-minorities. Accessed 15 Jun 2020 New York Times (2020) For a Day, Scientists Pause Science to Confront Racism – The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/science/science-diversity-racism-protests.html. Accessed 15 Jun 2020 Nieto S (2000) Placing equity front and center: some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. J Teach Educ 51:180–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003004 Nieto S, Bode P (2019) Affirming diversity: the sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 6th edn. Pearson, Boston Palmer PJ, Zajonc A, Scribner M, Nepo M (2010) The heart of higher education: a call to renewal, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Pizzuto D (2018) Contemplative practices in higher education: examining faculty perspectives Seton Hall Univ Diss Theses ETDs 2492 Rendon RI, Kanagala V (2017) Embracing contemplative pedagogy in a culturally diverse classroom. Initiat Contempl Equity Action J 1:15–26 Repetti R (2010) The case for a contemplative philosophy of education. New Dir Community for Community Colleges 151:5–15

7

Contemplative Pedagogy – Implications for Multicultural Science Education

175

Rome D (2010) Deep listening. In: Mindful. https://www.mindful.org/deep-listening/. Accessed 22 Feb 2021 Roth H (2006) Contemplative studies: prospects for a new field. Teach Coll Rec 108:1787–1815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00762.x Roth H (2014) A pedagogy for the new field of contemplative studies. In: Contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines. SUNY Press, Albany, p 97 Saltzman A, Goldin P (2008) Mindfulness-based stress reduction for school-age children. In L. A. Greco & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Acceptance and mindfulness treatments for children and adolescents: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 139–161). New Harbinger Publications Sanders LA (2013) Contemplative studies in higher education: new directions for teaching and learning, number 134. Wiley, Somerset Sarath EW (2014) What next? Contemplating the future of contemplative education. In: Contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 361–377 Schonert-Reichl KA, Roeser RW (eds) (2016) Handbook of mindfulness in education: integrating theory and research into practice, 1st edn. Springer, New York Schroeder CM, Scott TP, Tolson H et al (2007) A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. J Res Sci Teach 44: 1436–1460. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20212 Stock B (2006) The contemplative life and the teaching of the humanities. Teach Coll Rec 108: 1760–1764 The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society (2019) Contemplative practices | The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. http://www.contemplativemind.org/practices. Accessed 9 Oct 2019 Tobin K, Elmesky R, Seiler G (2005) Improving urban science education: new roles for teachers, students, and researchers. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham Walls L (2012) Third grade African American students’ views of the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 49:1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20450 Walls L (2014) Science education and females of color: the play within a play. In: Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler MB (eds) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 41–59 Waring N (2014) Integrating mindfulness theory and practice at Lesley University. In: Contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines. SUNY Press, Albany, p 165 Zajonc A (2006) Cognitive affective connections between teaching and learning: the relationship between love and knowledge. J Cogn Affect Learn 3:1–9 Zajonc A (2013) Contemplative pedagogy: a quiet revolution in higher education. New Dir Teach Learn 2013:83–94 Zenner C, Herrnleben-Kurz S, Walach H (2014) Mindfulness-based interventions in schools – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014. 00603

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation, Engagement, and Belonging Meta Van Sickle and Julie Swanson

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deeper Levels of Understanding the Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letting Our Keen Eyes and Ears See and Hear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communication Styles in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the Early Childhood Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

178 180 180 186 186 194 194 199 199

Abstract

The literature on multicultural education that addresses culturally responsive teaching is filled with conflicting viewpoints about what works and for whom. This chapter is a brief review of how teachers can use their keen eyes and ears to identify key differences in their students’ life aspects. Life aspects include but are not limited to a student’s ethnicity, gender, language, race, and socioeconomic background. The main idea underlying life aspects is that differences matter but are not binary. Exploration of each of these ideas follows and leads to deeper levels of understanding the student. Teachers, especially science teachers, can then use the information to understand the importance of educating in an equitable and socially just manner. After noticing what our keen eyes and ears can tell us about our students, this chapter focuses on how to communicate with the early school-aged child. This section describes communication through the lenses of style, attitudes toward conflict, approaches toward decision-making, perceptions of self and others, and personal stories. In the final section, a review of two sets of M. Van Sickle (*) · J. Swanson College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_12

177

178

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

early childhood curriculum materials will be evaluated both in terms of testing efficacy on a variety of populations and, secondly, on ways in which the materials provide opportunities for cultural responsiveness. Keywords

Multicultural education · Culturally responsive teaching · Inequity · Bias · Prejudice · Bigotry · Early childhood · Science teaching

Scientists and science educators made the radical decision to become more inclusive. That’s where the title Science for All Americans came from. –Bob Hirshorn, AAAS

Introduction As early childhood science educators, we have a responsibility to ensure that our approach to teaching provides the highest probability that our students will learn. Vittrup (2016) states that the early childhood years of education are a prime target to ensure that children learn about cultural differences and learn to respect ideas about diversity. Vittrup further notes that students of color now make up 48% of the school population and that this percentage is projected to reach 55% by 2023. Specifically, Hispanic students make up 24% of the school population, and Black students make up 16%. Nonetheless, the majority (84%) of teachers in our schools remain predominantly White. These data show that most students of color are being taught or are learning from someone who is of a different race, increasing the relevance of and need for multicultural education practices. In order to successfully teach a diverse population of students, teachers must be educated on multicultural practices and implement their new knowledge in the classrooms. Multicultural education practices require an awareness of sociopolitical and environmental constructs. Both sociopolitical and environmental constructs are apparent in our classrooms with highly diverse populations of students from wide varieties of cultures. To meet the needs of students from many cultures, we must find ways to use culturally responsive teaching practices that help overcome the systemic limitations that reduce children’s learning. Bennett et al. (2018) define culturally responsive teaching as teaching that ensures the students’ cultures are expressed in the classroom. More specifically, culturally responsive teaching “. . .incorporates student culture into the classroom as a way for students to understand themselves and others and to conceptualize learning and knowledge” (Ladson-Billings 1995, p. 241). Walter (2018) agrees with this definition in that student culture helps them understand themselves and others. Additionally, Gay (2010) expands the definition of culturally responsive teaching as “. . .using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them” (p. 36). For the purposes of this

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

179

chapter, culturally responsive teaching is used as a lens that illustrates a specific aspect of multicultural education. This aspect focuses on the ability to learn from and relate to people of your own culture as well as people from other cultures. This dual ability, learning via one’s own culture as well as others, allows the student to ensure his/her place in science learning. While our thinking about how to be culturally responsive has grown, the issues of race, class, gender, and their intersectionality remain an area for deeper examination especially among our preservice teachers’ attitudes. These intersectionalities directly relate to the socio and political aspects described in the multicultural education literature. According to Cherng and Davis (2019), preservice teachers’ attitudes persist with deficit thinking about students not like themselves: Although consistent with what some have characterized as a prevailing deficit view of preservice teachers as a homogeneous and culturally deficient group (Lowenstein 2009; Garrett and Segall 2013), discernable variation in candidates’ backgrounds, social identities, and experiences suggests that it is exceedingly unlikely that levels of multicultural awareness—conceived in terms of individuals’ consciousness of, sensitivity toward, and appreciation for cultural pluralism in education—are uniform in the population. (p. 1)

Multicultural education has existed as a discipline since the 1980s (Banks 2004) and been defined in a variety of ways. The ideas drawn from the multicultural education literature re presented in this chapter behoove us to think about race, class, gender, and other influential factors that form identit(ies) within our teacher population. Preservice teachers have great variation in their sociopolitical backgrounds and yet generally are unaware of and are insensitive toward other (Lowenstein 2009; Garrett and Segall 2013). Instead of equal access and opportunity to engage in rigorous and challenging learning, schools have reproduced inequity based on class and race and contributed systemically to under achievement of some groups of students. Atwater et al. (2014) succinctly state: . . .meritocracy and individual achievement are fundamental to the US educational system and hold that all students, regardless of their class, race, ethnicity, age, gender, and physical and mental capabilities, have equal access to opportunities for high-quality educational outcomes and, by implication, upward social mobility. (p. 221)

However, lack of specific forms of cultural capital contributes to assumptions that some students are deficient resulting in less access to a quality education. For example, while some students arrive at the kindergarten classroom knowing their alphabet, basic counting skills, and how to write their names, others do not. In addition, if a child arrives at school from a home that is representative of the dominant culture and at least middle-class income, the child has more probability of scoring higher on standardized tests because of the value schools place on the cultural capital these students bring from home (Reeves and Halikias 2017). In schooling, value or deficits are explained via research that disaggregates data based on race, class, gender, and other identity factors. Race, class, ethnicity, age,

180

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

gender, and culture continue as important features that often result in prejudices, biases, and bigotry that systemically result in unequal schooling. To address issues about unequal schooling, this chapter opens with the importance of building equitable schooling in the early childhood science classroom through consideration of how young students feel represented, a sense of belonging, and engagement in science learning. Next, patterns of communication and the impact on learners from diverse backgrounds are described. For example, communication includes style (time, nonverbal vs. verbal), attitudes toward conflict, decisionmaking, group and individual problem finding and solving, perceptions of self and others, and multiple approaches to solutions. Finally, a discussion about culturally responsive teaching practices and concomitant teacher development that promotes integrated and inquiry-based science learning for young children from diverse backgrounds is presented. The discussion includes schooling expectations, teacher beliefs, and the impact these beliefs have on student learning. Finally, science education strategies that address high expectations for all and how to implement them in the classroom will be described providing clarity about how to create a multicultural science classroom through representation, engagement, and belonging.

Deeper Levels of Understanding the Student Letting Our Keen Eyes and Ears See and Hear This section is a brief review of how teachers can use their keen eyes to see and listening ears to hear in order to identify key differences in their students’ life aspects. Life aspects include but are not limited to a student’s ethnicity, gender, language, race, and socioeconomic background. The main idea underlying life aspects is that differences matter but are not binary (Ramos-Garcia 2004). A difference in student’s life aspects is neither better nor worse than the life aspects of the teacher or any other student. Among the observations that a teacher makes can include those of diversity in its many forms, perceptions of right, designations of “other,” country of origin, and intersections among life aspects. Exploration of each of these follows and leads the teacher to deeper levels of understanding the student and the opportunity to understand students from many backgrounds.

Diversity Several studies note that preservice and in-service teachers often have limited cultural experiences. These teachers have difficulty envisioning themselves in and enacting in a setting with students who reflect a high level of diversity (Baker and Taylor 1995; Merryfield 2000; Morales 2000; Butler et al. 2006). For example, in one study, a preservice student reflected about the notion that if teachers had a broad understanding of multicultural issues, that would lead to a deeper understanding about the students they are teaching (Butler et al. 2006). Learning about the students in a class is a difficult challenge because a single family’s genealogy often requires many narratives from multiple cultures contextualized by historical events and

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

181

timelines. Too frequently, family genealogies are woven into a single story such as Asian American, African American, German American, and so on. Relying upon a single narrative for a large group may miss more issues than it explains. Lee et al. (2015) explain this phenomenon as follows: We are told single stories that often neglect the sociocultural factors—the historical reality— of our past. Our family histories are constructed historically and are embedded in social, political, and economic processes and relationships. This article argues that we need to complicate what we know about our past and examine policies and cultural practices that lead to a racialized system of power and privilege, racialized policies, and racialized oppression and progression. (p. 28)

Complicating what we know and recognize about the vast number of issues involved with the degree of diversity among our student populations is a needed but daunting task. For example, understanding that different cultures express the same idea in different ways becomes important a teacher is to understand a student’s understanding of what it means to work hard. The teacher needs to ask: Is it worth it? Is it meaningful? to the student. Realistically, deep understanding of this example requires self-examination of personal biases, prejudices, and bigotry. After the self-examination is complete, the teacher slows down her thinking and assumptions to allow more understanding about the strengths the students bring to the classroom. Development of ideas describing strengths beyond the single story perspective sanctions possibilities for learning and reduces the bias, prejudice, and bigotry needed.

Perceptions of “Right” Continuing with the theme of keenly seeing and carefully listening as a means to deeply understand students, Aikenhead (2006) states, “Not only is cross-cultural science education founded on respect and inclusion of students’ indigenous science, but also its humanistic ideology implies responsiveness to student heterogeneity” (p. 114). Such a responsiveness requires a highly honed set of observations made by the teacher especially when she is from a dominant cultural background. This idea challenges historic notions that Western ways of knowing, particularly in science, are superior and that students must reject their indigenous ways of knowing if they are to participate and make academic gains (Aikenhead 2006). Howes (2002) believes it is the teacher’s job to notice who the student is from the aspects of intersectionality and country of origin. This keen observation requires a teacher to see diversity in its many forms, and to comprehend designations of other and what this designation means about perceptions of right. For example, indigenous people come with a knowledge base that might be more explanatory than current textbooks describe. Specifically, Inuit people have at least 16 words for snow types, Luo peoples know ways to attract butterflies, and Native Americans have long known medicinal uses of plants. Learning the special knowledge of your students helps a teacher relate the content in the classroom to the child’s life. If we are willing to see and hear what our students know, we are likely more able to build on their strengths and extensive knowledge and extend the learning in relevant and complex ways.

182

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

This happens when the teacher sees and hears the examples raised by the students in the class. Science education that starts with the students’ everyday lives allows the teacher to ask questions and pay attention to the students’ answers. An approach to inquiry highly relates to finding relevant content for the students. By using the students’ answers, new avenues of inquiry can be opened. One such possibility would be to have a spokesperson from a local culture describe what is a current, authentic tradition. This approach allows the student to see that his or her culture is current and possesses ways of knowing that are authentic (Aikenhead 2006). Aikenhead (2006) states that such practice, “. . .values the diversity of student identities formed in part from local knowledge and social interaction patterns in the community. A cross-cultural (humanistic) perspective nurtures students’ selfidentities as savvy citizens capable of critically interacting with science-related events and issues in their everyday world” (p. 118). Such cross-cultural practices reduce the danger with which most curricula are fraught – the single story: During a TED Talk, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche (2009) exemplifying the single story, Adiche relates, I come from a conventional, middle-class Nigerian family. My father was a professor. My mother was an administrator. And so, we had, as was the norm, live-in domestic help, who would often come from nearby rural villages. So, the year I turned eight, we got a new house boy. His name was Fide. The only thing my mother told us about him was that his family was very poor. My mother sent yams and rice, and our old clothes, to his family. And when I did not finish my dinner, my mother would say, "Finish your food! Don't you know? People like Fide's family have nothing. So, I felt enormous pity for Fide's family. Then one Saturday, we went to his village to visit, and his mother showed us a beautifully patterned basket made of dyed raffia that his brother had made. I was startled. It had not occurred to me that anybody in his family could make something. All I had heard about them was how poor they were, so that it had become impossible for me to see them as anything else but poor. Their poverty was my single story of them. (Adichie 2009, minute 2:59)

She then followed her personal example of the single story with the single story her college roommate held of her, telling: What struck me was this: She had felt sorry for me even before she saw me. Her default position toward me, as an African, was a kind of patronizing, well-meaning pity. My roommate had a single story of Africa: a single story of catastrophe. In this single story, there was no possibility of Africans being similar to her in any way, no possibility of feelings more complex than pity, no possibility of a connection as human equals. (Adichie 2009, minute 4:49)

Neither single story was fully right, but rather each story revealed a partial understanding of the other. The power of narrative to form our opinions of people different from ourselves can lead to misinterpretations that are harmful if we rely on them. Teachers are well-advised to think of the stories of people from many perspectives. When using keen eyes and ears the teacher notices that his perspectives are mostly from his own life experiences, then he is wise to start the story from the other’s perspectives. Thus, the student’s story holds multiple perspectives (at least two, that

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

183

of teacher and student) and characterizes the other in more ways than the single story of one. Such multiple characterizations can show the student’s strengths rather than focus on a negative stereotype. Adichie (2009) closed her TED Talk with, “All of these stories make me who I am. But to insist on only these negative stories is to flatten my experience and to overlook the many other stories that formed me. The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story” (Adichie 2009, minute 12:57). The single story narrative about the children in this study focused on the students’ home language, known as Gullah, which stems from early studies described in Pollitzer (2013) reflecting the notion that the island folk were speaking a simplified form of English used from master to slave. In Jones et al. (2002) study of local school students with a Gullah-Geechee heritage, they reported on students who used their Island language (Gullah-Geechee) to become literate in math and science. Jones et al. (2002) noted a definite need to foster linkages or crossovers between a student’s home language and culture with those of the classroom (Jegede and Aikenhead 1998; Aikenhead and Jegede 1999). Jones et al. (2002) state that teachers, “. . . need to know how to help students transition from the known (home) to the unknown (classroom) for more harmonious, successful learning. A first step is their ability to take advantage of the very real, tangible linkages between academic areas” (Jones et al. 2002, p. 5). These single story narratives (e.g., Gonzales 1922; Johnson 1930; Mencken 1948) described Gullah as lazy, careless, clumsy-tongued speech. These studies continue to be cited by those who do not recognize or are not willing to recognize Gullah as a language and subsequent de-creolized dialects spoken in the community. Turner (1974) offered the first study to challenge the single story narrative about Gullah and promotes the concept that language holds cultural knowledge important for understanding the world. African American children may arrive at school from a rich homelife oral tradition or verbal art (van Keulen et al. 1998, p. 35). When they encounter the highly linear, objective, and rational culture of science used in public schools (Jegede and Aikenhead 1998), they may experience an academic violence created by a mismatch between the cultures and language forms (O’Loughlin 1992; Aikenhead and Jegede 1999). While teachers need to see and hear the multiple diversities, cultures, and languages that are operating in their classroom, recognition is not enough. Teachers need to be willing to first see and hear their students’ cultures and language and then to find ways to acknowledge and make that reality part of understanding the total child; in doing so, the single negative story can be reduced and possibly eliminated (Van Sickle et al. 2002).

Designations of Other Atwater et al. (2013) describe other as an ethical, political, and cultural understanding held primarily by the dominant culture about the group in which children from nondominant cultures live. Grant and Sleeter (1997) describe other as being in a state of otherwise from the dominant group or dominant culture. Children from groups that are otherwise from the teacher and/or school are stigmatized because of what is considered good and bad between dominant and nondominant groups, respectively.

184

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

Students considered other are taught the same way, using the same curriculum as the dominant group of students. This teaching approach and content does not question the prescribed curriculum in terms of relevance or oppressions that it might influence or even cause (Hall 1992; Smith 1992; Cohen 2006; McLaren 2014). Atwater (2010) questions teachers’ understanding of the influences of class, race, and gender when describing a situation where a participant in study noted that a Black and White student were from the same economic situation, and therefore determined that the students were historically and culturally very similar. A typical response within the science education community is: Embedded in the science education community's reform efforts is a belief that rigorous standards backed by quality curricula and effective teaching, often identified as a form of inquiry, will translate into robust learning and high levels of achievement for all students. Yet it is not at all clear how this goal to eliminate the achievement gap separating low- income, linguistic, racial, and ethnic minority students from more economically privileged students will be accomplished. (Warren et al. 2001, p. 529)

Moreover, this attitude asserts that curricula and teaching are the only considerations to help all students learn to the best of their ability. It leaves out the dispositions of the teacher to watch, listen, and notice more to learn about the students and their responses to the content and practices applied in the classroom. While teachers from cultural backgrounds unlike the diverse student population they teach, it generally takes serious work to develop these necessary dispositions (Sleeter 2008). Another area that a teacher can add to understanding students is knowing the country from which he/she arrived in the United States.

Country of Origin Knowing one’s country of origin helps us to know ourselves and our students. Country of origin also brings cultural aspects that may be obvious to the teacher and sometimes to other students in the same classroom. As educators, better practice encourages more looking, listening, and noticing of country of origin and its intersections with race, class, and gender (Delpit 1988; Haukoos and LeBeau 1992; Ladson-Billings 1995; Roehrig et al. 2011). With few curriculum resources available to help teachers with regard to country of origin, “. . .the discontinuity paradigm highlights the tension for many minority students between the sociocultural contexts in which they live and the dominant cultural values communicated through mainstream schooling” (Lewis et al. 2008, p. 194). Teachers and schools from the dominant culture can be a cause of failure to achieve. Conversely, the discontinuity paradigm asserts that successes can occur when the teaching and system become culturally responsive (Ladson-Billings 1992; Spillane 2004; Moore et al. 2005). For example, the literature on African American student populations acting White is well documented (Tyson et al. 2005). Such students resist achievement-related behaviors they perceive as synonymous with the dominant White culture because they believe they are sacrificing elements of their own racial identity (Ogbu 2004). Failure to understand the myriad of issues Ogbu describes helps cause

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

185

the resistance within the study group. The complexity of learning enough about students’ identities requires thinking about the various life aspects such as age, gender, country of origin and other identifying characterists. Thinking about the multiple life aspects relies on explanatory intersections. These intersections are often a key to understanding the students’ identit(ies).

Intersections of Life Aspects Intersectionalities are the complex and interwoven connections among life aspects that reside in each student. In the United States, intersectionalities continue to increase. Due to this increase, fully understanding the nuances and sophistication of various cultures and the intersections among them is almost impossible (Banks and Banks 2019). Further, Sleeter (1996) describes the idea that multicultural education applies to all groups of students by extending the traditional intersectionalities of race, class, and gender studies to those who belong to different ability, cultural, ethnic, gender, language, racial, sexual identity, and social class groups. In addition, Atwater (2010) expresses a concern that reveals a lack of consideration for intersectionalities when she posits that students, “. . .should all be afforded the opportunity for quality science learning and teaching. However, no science textbook companies currently advertise that their text books infuse multicultural education into their prescribed science curriculum” (p. 105). Another example of failure to understand intersectionality comes from a study on gifted African American middle and high school students; the authors noted that the majority of the “students equated ‘acting White’ with being intelligent and achieving in school, whereas ‘acting Black’ was identified with lower intelligence, lower priority for academic work and achievement, and poor speech and behavior” (Ford et al. 2008, p. 194). Teachers, in general, are not equipped to interact with the diverse populations of students who have these views. Thus, to create optimal learning for all, teachers need to learn about the students’ perspectives and encourage many points of view. When various viewpoints can be expressed in civil manners, deeper conversations can occur which lead to better understanding among the stances. Such a strategy can help reduce conflicts between teachers and students, and between student groups when the polarized political views widely held in the United States may cause tensions to be explicated in the classroom. Not all science educators agree that multicultural teaching practices will result in better academic outcomes for marginalized students. For example, one political viewpoint that counters culturally relevant practices to improve student academic success is expressed by some who oppose multicultural education and support assimilationist education. “Since the 1990s, ethnic studies and other components of multicultural education have been criticized by neo- conservative and assimilationist scholars who maintain that school diversity initiatives weaken national identity and fail to help students attain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to function effectively in the national mainstream culture” (Banks 2012, p. 467). Zeichner (2010) identifies a trend of increasing attacks on multicultural education. This lens exemplifies a single story that ends with the declaration that multicultural

186

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

teaching practices lower academic standards and “. . .blames university teacher educators for the continued problems in educating public school students who are increasingly poor and of color” (p. 1549). Attacks on multicultural teaching practices divert attention away from the real issues and social problems that impact public education such as underfunding of schools and teacher pay, lack of affordable housing and transportation, healthcare, and a shortage of jobs that pay a living wage (Anyon 2014). Jung (2009) challenges the “We Are All Americans,” or the assimilationist approach to education in the United States. Jung notes the implicit and explicit bias of assimilationist practices because they create the opportunity to describe these cultures as oppositional. Contrarily, research suggests that the content and methods of school-based civic and multicultural education can promote structural inclusion (Banks 2017; Sleeter 2018). Research by Callahan and Muller (2013) “indicate that the civic knowledge that students attain and the high levels of social connection within schools increase the civic efficacy and political participation of immigrant students” (p. 373). For these reasons, science education scholars and researchers continue to call for more culturally relevant curriculum and practices. Because of the broad diversity in this country, educators must encourage curriculum and practice that address the needs of students from diverse groups because students are negotiating multiple and complex identities, need cultural recognition, and recognize that their citizenship identities are important (Abu El-Haj and Bonet 2011). Teachers must address the needs of the diverse student body whom they teach as well as noticing the intersection points between school science and the way students “know” or practice science in their culture (Grimberg and Gummer 2013).

Self-Understanding Leads to Student Understanding Teachers, especially science teachers, can use the information in this section to guide their use of keen eyes and ears as they learn the ethnic, gendered, linguistic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds of their students and to understand the importance of educating in an equitable and socially just manner. While science teachers may arrive in classrooms with little or no intercultural experiences, it is necessary for them to learn about themselves and their students so that teachers (a) are knowledgeable about the lives of students from a variety of backgrounds including, but not limited to, intersectionality and country of origin, diversity in its many forms, designations of “other” and perceptions of right; (b) possess a willingness to confront their own values, beliefs, stereotypes, biases, single stories, and prejudices; and (c) understand and use this knowledge to create instruction that is as effective, equitable, and as socially just as possible.

Communication Styles in the Classroom Patterns of Communication After noticing what our keen eyes and ears can tell us about our students, it is time to focus on how to communicate with them. This section describes communication through the lens of style, attitudes toward conflict, approaches toward decision-making,

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

187

perceptions of self and others, and personal stories. While some believe that a universal politeness can be expressed (Brown and Levinson 1987), frictions may arise due to the differences among the diversity of communication styles represented in a classroom. These differences can cause friction and are often attributed to an indirect versus a direct style of communication (Barnlund and Araki 1985; Blum-Kulka et al. 1988; Gudykunst et al. 1988). In the previous section, we described things to know about our students using our eyes and ears. In this section, the focus changes to communication, using our mouths, hands, and bodies.

Communication Styles Students who arrive in the classroom from cultures different from the teachers or the school are likely to encounter more problems than students from the same culture as the teacher and/or school. These problems or frictions are often due to differences in ways of communicating between the student’s homelife and school life (Morgan 2010). These frictions can extend to the parents of the student. The frictions between the parent, the student, and the teacher may result in poor academic achievement, may present as a lack of regard for the teacher and school, and may encourage the student to break classroom rules (Dunn and Dunn 1993). The mismatch between the student’s home culture and the school culture can lead to challenges. While students generally benefit when exposed to and learn to interact with others whose cultures have different approaches to teaching, learning, and values, they may be overwhelmed if the differences are not attended to. If the differences are not attended to, then negative feelings about the teacher and/or the school may be the result (Pewewardy 2008). For example, American Latino and American Indian students may bring values and practices to school that conflict with school norms and values. Often, African and Latino communication styles are very warm and engaging, and involve gestures, touching, and cross-talking. The following illustrates some African communication styles: For example, as a greeting, people shake hands. While walking and talking, same sex adult friends can touch each other or hold hands. This type of touching does not have sexual implications; it is simply a way to express affection and friendship. Therefore, it is not surprising that African children touch each other to express friendship and affection. Unfortunately, this communication style poses serious disciplinary problems to African children in U.S. schools. The American communication style involves keeping distance between people during a communicative event. Most Americans do not like to be touched. Distance in this context is a sign of respect. American teachers must understand the difference in communication styles in order to help their African students. Due to the lack of understanding of African communication styles, teachers often criticize African students. (Alidou 2000, p. 104)

In addition, when teaching content knowledge through the standard curriculum, and the ways that teachers interpret and mediate school knowledge (Ramirez and Castaneda 1974; Hale-Benson 1982; Shade 1989), normative communication styles and interactions (Labov 1975; Smitherman 1977; Heath 1983; Philips 1983) and perspectives on the nature of US history often make the information irrelevant or confusing. To meet the needs of students with a different communication style,

188

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

teachers need to utilize the details of what their eyes and ears allow them to notice about their students’ country of origin, religion, diversities, and so on, to make students feel welcome in the classroom: To welcome students into the classroom teachers work to pronounce their student’s names, ensure appropriate ELL placement and practice, and find joy in hearing the variety of dialects spoken. Teachers welcome the adults in their students’ lives, and ensure the adults understand the important skills and abilities, such as mediation and interpretation the students possess during parent-teacher-student meetings (Alidou 2000). Positive interactions between parent and teacher can help both to understand the reasons causing friction and develop ways to overcome such difficulty. For example, note that in some families the boy child is taught to flirt—be coy and cock his head to one side while smiling–with his mother at home and knows that when she laughs, he is forgiven. However, this behavior at school might lead the teacher to think the boy child is inappropriate and failing to show remorse. Sleeter (1996) and Nakaya (2018) describe a plethora of materials available to help both teachers and parents understand differences, allowing them to have meaningful discussion so that the student has the optimum opportunity to learn. Once the teacher can recognize potential sources of conflict, then they can converse in manners that increase the likelihood that learning will occur.

Attitudes Toward Conflict The ways in which to communicate with students are not about the traditional classroom and behavior management systems but rather are about the ways to express content to increase the probability that the student will learn and decrease the verbal frictions often present in the science classroom. Teachers “. . .recognize that ‘managing’ their classroom well is not about controlling every action their students make, but establishing a way for all students to connect with the content in a meaningful way” (McGlynn and Kelly 2018, p. 17). In the classroom, some ideas, concepts, and theories are easier to discuss than others. Controversial topics often create potential for conflict, making some discussions more challenging. When controversy is explored, it is the teacher’s responsibility to encourage discussions that reduce conflict and increase the potential for productive meaning-making. Some of the ways to provide opportunities include using values and causal explanation to reframe a controversial topic such as climate and ocean change or evolution. Giving students a chance to actively engage in a discussion that is solution oriented allows students to decipher meaning. Often, in science classrooms facts are spoken in an authoritarian manner. For teachers in the sciences, it can be especially difficult to use explanatory language rather than scientific authority (Simon et al. 2014). An example unpacking how to approach a controversial discussion follows. How information is presented matters. Explaining what and how effects happen rather than merely listing effects is a more effective way to use information to increase knowledge and understanding. An example of how to approach topics from an issuebased orientation is to begin with a human activity and link it to an effect. With the topic of climate change, humans drive cars; cars emit carbon dioxide. Teachers need to link the human activity to the cause that allows for one or more statements to clarify

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

189

the scientific topic from an issue-based perspective. Ask students about the number of cars emitting carbon dioxide. How much carbon dioxide does this mean our cars are emitting in a day? And so on. As Simon et al. (2014) explain: An effective explanation links the anthropogenic cause of climate change to effects via one or more mediating statements that clarify scientific mechanisms. Increased knowledge does not automatically translate into attitude change or policy support. While explanations improve knowledge outcomes, the findings from this experiment suggest that values are required to productively channel knowledge toward attitude change and increase support for policies. (p. 13)

This example helps us understand communication practices. Next, these practices are explained. Useful tactics include the Explanatory Chain, the Explanatory Metaphor (Volmert 2014), and finding a value/ethic understood and practiced within the groups represented in a classroom (Nakaya 2018). Each tactic allows the students to “get to the heart” of the matter and increases the probability that the issue and related content will be understood. Volmert (2014) states: Explanatory Metaphors are frame elements that fundamentally restructure the ways that people reason and talk about issues. Explanatory Metaphors have the power to shift the interpretational frameworks that people rely upon to make sense of an issue and, in doing so, enable people to reason more productively about the issue. Explanatory Chains are frame elements that lay out, in a clear and accessible way, relationships of cause and effect. Explanatory Chains help people better understand what is causing a problem and, in turn, what can be done to fix it. Together, these tools — Explanatory Metaphors and Explanatory Chains — can generate a fuller and more scientifically aligned understanding of climate and ocean change. (p. 3)

Both of these empirically tested tactics have published examples with known efficacy (Simon et al. 2014; Volmert 2014). First, the Explanatory Metaphor positions the teacher between the scientist and the students. Explanatory Metaphor uses something that people know about such as an everyday object or process (e.g., a blanket, the heart pumping blood) as a starting point. Simon et al. (2014) report the rationale for using Explanatory Metaphors is for people to learn content with which they might otherwise perceive they are in conflict. Their rationale is that an effective explanatory metaphor: 1. Improves understanding of how a given phenomenon works 2. Creates more robust, detailed, and coherent discussions of a given target concept 3. Can be applied to think about how to solve or improve a situation 4. Inoculates against dominant but unproductive patterns of thinking that people apply to understand the issue 5. Is highly communicable and can be shared easily among individuals without major breakdowns or unproductive mutations 6. Is a linguistic resource for social interaction (people can incorporate it into their stories and conversations) 7. Is self-correcting When a breakdown in thinking does occur, people can re-deploy the metaphor in its original form to once again clarify key aspects of the issue (Volmert 2014, p. 10).

190

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

Explanatory Chains are different in that they require a sequence that starts with an initial factor and ends with the consequences. Between the initial factor and the consequence(s), one or more mediating factors explain the cause(s) of the consequence. The final consequence needs to matter to the audience of learners. In traditional education, this is the “so what?” question that concisely states a recognizable problem with an outcome. It is useful to end a part of the chain with “yes and” so that the next portion of the chain can be aired. In the current age of strong personal social identity, prejudice and intolerance are easily invoked (Yuki 2016). Each identity group (or individual) expresses differences in their ways of thinking, lifestyles, and worldviews. The group (or individual) may or may not express these things in the same way that their parents and ancestors do because their life experiences are not the same. To these ends, there are several approaches to help students overcome ethnic and other conflicts, such as peace, human rights, religion, citizenship, multicultural education (Salomon and Cairns 2010; Fontana 2016), and transformative citizenship education (Banks 2008, 2019): Transformative citizenship involves civic actions designed to actualize values and moral principles, such as human rights, social justice, and equality, beyond existing laws and conventions. Transformative citizenship education develops critical thinking and social action skills in students to identify societal problems and promote social justice that is implemented through transformative academic knowledge. (Banks 2008, p. 199)

Science can help provide ideas for solutions to problems. Transformative citizenship education provides problems. Teachers often strongly affect students’ opinions about issues in science. The hope in using conflict-reducing teaching practices is to help students overcome past conflicts and design a future to help solve difficult problems. However, what is “. . . played out daily in science classrooms around the world, where science students are expected to construct scientific concepts meaningfully even when those concepts conflict with indigenous norms, values, beliefs, expectations, and conventional actions of students’ life-worlds” (Aikenhead 1997, p. 270). Such conflicts do not promote communication around content that explores from an issue-based perspective, using tools such as Explanatory Metaphors and Explanatory Chains. Consideration of and use of communication is an important practice that allows teachers to learn the values and norms of the diverse students in the classroom and find the themes that help students gain content, congruence, and care for each other.

Decision-Making Styles It is very important for the teacher to learn how to respect and manage differing decision-making styles. Because decision-making styles differ radically from identity group to identity group, teachers need to understand a variety of factors that can impact performance and create conflict. These conflicts within a classroom affect both the group’s ability to function and, ultimately, an individual and/or the group’s performance (Gannon 2014). Further, according to Gannon (2014), “Factors including status differentials and reward structures, and methods such as training, internal

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

191

negotiation and brainstorming conflict-related problems can improve performance in diverse teams” (p. 304). For example, a reward structure for a group member can affect the performance of the individual student. If the reward is not meaningful or worse an insult, then the student will likely react negatively. When the preferred decision-making style between a teacher and a student varies, it may cause conflicts to arise. To compound the diversity issues involved with decision-making, Ting-Toomey (2017) notes, “People in ethnocentric stages tend to be exploitative, deny others their rights, and, in minimization, fail to perceive the presence of institutional privilege. People in acceptance tend to avoid any exercise of power, feeling that it is not useful to developing good intercultural relations” (p. 497). Thus, it is critical for teachers to develop “. . .comfort with exercising power when it is necessary” (Bennett 1999, p. 78). When a blending of authoritarian control and abdication of power happens due to teachers recognition of the cultural contexts and how it is expressed within the identity group, then teachers are able to develop models of consensual decision making and power sharing that results in both group processes and products that are more likely to be successful” (Bennett 1999, p. 78). In today’s diverse world, decision-making must be broadly distributed. While Handstedt (2018) is speaking about institutions in general, he notes that decisionmaking needs to be part of any endeavor and collaboration is an essential component. In education, a newer thought about teaching students is creating a wicked student who can solve wicked problems (Handstedt 2018). Wicked problems are, “. . .situations where the parameters of the problem and the means available for solving them were constantly changing” (Handstedt, p. 3). A premise in this type of teaching is that it will take innovative and creative thinking from as many diverse sectors as possible to solve the highly complex and problematic issues facing the world. This approach to decision-making means that no one person and no one group can keep abreast of the constantly changing environment or know all the content to solve the problem; innovation will not and cannot emerge from a single source. To create a classroom in which solving wicked problems can occur will require “. . .a distributed leadership model [that] will draw on the abilities within groups. . . whose members have different functional abilities and varying perspectives. This model empowers people to be innovative” (Ting-Toomey 2017, p. 78). For an example of a distributed leadership model from the literature, see the Ecuadorian Congress described by Stolle-McAllister (2007) and the Japanese ringy model written about by Ting-Toomey (2017). Use of such a plan in a classroom would require broad participation and decision-making with the student groups. In addition, use of either of these models would draw upon the various knowledge and skills of the students in the class. While coming to a decision about the best way to solve a problem will take more time than traditional “guided” practices, the outcomes have the potential to create deeper learning and more creative products. The practice of patience and going beyond merely handing out answers will reposition the teacher to a co-learner role and develop more talents in the students.

192

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

Perceptions of Self and Others How an individual perceives himself/herself can have an enormous impact on his/her thoughts about others. If we recognize the ways in which we are silenced, convinced of worthlessness, and experience other erosions of self-confidence, then we can use these understandings to help us empathize and sympathize with others. In science education, teachers and schooling can add to these problems by stereotyping who can do science (prejudice), who can be a scientist (bias), and how others not like us are excluded (bigotry). Codrington (2014) states: Education (including science education) is incomplete and even counterproductive if it does not instill in young people from oppressed groups the vital knowledge, skills, and attitudes that prepare them, their family, and community to be self-reliant, to overcome ingrained beliefs of inferiority, to be free from discrimination and domination, and to ensure that their humanity is valued. (p.1018)

Taking a critical look at the realities a student faces allows us to understand the forms of discrimination that need to be addressed in the classroom. This is a first step in freeing or lifting some oppression from an individual (Gay and Howard 2000). A project of the Southern Poverty Law Center (Williams n.d.) found that prejudices or biased judgments not identified and addressed are often precursors to poor self-esteem, and, ultimately, to social interactions that might lead to negative consequences. One job of an educator is to be aware of the many ways in which children internalize prejudice, and then to institute ways to mitigate or stop the negatively influencing behaviors. It is important to respond to students’ questions and observations about differences. Students are in school to learn, and their statements need to be understood as need to know and learn, rather than treated as though they are impolite or rude. Examples of students’ use of put-down language include “You talk funny. That is so gay. You’re too fat, or short or retarded” and so on. Notice the similarities and differences the student is describing and talk about them. Put-downs are used as ways to exclude people from participating. Asking for ways to view the person from an analysis of strengths would allow the class members to feel included. While the young student will share observations of differences naively, the teacher can also bring them to the students’ attention. For example, what is the representation among diverse groups presented as scientists in the texts and other materials used in the classroom? Identifying stereotypes is important because young children are keen observers and very adeptly notice hypocrisies. Willoughby (2012) describes bias at school. Students may be intentional, want to shock, and/or fail to understand the meaning behind their communications. “No matter the intention, these messages and behaviors can cause fear, damage, and injury to individuals and the entire school community” (Willoughby 2012a, p. 4). The communication may be harassment or intimidation and can even reach the level of a crime. It may be a true act of bullying or it may be a singular incident of aggression. Either way, the communication impacts other students in the classroom, and it is important to address this bias. A report from the National School Climate

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

193

Center (schoolclimate.org/index.php) indicates that when bias is addressed in productive ways, the school will have “more positive outcomes, lower drop-out rates, and violence goes down” (Willoughby 2012a, p. 26). A teacher who has decided to speak about an issue fraught with bias, prejudice, and/or bigotry can develop a set of communication rules at the beginning of the school year. Establishment of communication rules provides a constructive frame for addressing bias, prejudice, and bigotry. As with most behavior management practices, it is best to discuss the rules with the students first, ask for their input, and create a language for talking about the issue. This means creating a value statement about how “we want to live” in our classroom. Value statements students might want to live by could include, “We want everyone to feel safe in our classroom,” or “We don’t want to hurt or harm anyone or anything in our classroom.” Then, have students practice with some observations like, “I’m guessing not everyone feels safe when you (fill in the blank).” Willoughby explains further: Educators from all grade levels and all parts of the country emphasize this point: You must speak up against every biased remark, every time it happens. Letting one go, then speaking up against the next one, sends an inconsistent message: that sometimes bias is ok; other times it isn’t. Letting the first instance go without comment also sends the message to anyone within earshot that it’s ok to say bigoted things. So, interrupt it. Every time. In the moment. Without exception. (2012a, p. 18)

It is powerful to have a teacher speak up and even more powerful when multiple voices are heard about the issue. It is powerful to be the first voice that interrupts bias. And it is powerful on another level to be the second, third, or fourth voice to join in the interruption.

Personal Stories Personal stories are a compelling way to engage students. Students’ life experiences are their fundamental way of understanding the world. There are many ways to ensure that students feel appreciated. To encourage students to express their personal stories, teachers can show interest in what they are doing, ask for an opinion on a topic, and know about the adults in students’ lives as well as about their homelife (McGlynn and Kelly 2018). It is important to remember that each student is an individual, yet each student is part of the human family. In a study by Atwater (2010), one student reported her notion of acceptance of diversity in the classroom when she states, “. . .evokes one of the most fundamental issues of the human condition and that we are incredibly as an entity called the human family. We are incredibly diverse. It is deep and it is complex; it is profound, and it is incredibly beautiful. It is that complexity that I find exciting and enticing—–inviting if you will” (p. 161). It is important to understand the nuances of difference between being an individual and being part of the human race. Showing sensitivity is critical to the individual, and the group from which they come, and all of humanity. For example, asking one person to speak for an entire identity group is not appropriate. “As with students in the classroom,

194

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

never single out members of a particular identity group for their response to bias incidents or other matters of diversity (‘Joe, you’re African American. What do you think of this?’ At the same time, welcome their input when it is offered” (Willoughby 2012a, pp. 20–21). Asking a victim to speak for an entire identity group is equally problematic. Such a request may reinjure the victim. Personal stories can encourage students to work to solve a problem instead of seeking to place blame elsewhere. When blame becomes the central focus of a story, students tend to become defensive, and the conversation feels more like a conflict than a solution. So while the conversation may be uncomfortable, frame it in such a way that focuses on solving a problem (Willoughby 2012a). In addition, researchers have noted that students from a variety of groups (from Native Americans to people who arrive enslaved to those who arrived via their own volition) and who live in poverty typically lack support and encouragement due to the lack of successful role models that “look like” themselves (Cleary and Peacock 1998; Tomlinson and Jarvis 2014; Sleeter et al. 2018). If the teacher gains a cultural and historical context, then he is more likely to understand the student’s perspective (Sundberg et al. 2016). This perspective helps the teacher think about reasons why there might be more than one answer or one solution. McGlynn and Kelly (2018) encourage teachers to “. . .Ask for feedback. This is a keyway to help students recognize that you respect their individual voices” (p. 17). Tactfully asking questions about the uncomfortable responses typically results in more positive responses than aggressive questions (Van Manen 1991). For example, asking “What do you mean by that?” can be an aggressive question if the tonality indicates as such. “Aggressive questioning can be counterproductive, closing off communication rather than opening it. The gentle-but-clear ‘tell me more’ approach extends the conversation rather than shutting it down. Tone matters in these moments” (Willoughby 2012a, p. 20). Remember to think about your own biases, prejudices, and bigotry to ensure that you are open to understanding each student’s personal story. While many children were told, “Sticks and stones may break my bones; but words will never hurt me,” this simply is not true. Words can and do hurt; it is a wise teacher who says, “We don’t say that/do that in this classroom.” Finding tactful ways to talk about differences and perspectives will help create a more optimal learning environment inclusive of everybody.

In the Early Childhood Classroom Now What? It is time to see if and where teachers can put their culturally responsive beliefs and knowledge into practice in the science classroom. The literature on culturally responsive teaching is filled with conflicting viewpoints about what works and for whom. In this section, a review of two sets of early childhood science curriculum materials will be evaluated both in terms of testing efficacy on a variety of

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

195

populations and, secondly, on ways in which the materials provide opportunities for cultural responsiveness and thus how students engage with the materials. When working with pre- and in-service teachers, the literature consistently reveals that teachers are more likely to use culturally responsive techniques if they studied and acknowledged their own biases, notice, and then connect/apply their knowledge about diversity and observe/notice/know their students (Eick and McCormick 2010; Fetterman and Wandersman 2005). After completing the work of knowing self and others (i.e., students), preservice teachers work harder and hold higher expectations for all students than prior to such study (Eick and McCormick 2010). Butler (2017) posits, “You get to know your students on a meaningful level. You identify what each student is interested in, what their values are, what their home life is like, their traditions, style of communicating, and how they relate to their community” (np). Such practice results in equitable instruction, which in turn results in the teacher being more confident in his teaching (Grimberg and Gummer 2013; McGraw-Hill 2019). Efficacy then increases as do student outcomes. Forms of care that include self, others, and content (Van Sickle and Spector 1996) encourage the teacher to build meaningful relationships because you value the students, his values, and her ways of knowing and understanding the world. Difficulty in finding curriculum materials in early childhood science education that has any emphasis on culturally responsive teaching is anathema (Atwater 2010; Ukpokodu 2011). After a search, one such curriculum tested for efficacy that evidences some elements of culturally responsive teaching practices are the Clarion units from The Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary (Bland et al. 2010; Kim et al. 2012). The developers of the Clarion units wrote and field-tested rigorous K-3 science units that introduce young learners to macroconcepts (such as systems or change), the scientific investigative process, and key science concepts. The integration of these three key components supports inquiry, critical thinking, and argumentation skills. Testing on these units shows efficacy strengthening conceptual understanding of science as well as gains in science content and process knowledge. “Project Clarion units are most effective when implemented fully. Science achievement is supported with the teaching of macroconcepts (like change and systems), problem-based learning, and the scientific investigative process, which work together to help students construct and organize their understandings of science concepts in order to show long- term gains” (Bland et al. 2010, p. 53). Researchers (Bland et al. 2010) found that teachers’ science instruction improved through the use of Clarion units. Kim et al. (2014) found that use of Clarion units improved critical thinking of students. Kim et al. (2009) report that the more exposure to Clarion units in early childhood, the better outcomes for students, especially students with high ability and aptitude in science (Bland et al. 2010). Further, use of Clarion curriculum units acts to equalize outcomes through use of problem-based learning and by requiring conceptual and critical thinking from all students. A second set of materials created by a group of researchers at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute called U-STARS~PLUS (Using Science, Talents, and Abilities to Recognize Students ~Promoting Learning for Underrepresented Students;

196

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

Harradine et al. 2014) also had a culturally relevant component and similar outcomes to the Project Clarion units. Apart of U-STARS~PLUS, the Teacher’s Observation of Potential in Students (TOPS; Coleman et al. 2010) tool helps teachers systematically observe and document the academic strengths of young students across nine domains (learns easily, shows advanced skills, displays curiosity and creativity, has strong interests, shows advanced reasoning and problem solving, displays spatial abilities, shows motivation, shows social perceptiveness, and displays leadership). Harradine et al. (2014) studied the use of TOPS by teachers in large studies and found: According to their U-STARS~PLUS teachers, 53% of the 213 African American boys observed with the TOPS would never have been picked up as having potential by those teachers without use of the TOPS, as compared with 24% of White boys. Teachers reportedly would have missed 37% of Latino boys. In all, 31% of the 436 students who “would have been missed” were boys of color, 26% of them African American and 5% Latino. Nearly half (48%) of all 436 students that teachers would have missed without the TOPS were children of color (135 boys and 74 girls). (p. 29)

Teachers who learned to use TOPS consistently identified students of color as having potential that they otherwise would not have noticed. When reviewing the Clarion units, USTARS~PLUS, and TOPS materials, it became apparent that the teaching practices included in the keen eyes and ears section of this chapter were embedded in ways knowledgeable teachers could use and expand on. The teacher must want to know her students and get to know them on a deep level. When a teacher is taught ways to use powerful materials and chooses to know the students deeply, then she can overcome hidden and explicit biases, prejudices, and bigotry. The teacher who learns about her students to this depth wants to ensure their learning. With use of interesting and challenging inquiry-based science curriculum such as the Clarion units and USTARS~PLUS lessons, what students have, their knowledge, skills, abilities, and strengths bubble up and become evident to the teacher using her keen eyes and ears. The TOPS gives teachers a framework of observing and noting evidence of ability and strength in these areas: the TOPS gives teachers a framework for observing and noting evidence of ability and strength in areas (listed above) that include typical behaviors that come to mind when you think of high ability in students (i.e., learns easily or shows advanced skills) as well as atypical behaviors indicative of high potential (i.e., has strong interests, displays spatial skills (Coleman et al. 2010)). The combination of powerful curriculum and instructional strategies, e.g., Clarion units and U-STARS~PLUS lessons, which engage students with TOPS allows the strengths-based approach advocated for earlier in this chapter. The combination allows teachers to see students “at potential” rather than “at risk” (Coleman et al. 2007). The section in this chapter discusses about communication practices which are also accessible throughout the Clarion units and U-STARS~PLUS lessons. Some of the practices included are the scientific wheel of reasoning, questioning about home and neighborhood cultural and science practices, and encouraging the child to become the authority on the concepts and content in the unit. For example, the scientific wheel of reasoning found in Clarion units is a graphic organizer that breaks higher-order thinking into smaller parts and scaffolds students to elevated tasks (Stambaugh and Chandler 2012). U-STARS~PLUS

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

197

lessons use questioning based on Bloom’s taxonomy to scaffold student thinking to higherorder processes. Clarion units emphasize problem finding and problem solving and critical thinking, requiring students to think like a scientist and do science using problem-based learning and scientific investigations.

Style A direction in a Clarion unit might say, “I am going to show you . . .,” or “I am going to tell you something about how____works.” Such a start gives the young child an opportunity to know something about the teacher. Then the teacher may ask the student to “Make your own. . .” or ask the young students, “How would you study. . .?” These questions are asked in a direct manner. Higher-order thinking questions provide the teacher an opportunity to let the children know he thinks they can and will solve problems. As noted in the research about the efficacy of these materials, students who are engaged with this style of communication learn that they have autonomy or choice and generally engage with the materials more readily and deeply. Attitudes Toward Conflict An activity in Clarion units might encourage the young student to describe what happened and the order in which events happened. Young students are asked to explore further and think conceptually by assessing which of the things he/she related matter most by asking them to provide examples, categorize their examples, show understanding, and use their examples in the explanation. This practice helps the young learner develop metaphors and logic chains as they learn to explain what they know, what they want to know, how they will learn it, and ultimately what they did learn. These materials use an expanded model of the KWL (Know, Want to Know, and Learned) chart and the KWHL (Know, Want to Know, How I Will Learn It, and Learned) chart, which includes how you will learn and what you want to know. When a communication style gives students autonomy, they are able to take a position without creating conflict between themselves and their teacher or among peers and lead them to learn more or gain authority with the concepts. Decision-Making An example of an activity about the unifying concept of change focused on the young student making decisions from the Clarion Weather Reporter unit follows: Create groups of three or four students. Give each group sticky notes and markers and a Taba Concept Model graphic (Taba 1962; Bland et al. 2010). Ask each group to think of examples of change and write one idea per sticky note. Circulate as the groups complete this task. Have each group share its examples with the whole class. Write examples from each group on the whole class chart. After the groups have shared, they place their sticky notes on their chart in the appropriate section, and so on. Note the amount of autonomy each young student has, the acceptance of their thinking making them the authority on their work and ultimately their ability to make decisions and come to conclusions. (Bland et al. 2010, p. 58)

Kim et al. (2009) describe a key thinking model in the Clarion units, The Wheel of Scientific Investigation and Reasoning (Kramer 1987; Paul and Binker 1992), “to

198

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

promote the building of these [science inquiry and critical thinking] skills among first and second graders” (p. 40). This thinking model guided development of “. . .a systematic set of inquiry, analytical, and argumentation skills in science” (p. 40). The scientific wheel of reasoning is a nonlinear approach to understanding the components of doing science. A key feature of this model is autonomy – the young student is asked to find the component of science they are conducting (from observing to analyzing and reporting to others) and describe how they know that is what they are doing and then state the component from the wheel they plan to do next.

Perceptions of Self and Others Further, Clarion units help the teacher get to know his students because homework often involves the adults in the child’s world. For example, the homework might be to have the child ask an adult at home about a time in which a change in weather caused a change in plans. The child then knows more about themselves and the adults in their world. If they share these stories during circle time, they learn more about each other. The teacher can expand this idea to include information from different parts of the state, the nation, and the world to help the young students comprehend that changes in weather happen all over the planet. U-STARS~PLUS involves parents through workshops, parent nights, and use of family packets sent home with students. The shared responsibility and significant involvement of parents is an example of the perceived value of partnerships and a foundation for mutual respect and contribution. Questioning The materials are replete with higher-order questions. Asking thinking questions informs the young student that the teacher believes they can think. Using the same unifying concept of change, one can ask a question about change specifically such as: What categories of change do you have? Teachers can then ask the student to apply a category to a specific topic such as weather by asking, “How are any of your categories related to weather?” The young student can choose any of the generalizations about change under study (e.g., change is related to time, or weather changes over time) and apply it to weather. This approach strengthens authenticity and relevance, with the student creating his/her own linkages from science content to real-world knowledge. Personal Stories A feature of the scientific wheel of reasoning is to “tell others what was found.” This helps the young student tell their story and include the information they gained across the unit. This means the young student again has autonomy to create the message they tell using the information they gained from many sources – including but not limited to the testing and activities they designed and completed, what the adults in their world told them, and the books and other resources they used in solving their problem(s). It takes planning and thoughtfulness on the part of teacher to execute lessons that help the young learner gain the skills and knowledge that they are capable of because of the many actions and thoughts she needs to be conscious of while in the

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

199

classroom. Teachers who work this hard are wonderful and need all the support we can give them so that they keep the opportunity doors open for each child who “sits in their room.”

Conclusion The teacher ultimately makes the most difference in the outcomes for the students in their classrooms. When teachers decide to deeply work to understand their own prejudices, biases, and bigotry, then they can begin to use their keen eyes and ears to discover the thoughts and ideas their students bring to the classroom. These sincere and acute observations make the difference in students’ ability to discover and develop their talents in the sciences. Using an activity from a Project Clarion unit might encourage the young student to describe something about how the world works. It allows them to observe, question, and investigate. It provides the opportunity to engage in evidence-based argumentation in a civil manner. Then teachers understand what matters most to the students by asking them to provide examples, categorize their examples, show understanding, and use their examples in the explanation. These practices help the young learner develop metaphors and logic chains as they learn to explain what they know, what they want to know, how they will learn it, and ultimately what they did learn. All the descriptions of the practices in this chapter give the child autonomy. Humans love choice. In the case of the practices described, the teacher has the opportunity to deeply help a child explore their passions, give them opportunities to persist with his studies, and think about ideas. These experiences provide the teacher who is using her keen eyes and ears to discern talents of each child in a class through the performances and products. Thus, we are not only providing the opportunity for the children to learn, we are helping to ensure that choice to take the chance and engage with the learning. If we watch, we learn, when we learn, we appreciate, and when we appreciate, we provide opportunities. It is our job to ensure that the wide variety of student talents that present themselves in our classrooms could develop. This conceptualization of a vision for culturally relevant teaching is a tribute to education activists and multicultural educators. This vision “. . .articulates a future that someone deeply wants and believes so clearly and compellingly in a classroom for all that we summon up the energy, agreement, sympathy, political will, creativity, resources, or whatever to make that future happen. In other words, we care for all of our students (self, each other, other living things, non-living things, and ideas)” (Noddings 1992).

References Abu El-Haj TR, Bonet SW (2011) Education, citizenship, and the politics of belonging: youth from Muslim transnational communities and the “war on terror”. Rev Res Educ 35(1):29–59. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10383209

200

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

Adichie CN (2009) The danger of a single story | TED Talk. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_storyall Aikenhead GS (1997) Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Sci Educ 81(2):217–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2%3C217::AIDSCE6%3E3.0.CO;2-I Aikenhead G S (2006) Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. In Science education 90(6). New York: Teachers College Press Aikenhead GS, Jegede OJ (1999) Cross-cultural science education: a cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. J Res Sci Teach 36(3):269–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982736(199903)36:33.0.CO;2-T Alidou H (2000) Preparing teachers for the education of new immigrant students from Africa. Action Teach Educ 22(sup2):101–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2000.10463044 Anyon J (2014) Radical possibilities, public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203479704 Atwater MM (2010) Dr. Geneva Gay: multicultural education for all disciplines. Sci Act: Classr Proj Curric Ideas 47(4):160–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121003753902 Atwater MM, Butler MB, Freeman TB, Carlton Parsons ER (2013) An examination of black science teacher educators’ experiences with multicultural education, equity, and social justice. J Sci Teach Educ 24(8):1293–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9358-8 Atwater MM, Russell ML, Butler MB (2014) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social. justice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-7651-7 Baker D, Taylor PCS (1995) The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-western countries: the results of an integrated research review. Int J Sci Educ 17(6):695–704. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0950069950170602 Banks JA (2004) Multicultural education: historical development, dimensions, and practice. In: Banks JA, Banks CAM (eds) Handbook of research on multicultural education, 2nd edn. JosseyBass, San Francisco, pp 3–29. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2018.61019 Banks JA (2008) Teaching strategies for ethnic studies. Allyn and Bacon. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002248718103200117 Banks JA (2012) Ethnic studies, citizenship education, and the public good. Intercult Educ 23(6): 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2012.745986 Banks JA (2017) Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educ Res 46(7):366–377. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726741 Banks JA, Banks CAM (2019) In: Banks JA, Banks CAM (eds) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives, 10th edn. Wiley, Hoboken Barnlund DC, Araki S (1985) Intercultural encounters: the management of compliments by Japanese and Americans. J Cross-Cult Psychol 16(1):9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022002185016001002 Bennett C (1999) Comprehensive multicultural education: theory and practice. Allyn and Bacon, Boston Bennett SV, Gunn AMA, Gayle-Evans G, Barrera ES, Leung CB (2018) Culturally responsive literacy practices in an early childhood community. Early Childhood Educ J 46(2):241–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0839-9 Bland LC, Coxon S, Chandler K, Van Tassel-Baska J (2010) Science in the city: meeting the needs of urban gifted students with project clarion. Gift Child Today 33(4):48–57. https://doi.org/10. 1177/107621751003300412 Blum-Kulka S, House J, Kasper G (1988) Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: an introductory overview. In: Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies (pp 1–34). Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://kent.rl.talis.com/items/7C6EC47B-18FA-5504-2C97-1AA38E147062. html Brown P, Levinson S (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

201

Butler V (2017) Kicking it up a notch: becoming a culturally relevant science educator. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://thenode.biologists.com/kicking-notch-becoming-culturallyrelevant-science-educator/education/ Butler M, Lee S, Tippins DJ (2006) Case-based methodology as an instructional strategy for understanding diversity: preservice teachers’ perceptions. Multicult Educ 13(3):20–26 Callahan RM, Muller C (2013) Coming of political age: American schools and the civic development of immigrant youth. SAGE Publications, New York Cherng HYS, Davis LA (2019) Multicultural matters: an investigation of key assumptions of multicultural education reform in teacher education. J Teach Educ 70(3):219–236. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487117742884 Cleary LM, Peacock TD (1998) Collected wisdom: American Indian education. Allyn and Bacon, Boston Codrington J (2014) Sharpening the lens of culturally responsive science teaching: a call for liberatory education for oppressed student groups. Cult Stud Sci Educ 9(4):1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9543-2 Cohen EG (2006) Equitable classrooms in a changing society. In: Handbook of the sociology of education. Springer, pp 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36424-2_12 Coleman MR, Coltrane SS, Harradine C, Timmons LA (2007) Impact of poverty on promising learners, their teachers, and their schools. J Urban Educ: Focus Enrich 6:59–67 Coleman MR, Shah-Coltrane S, Harrison A (2010) U-STARS~PLUS: Teacher’s observation of potential in students: individual student form. Council for Exceptional Children, Arlington. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216642016 Delpit L (1988) The silenced dialogue: power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harv Educ Rev 58(3):280–299. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4 Dunn R, Dunn K (1993) Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: practical approaches for grades. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp 7–12 Eick C, McCormick T (2010) Beginning to think critically about culturally responsive pedagogy in practice: an elementary education book study in student teaching. SRATE J 19(1):52–60 Fetterman DM, Wandersman A (2005) Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-21321-000 Fontana G (2016) Religious education after conflicts: promoting social cohesion or entrenching existing cleavages? Compare 46(5):811–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1099422 Ford DY, Grantham TC, Whiting GW (2008) Another look at the achievement gap. Urban Educ 43(2):216–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907312344 Gannon M (2014) Communicating across cultures at work. In: Paradoxes of culture and globalization, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329604.n4 Garrett HJ, Segall A (2013) (re)considerations of ignorance and resistance in teacher education. J Teach Educ 64(4):294–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113487752 Gay G (2010) Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice, 3rd edn. Teachers College Press, New York/London Gay G, Howard TC (2000) Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. Teach Educ 36(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555246 Gonzales AE (1922) The black border: Gullah stories of the Carolina coast. The States Company. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000393119 Grant C, Sleeter C (1997) Turning on learning. Merrill-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Grimberg BI, Gummer E (2013) Teaching science from cultural points of intersection. J Res Sci Teach 50(1):12–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21066 Gudykunst WB, Ting-Toomey S, Chua E (1988) Culture and interpersonal communication. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2017.103018 Hale-Benson JE (1982) Black children: their roots, culture, and learning styles. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Hall S (1992) Race, culture, and communications: looking backward and forward at cultural studies. Rethink Marx 5(1):10–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935699208657998

202

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

Handstedt P (2018) Creating wicked students: designing courses for a complex world. Stylus Publishing, Sterling Harradine CC, Coleman MRB, Winn DMC (2014) Recognizing academic potential in students of color. Gifted Child Quart 58(1):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213506040 Haukoos G, LeBeau D (1992) Inservice activity that emphasizes the importance of the culture in teaching school science. J Am Indian Educ 32(1):1–11 Heath SB (1983) Ways with words: language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Howes EV (2002) Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: what do preservice teachers bring? J Res Sci Teach 39(9):845–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10049 Jegede OJ, Aikenhead GS (1998) Transcending cultural borders: implications for science teaching. Res Sci Technol Educ 17(1):45–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514990170104 Johnson GB (1930) Folk culture on St. Helena Island, South Carolina. Folklore Associates, p 183. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, file://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000340372 Jones ME, Van Sickle ML, Aina EO (2002) A case study of the sociopolitical dilemmas of Gullah speaking students: educational policies and practices. J Lang Cult Curric 15(1):75–88 Jung M (2009) The racial unconscious of assimilation theory. Cambridge University Press, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X09990245 Kim M, Bland LC, Chandler K (2009) Reinventing the wheel. Science 47(3):40–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.139.3555.660-a Kim KH, VanTassel-Baska J, Bracken BA, Feng A, Stambaugh T, Bland L (2012) Project clarion: three years of science instruction in title I schools among k-third grade students. Res Sci Educ 42(5):813–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9218-5 Kim Z, VanTassel-Baska J, Bracken BA, Feng AX, Stambaugh T (2014) Conceptual understanding in the primary grades using standardized and performance-based assessments. J Adv Academics 25(1):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14520946 Kramer SP (1987) How to think like a scientist. Harper-Collins, New York Labov W (1975) The study of non-standard English. Center for Applied Linguistics Ladson-Billings G (1992) Liberatory consequences of literacy: a case of culturally relevant instruction for African American students. J Negro Educ 61(3):378. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2295255 Ladson-Billings G (1995) Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. Am Educ Res J 32(3): 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465 Lee J, Sleeter CE, Kumashiro K (2015) Interrogating identity and social contexts through “critical family history”. Multicult Perspect 17(1):28–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2015. 994426 Lewis C, James M, Hancock S, Hill-Jackson V (2008) Framing African American students’ success and failure in urban settings: a typology for change. Urban Educ 43:127–153 Lowenstein KL (2009) The work of multicultural teacher education: reconceptualizing white teacher candidates as learners. Rev Educ Res 79(1):163–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654308326161 McGlynn K, Kelly J (2018) Science for all: creating a culturally responsive middle school science classroom. Sci Scope 042(02):16–21. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss18_042_02_16 McGraw-Hill (2019) Three culturally responsive teaching strategies for the science classroom. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://medium.com/inspired-ideas-prek-12/three-culturallyresponsive-teaching-strategies-for-the-science-classroom-e810fa7f83be McLaren P (2014) Life in schools: an introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education, 6th edn. Paradigm Publishers, Herndon Mencken HL (1948) The American language (supplement). Knopf Merryfield MM (2000) Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teach Teach Educ 16(4):429–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00004-4 Moore JL, Ford DY, Milner HR (2005) Underachievement among gifted students of color: implications for educators. Theory Pract 44(2):167–177. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip4402_11

8

Creating a Multicultural Science Classroom Through Representation. . .

203

Morales R (2000) Effects of teacher preparation experiences and students’ perceptions related to developmentally and culturally appropriate practices. Action Teach Educ 22(2):67–75. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2000.10463006 Morgan H (2010) Improving schooling for cultural minorities: the right teaching styles can make a big difference. Educ Horizons 88(2):114–120 Nakaya A (2018) Overcoming ethnic conflict through multicultural education: the case of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Int J Multicultural Educ 20(1):118–137 Noddings N (1992) The challenge to care in schools: an alternative approach to education. Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1549 O’Loughlin M (1992) Rethinking science education: beyond piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. J Res Sci Teach 29(8):791–820. https://doi.org/10. 1002/tea.3660290805 Ogbu JU (2004) Collective identity and the burden of “acting white” in black history, community, and education. Urban Rev 36(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:URRE.0000042734.83194.f6 Paul RW, Binker AJA (1992) Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Sonoma State University; Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, http://eric.ed.gov/?id¼ED338557 Pewewardy C (2008) Learning styles of American Indian/Alaska native students: a review of the literature and implications for practice. In: Classic edition sources: multicultural education. McGraw-Hill, New York Philips SU (1983) The invisible culture: communication in classroom and community on the warm springs Indian reserve. Longman, New York Pollitzer W (2013) The relationship of the Gullah-speaking people of coastal South Carolina and Georgia to their African ancestors. https://doi.org/10.1080/615440.1993.10594217 Ramirez M, Castaneda A (1974) Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. Academic, New York Ramos-Garcia M (2004) Avoiding binary thinking: using multiperspectivism as a classroom tool. Bush Project Anthol 1. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/bpa/1 Reeves R, Halikias D (2017) Race gaps in SAT scores highlight inequality and hinder upward mobility. Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scoreshighlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/. Date accessed 5 Sept 2020 Roehrig GH, Dubosarsky M, Mason A, Carlson S, Murphy B (2011) We look more, listen more, notice more: impact of sustained professional development on head start teachers’ inquiry-based and culturally-relevant science teaching practices. J Sci Educ Technol 20(5):566–578. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9295-2 Salomon G, Cairns E (2010) Handbook on peace education. Psychology Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837993 Shade BJ (1989) Culture, style, and the educative process. C.C. Thomas, Springfield Simon A, Volmert A, Button A, Kendall-Taylor N (2014) The value of explanation: using values and causal explanations to reframe climate and ocean change (issue February). FrameWorks Institute, Washington, DC Sleeter CE (1996) Multicultural education as a social movement. Theory Pract 35(4):239–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849609543730 Sleeter CE (2008) Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In: Handbook of research on teacher education, pp 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108317019 Sleeter CE (2018) Multicultural education past, present, and future: struggles for dialog and powersharing. Int J Multicult Educ 20(1):5–20. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1663 Smith PJ (1992) Representing the other: ‘race’, text, and gender in Spanish and Spanish American narratives. Clarendon, Oxford Smitherman G (1977) Talkin and testifyin: the language of black America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston Spillane JP (2004) Standards deviation: how local schools misunderstand policy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Stambaugh T, Chandler KL (2012) Effective curriculum for underserved gifted students. Prufrock, Waco

204

M. Van Sickle and J. Swanson

Stolle-McAllister J (2007) Constructing interculturality in Ecuador: challenges to the humanities. Int J Human 5(6):163–169 Sundberg B, Areljung S, Due K, Ekström K, Ottander C, Tellgren B (2016) Understanding preschool emergent science in a cultural historical context through activity theory. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 24(4):567–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.978557 Taba H (1962) Curriculum development: theory and practice. Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York Ting-Toomey S (2017) The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. In: Deardorff DK (ed) Intercultural conflict competence as a facet of intercultural competence development. SAGE Publications, Inc., p 1. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://www.uwb.edu/ globalinitiatives/resources/intercultural-competence-tool-kit Tomlinson CA, Jarvis JM (2014) Case studies of success: supporting academic success for students with high potential from ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. J Educ Gift 37(3):191–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214540826 Turner LD (1974) Africanisms in the Gullah dialect (reprint). University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Tyson K, Darity W Jr, Castellino D (2005) It’s not “a black thing”: an introduction to the foundations of education. Am Sociol Rev 7(4):407–430. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131408545-26 Ukpokodu ON (2011) How do i teach mathematics in a culturally responsive way?: identifying empowering teaching practices. Multicult Educ 18(3):47–56 van Keulen J, Weddington G, De Bose C (1998) Speech, language, learning, and the African American child. Allyn and Bacon, Boston Van Manen M (1991) The tact of teaching: the meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. State University of New York Press, Albany Van Sickle M, Spector B (1996) Caring relationships in science classrooms: a symbolic interaction study. J Res Sci Teach 33(4):433–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33: 43.0.CO;2-T Van Sickle M, Aina O, Blake M (2002) A case study of the sociopolitical dilemmas of Gullahspeaking students: educational policies and practices. Lang Cult Curric 15(1):75–88. https://doi. org/10.1080/07908310208666634 Vittrup B (2016) Early childhood teachers’ approaches to multicultural education & perceived barriers to disseminating anti-bias messages. Multicult Educ 23:37–41 Volmert A (2014) Getting to the heart of the matter: using metaphorical and causal explanation to increase public understanding of climate and ocean change. In Assessing children in the Urban Community (Issue May). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773322 Walter JS (2018) Global perspectives: making the shift from multiculturalism to culturally responsive teaching. General Music Today 31(2):24–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371317720262 Warren B, Ballenger C, Ogonowski M, Rosebery AS, Hudicourt-Barnes J (2001) Rethinking diversity in learning science: the logic of everyday sense-making. J Res Sci Teach 38(5):529– 552. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1017 Williams D (n.d.) Beyond the golden rule: a parent’s guide to preventing and responding to prejudice, 1–56. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from, https://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/ files/general/beyond_golden_rule.pdfTeachingTolerance Willoughby B (2012a) Responding to hate and bias at school. In: Southern poverty law center (NJ1). Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery Willoughby B (2012b) Speak up at school: how to respond to everyday prejudice, bias and stereotypes. In: Southern poverty law center (NJ1). Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery Yuki K (2016) Modernization, social identity, and ethnic conflict. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.2888945 Zeichner K (2010) Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teach Teach Educ 26(8):1544–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural Science Education Jordan Henley

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black Students, Culture, and Science Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measuring Black Students’ Learning and Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underrepresentation of Black Students in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Disconnect in the Science Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culture-Based Strategies and Black Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Identity and Viewing Themselves as People Who Do Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culturally Relevant Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

206 208 210 211 213 215 216 217 219 222 224 224

Abstract

Multicultural science education is a necessary approach to improving the science experiences of Black students. Black students are often characterized as uninterested in science or unable to succeed in science. However, this fails to interrogate the cultural and structural barriers to Black students in science classrooms. Although multicultural science education does not have a single agreed-on definition, it is characterized by valuing multiple cultures, critical reflection, an anti-racist approach, and a commitment to social justice. Multicultural science education incorporates a variety of strategies and approaches to disrupt these barriers. These strategies include culturally relevant education, hip-hop education, and cogenerative dialogue. Through the use of these strategies, Black students’ experiences in the science classroom can be improved and more pathways to science will be made available to them. J. Henley (*) Department of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_8

205

206

J. Henley

Keywords

Black students · African American students · Science learning · Multicultural education

Introduction Science has always been a part of the Black experience. It appears throughout African history having been passed down through oral traditions (Murfin 1994). The scientific knowledge that enslaved Africans brought with them to the Americas were used wherever they were, including to inoculate people in the US colonies against smallpox (Van Sertima 1984). Today, Black children learn scientific principles at home without it being recognized as science, such as the common knowledge that moisture can be sealed the into hair using oil or that saturating hair with water before swimming will prevent it from absorbing chlorinated water. Despite this legacy of science, Black people in the United States are heavily underrepresented across science careers (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) 2019) and have lower achievement scores on science standardized tests (US Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, & National Assessment of Educational Progress 2015). This may be in part due to the incredulity of Europeans and their descendants to the notion of African scientific accomplishments bleeding into the education of Black students (Adams 1984). Perhaps it is in part due to a wariness of science by members of the African diaspora because of countless examples of Black people being misused for scientific progress. From European collectors including pieces of deceased Africans in curiosity cabinets (Kean 2019) to the experiments of J. Marion Sims, who became the “father of modern gynecology” through painful experiments on female enslaved people in the 1800s (Ojanuga 1993) to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study performing painful tests on Black farmers only to let them deteriorate and die from the disease from 1932 to 1972 (Brandt 1978); it is understandable why many Black people may not trust traditional scientific authority. The difference in achievement may also be due to scientific racism which included the beliefs that intelligence is hereditary and Black people were unable to be as intelligent as White people and was used to rationalize viewing and treating Black people as subhuman during slavery and segregation (Watkins 2001). These views persist throughout society today with prominent scientists and teachers still upholding views consistent with scientific racism (Stein 2007; Saini 2019). Science teachers may not realize they hold racist views because they are not as explicit as deficit beliefs about students (Le and Matias 2019). Regardless of the reason for the current perception of a lack of connection between Black people and science, the reality of Black students’ science learning experiences must be addressed.

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

207

For decades, the United States has grappled with how to increase achievement in science and provide equal educational opportunities for all students (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983; Wissehr et al. 2011). Despite the many strategies, pushes, and reforms, there has been a disparity between the rise in science achievement between various racial and ethnic groups. According to the 2015 NAEP 12th grade science exam, between 2009 and 2015, Black students scores on the 12th grade science exam changed very little; 29% of White students scored proficient or advanced in comparison to only 5% of Black students scoring proficient and a negligible percentage scoring advanced (US Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, & National Assessment of Educational Progress 2015). The difference between achievement scores for Black and White students has been referred to as the “achievement gap.” This gap has been theorized as being caused by school (ine)quality, student behavior, and parenting quality among other explanations (Morgan et al. 2016). These factors may be contributing to the gap in test scores between students of different racial and ethnic groups, but it has become increasingly clear that the difference in student achievement in science is more appropriately framed as an “opportunity gap.” The term achievement gap reinforces deficit thinking about communities of color by keeping the focus on the results rather than the causes (Ladson-Billings 2013; Welner and Carter 2013). Students of color are often not given the resources and opportunities others may have such as quality textbooks, tutors, and test preparation (Welner and Carter 2013), and the lack of equitable opportunities influences students’ test scores (Ladson-Billings 2013), whereas the term opportunity gap makes it clear that the flaw is in the system educating Black children and not an inherent weakness within Black students. Black children are capable, willing, and interested in learning science, and we must be critical of and reform the current system that continuously fails to recognize and honor the strengths Black children bring with them into the science classroom. A gap in science achievement is not the fault of Black students but is instead the responsibility of science educators to build on the knowledge and skills Black students bring with them into the science classroom (Atwater 1994). This chapter seeks to explore the barriers and pathways for Black students’ science learning in K-12 schools in the United States. The goal is to address the factors influencing the perceived lack of science learning and achievement by Black students, summarize strategies that have been shown to be successful, and suggest possible pathways for continued research and science teaching. Black students, in this chapter, are used to reference students who are members of the African diaspora and enrolled in K-12 schools in the United States. Though this is a large and very diverse group of students, including members born in Africa and the Caribbean, they are often perceived as a whole and do share some cultural background. However, it is important to realize there are many Black experiences across the United States and researchers and educators should be careful not to make assumptions about students solely based on their race and ethnicity.

208

J. Henley

Black Students, Culture, and Science Learning The opportunity gap is manifested in many elements of education that influence Black children’s learning including White-centered curricula (Le and Matias 2019). These curricula do not value the cultural and science capital Black students bring with them into the classroom because the curricula are taught from a European viewpoint (Le and Matias 2019). Le and Matias (2019) characterize contributions to science from other cultures as being disembodied because Western science erases the values and culture of those it appropriated the knowledge from. This attempt at colorblindness in the science classroom through the incorporation of science as a disembodied universal truth into science culture strips people of color of cultural connection to science and the science classroom. Therefore, implementation of science curricula without reflection “inevitably engages the teacher and learner in maintaining structural racism” (Gil and Levidow 1987, p. 3). An example of this includes the propagation of the biological basis of race and beliefs about biological differences between people of different ethnicities. Willinsky (2020) examined eleven high school biology textbooks to determine how they addressed race and issues associated with race. These books provided mixed messages (Willinsky 2020). Through using these books to teach about genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs curricula may teach or reinforce beliefs about race as biological (Willinsky 2020). It is imperative to be reflective and critical in using curricula and books to avoid maintaining false beliefs about race. Teaching science without being critical of how systemic racism has and continues to influence science ignores the negative impacts science has had on Black communities. Scientific racism was used to rationalize segregation and the belief that Black students should only pursue vocational education (Watkins 2001). Another example is the story of Henrietta Lacks, a poor Black woman in Maryland who had cervical cancer. A biopsy of her cancer cells resulted in the first human cells successfully kept alive outside of the human body (McDaniels 2017). Since then, Henrietta Lacks’ cells, shortened to HeLa cells, have been replicated many times and used to develop many medical techniques without the knowledge or consent of Henrietta Lacks or her family (McDaniels 2017). While the descendants of Henrietta Lacks lived in poverty with no idea that their mother and grandmother’s cells were being used in medical science, companies made millions through research using HeLa cells (Fears 2010). The descendants of Henrietta Lacks have never received compensation for the use of her cells and have struggled to have any access in decisions regarding the use of her cells (McDaniels 2017). This story shows a continued lack of regard for the consent of Black individuals or desire to correct historical wrongs. This story and others illustrate how science has historically been used to subjugate people of color. This historical marginalization influences how Black people interact with science today (Green 2013). If we desire to encourage Black students’ interest and increased learning in science, we must be critical of the ways in which it is taught, what is taught, and how what we ask students to learn may uphold White supremacist ideologies and how the ways science is taught strips it of connection to culture.

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

209

Another way Black students have historically been marginalized in the science classroom is due to the lack of integration of their culture. One example of this includes the popular depiction that scientists are often White men (Buxton and Provenzo 2010). Though this may seem like a superficial change to science instruction, the overrepresentation of White men in science curricula has “both the limited the potential contributions of those underrepresented groups and minimized the contributions that have been made” by underrepresented groups (Buxton and Provenzo 2010 p. 88). One of the consequences of the popular conception of science as a field for White men and the minimization of the contributions made by underrepresented groups is that the history of science focuses more on the contributions of White scientists than Black scientists (Buxton and Provenzo 2010). Therefore, Black students may not have readily accessible examples of Black professionals in science. Research has shown the importance of having role models with shared racial or ethnic backgrounds (Brand et al. 2006). Additionally, the focus on scientists throughout history without attention paid to the work scientists make today may prevent Black students from making connections between their daily lives and the importance of science. Connections with currently practicing scientists are important as well. Rahm and Downey (2002) showed that students who had the opportunity to meet working scientists and learn about their passion for science and see what the scientists do and were given the opportunity to ask questions began to have a more positive and less traditional view of what it meant to do science and be a scientist. One of the students in their study realized that scientists were normal people and not necessarily nerdy and another stated “I thought science was dumb until I learned I was doing it. So it’s [the project] made me want to do it more” (Rahm and Downey 2002). Their work shows the importance of giving Black students the opportunity to meet and interact with scientists and the chance to recognize themselves and their practices as scientific. There must be an effort to make these connections between students and practicing scientists since there are fewer Black scientists. Whiteness being centered in the science classroom also means that the cultural and science capital Black students bring into the science classroom may not be valued. Cultural capital is composed of the skills, ways of communication, and knowledge passed through the environments we participate in and the cultural capital people bring with them influences their ability to achieve in that situation (Claussen and Osborne 2012). Students who bring with them cultural capital relevant to the culture of the science classroom are better situated to increase their capital in science and are thus at an advantage in the classroom while students who bring less cultural capital of benefit in the science classroom are left at a disadvantage (Claussen and Osborne 2012). Unfortunately, only traditional cultural capital being of use in the science classroom reinforces the underrepresentation of Black students in advanced science classes and science careers (Claussen and Osborne 2012). Archer et al. (2015) found Black families had less science cultural capital even when members of the family had backgrounds in a healthcare field and the participants in their study who had an interest in science were the only ones who engaged in science by choice outside of school.

210

J. Henley

For cultural capital to have less of a marginalizing impact on students of color the culture students bring with them into the classroom must be valued as a resource in the science classroom, and contributions from multiple cultures should not be decontextualized. Students should not be prevented from being able to fully participate in learning in the science classroom because the knowledge and skills they have learned in their communities do not match those valued in the classroom. Black students bring experiences that can be related to science with them into the classroom instead of being viewed as irrelevant (Wright 2011). Wright (2011) provided the example of a Black female student relating pushing a baby carriage to physics. However, if these experiences are not accessed to make connections to what the science students are learning in the classroom, teachers miss the opportunity to make what students are learning more impactful and relevant for their students. The White-centered nature of science and the cultural capital that is valued in science classrooms may lead to the comparative “lack” of achievement in science by Black students when compared to White students (US Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, & National Assessment of Educational Progress 2015). Therefore, seeking to close the gap between Black students and their peers requires addressing the systemic issues surrounding what cultural capital is valued. Certain cultural capital being valued in science classroom enacts symbolic violence on students by devaluing other practices and shaping who will or will not be accepted into the culture (Eileen et al. 2005). This results in students spending energy on resisting, reconciling, or assimilating with the classroom culture and its values that would be better spent on classroom (Eileen et al. 2005). If the science education community is not critical of the experiences and cultural practices that science curricula explicitly and subtly value, science education will likely continue to fail to adequately educate Black children.

Measuring Black Students’ Learning and Achievement Traditional testing measures frame Black students as underachieving in science; however, traditional testing is known to be culturally biased towards the majority culture resulting in a negative impact on students of color (Crain 2004; Phillips 2006). Thus, it is improbable that we have a true measure of the science learning of Black students using traditional testing measures (Atwater 2000). Further, non-Black teachers often hold lower expectations for Black students and do not hold them to the same standards as White students as well as influencing Black students to have a negative view of their academic potential and the way they interact in the classroom (Brand et al. 2006; Gershenson et al. 2016). Black students are less likely to choose to take or be recommended for gifted or advanced science classes and therefore do not have the same learning opportunities or opportunities to showcase their learning (Atwater 2000; Brand et al. 2006; Rodriguez and McGuire 2019). The Black students who participate in advanced courses face additional challenges. They may feel unaccepted in the course by their teachers and as a result do not develop a

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

211

relationship with their teachers (Brand et al. 2006). Black students in advanced science course may also feel that their teachers have lower expectations for them than what the teachers hold for other students (Brand et al. 2006). Black students in these courses also must contend with negative stereotypes about Black people from their teachers and the stereotypes they have internalized about themselves (Brand et al. 2006). With these factors at work, we must consider how much of Black students’ learning we are accurately capturing when we measure student achievement. Instead of only focusing on Black student achievement, Emdin (2007) asserts we should be evaluating if we are contributing to or dismantling views that inner-city students are likely to be unsuccessful academically and questioning whose notions of success we are examining achievement through. While Emdin asks these questions relative to urban and inner-city students, these questions should be central to all teachers instructing Black children in any environment. Due to the many factors influencing how Black students may perform on achievement tests, these questions should be central to the instruction of Black children.

Underrepresentation of Black Students in Science Science needs Black scholars. Unfortunately, the current lack of diversity in the sciences makes the pathway to science more difficult for Black students. Black and White students’ have a similar interest in science on the fourth grade science NAEP, but by the 12th grade, Black students’ interest in science is no longer comparable to White students’ interest (US Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, & National Assessment of Educational Progress 2015). Black students major in sciences at about the same rate as White and Asian students but are much more likely to change majors (Riegle-Crumb et al. 2019). Further, Black people working in STEM fields feel they have experienced discrimination and believe underrepresentation is due to racism (Anderson 2018). This should be alarming to everyone, not only for the lack of equity but also because a lack of diversity in the science community. This dearth of diversity results in a lack of diversity in perspectives and a lack of diverse approaches and topics in the sciences. Atwater (1998) suggested that a more diverse community in science would change science. Students from marginalized backgrounds have been found to conduct more innovative research, yet often find their research ignored by the larger field (Hofstra et al. 2020). This seems to support Atwater’s (1998) suggestion that a more diverse community would change science is at least partially correct. Individuals who have historically been marginalized in science have new and innovative approaches to science (Hofstra et al. 2020), but their research being ignored by the larger field may prevent a larger change throughout the field. In line with this finding, the contributions of Black scientists appear to be less valued particularly because of their approach. For example, Black scientists receive less funding for grants by the NIH. This is possible because of the focus on community

212

J. Henley

interventions over lab-based science by Black researchers (Hoppe et al. 2019). Taffe and Gilpin (2021) expanded this work and found further inequities in how grants are funded along racial lines. When the discrepancy in funding by topic was accounted for, it was found that Black researchers often receive lesser funds than what White researchers received (Taffe and Gilpin 2021). Additionally, Black researchers had to have higher-ranked research applications based on peer review than that of White researchers to have their research funded. These types of inequities may be a reason for the difference in rates Black researchers stay or are admitted into science fields. This is unfortunate because in further support for the suggestion that a diverse field would change science, diverse groups of problem solvers were more effective than homogeneous ones (Hong and Page 2004). This may be because the biases researchers hold are present in their work and become integrated with the research they develop, and more diverse groups provide more perspectives to counteract those biases and homogenous thinking. This is highlighted in the recent recognition that health disparities originally attributed to racial origins are instead the result of systemic racism and lack of access to healthcare (American Medical Association 2020; Nature Medicine 2020). This highlights the need for Black science professionals to be involved at every level of scientific fields. One of the ways in which science educators can assist in addressing this need is through the examination of the effectiveness of science learning experiences of Black students in formal K-12 settings and how these experiences can assist Black students in maintaining an interest and persisting within science fields. We should investigate what influences are leading to the decrease in Black students’ interest in science over time during their K-12 school years. We should interrogate what “good science teaching” looks like and disassemble and rebuild it to improve the science educational experiences of Black students. This includes an examination of what the perceived lack of learning and achievement is emblematic of especially because this lack of perceived learning and achievement by Black students results in them being shuttled into lower track science classrooms and having fewer options for science classes in high school. Cannady et al. (2014) assert that the traditional view of people going into science careers is a pipeline that leaks individuals and those “leaks” cannot be recovered into science career paths. Students who are discouraged from engaging with science at a young age or told they cannot be successfully become leaks in the “pipeline.” The metaphor of the pipeline ignores the possibility that a student could become interested in science and pursuing a science career at an older age or that they could be successful in a scientific career without meeting certain checkpoints, ignores the varying reasons why individuals may stray from a science path they had previously decided to pursue, and ignores the impacts of gatekeepers on the process (Cannady et al. 2014). The revisioning of a linear STEM pipeline as multiple pathways into science provides hope and responsibility to improve science learning experiences for Black students. For example, that their interest can always be piqued again and interested students who have strayed or been pushed out from the traditional science pipeline can always have a way back to learning and pursuing science.

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

213

The focus then must be on establishing access to multiple pathways into science through science learning experiences for Black students. One strategy may be through assessing the curriculum Black students experience in their classrooms. K-12 science curricula are Eurocentric and with few exceptions mainly memorialize White male figures in science. Additionally, school curricula ignore the context in which scientific accomplishments were made (Kean 2019) and may perpetuate racist norms and stereotypes (Gil and Levidow 1987). Another focus for creating inclusive pathways into science is understanding that students recognize the stereotypes about members of their racial and ethnic groups and can perceive their teachers as holding those views (Brand et al. 2006). In a study by Brand et al. (2006), Black students expressed struggling to overcome the influence those stereotypes had on their self-esteem and how their relationship with teachers influenced the students’ perceptions of the teachers’ views. The students’ struggles in this area influenced their academic performance. Despite these expressed views by the students, Brand et al. (2006) did not observe explicit actions by students in their interactions with teachers with regard to those stereotypes. Students dealt with these struggles without involving their teachers; therefore, teachers may have been unaware of how their actions were perceived or were affecting student learning. Black students’ recognition of stereotypes about their science learning could affect their performance on science achievement exams. Steele and Aronson (1995) showed the anxiety Black students feel about potentially fulfilling the stereotype could influence their performance on exams. Black students feeling pressure to overcome stereotypes or their beliefs about how they are viewed in the classroom can have negative impacts on Black students’ perceived learning based on achievement tests. This phenomenon, called stereotype threat, is activated by drawing an individual’s attention to stereotypes about a group they are a member of which takes some of their attention away from the task at hand potentially leading to decreased academic performance both in class and on achievement exams (Steele and Aronson 1995).

Cultural Disconnect in the Science Classroom Science is often perceived as an objective truth free from bias. However, science is not acultural and is influenced by the culture of those performing science. Additionally, classrooms have a culture that may be welcoming or inhospitable to Black students. To fully explore the disconnect between some Black students and the science classroom, we must examine these cultures and how they connect or disconnect with Black students. In order to improve Black students’ learning experiences, science education must be viewed from a sociocultural perspective. This “means viewing science, science education, and research on science education as human social activities conducted within institutional and cultural frameworks” (Lemke 2000 p. 296). Since nothing is acultural, we must examine the unspoken institutional and cultural norms influencing

214

J. Henley

the learning environments of students. Further we must interrogate these norms to ensure students are not required to set aside aspects of their cultures in order to be successful in the science classroom (Lemke 2000). If we neglect to take on this responsibility, we cannot be surprised when Black students reject science as unfamiliar and do not match the perceived achievement of students whose cultures are more in line with the accepted culture of the science classroom. Black culture is rich and varies widely by geographic location and background. While this chapter seeks to describe some of the shared aspects of Black culture, it is imperative for researchers and educators to recognize that in order to effectively reach Black students, we must learn about their unique experiences. We cannot attempt to help students learn in culturally based ways by only incorporating traditional and essentialized views of Black culture. Therefore, while recognizing that teachers must get to know their students to help them learn most efficiently, we can explore some of the often-shared properties of Black culture. Boykin (1986) describes nine facets of Black culture • Spirituality: the belief that people’s lives are influenced by forces we cannot observe. • Harmony: destiny is related to other beings both human and nature. • Movement: rhythm, dance, and music are joined together and essential for mental health. • Verve: energetic nature. • Affect: sensitivity to emotion and expressiveness. • Communalism: community bonds and responsibility that are more important that individualism. • Expressive individualism: expression of individual personality. • Oral tradition: speaking and listening as performance and the ability to use expressive language is valued. • Social time perspective: time as social instead of material. These characteristics of Black culture as described by Boykin can be the opposite of how students are expected to behave in school. Boykin’s (1986) description of Black culture involves movement, community, and connection to emotions. In contrast, the traditional classroom values forcing students to act in ways that are familiar and acceptable to White people, discouraging movement, encouraging individuality, and ignoring emotion (Noblit et al. 2007). This disconnect between students’ cultural practices and the school and classroom norms results in students getting in trouble, being punished, and becoming resistant to the teacher and their instruction (Boykin 1986; Emdin 2016). The culture of schools and science classrooms in the United States is based on White culture that values individualism, objective truth, humans as the master of nature, and the intellect over emotion (Boykin 1986). Schools were developed and put in place with these same cultural values and in line with the same marginalizing forces at work in the US society. In seeking to increase Black student learning, these marginalizing forces must be attended to. In schools, these forces often show up in strict, corporate practices.

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

215

Regular practice is rigid with “notions of success and achievement that are tied to unyielding, flawed, and unapologetic benchmarks such as standardized exams and hyper structured notions of classroom management” (Emdin 2007 p. 321). Students are often expected to sit quietly in classrooms, respond when called on, and solely focus on the task at hand with little allowance for movement or socialization. These expectations come into conflict with the characteristics of the movement, verve, and communalism, and teachers may view students’ actions as having a negative impact on the learning process or as the student being unengaged in learning (Elmesky and Seiler 2007). There is evidence that Black students learn better when allowed to move, work together, and be social (Parsons 2008). In requiring students to suppress part of themselves to be successful in the science classroom, we are telling them they do not belong there as well as inhibiting their learning. One strategy for being inclusive of students’ full selves and not requiring them to suppress part of their culture may be through student language. Brown (2005) asserts Black student science achievement could potentially be improved by placing a higher value on Black student language in science learning. Lehner (2007) describes the production of a “science creole” by students as they learn science. Encouraging students to integrate their everyday language with scientific language is a potential pathway to helping Black students identify more strongly with the science classroom and increase science learning. Importantly teachers must have an understanding of students’ everyday language in order to help them build bridges between everyday language and scientific language and prevent the development of misconceptions due to misunderstandings of language. In the past few decades, we have begun to attempt to incorporate culture into science classrooms. This has included multicultural education, culturally relevant pedagogy, culturally responsive teaching, and hip-hop education (Atwater 1989; Emdin et al. 2016; Brown 2017). Unfortunately, this has been a steep hill to climb. Societally, Whiteness is still perceived as the standard, and Black culture is viewed as a footnote or an albatross around the neck of education rather than a resource. As a result, even when culturally based strategies are used in the science classroom, it may be done shallowly because the implementors do not have a full understanding of culture (Ladson-Billings 2014). As we consider how to improve the science learning of Black students, we have to consider what motivates them. Students who are members of this population have a perceived lack of role models, and the way science is taught often does not connect to their day-to-day lives. As such these students may not feel a connection to formal Western science in the classroom; however, by incorporating their culture in the science classroom, teachers can help Black students to recognize the connection science already has to their daily life.

Culture-Based Strategies and Black Students Throughout this chapter, the opportunity gap and reasons for disengagement in science by Black students as well as why we need Black people in science have

216

J. Henley

been discussed. In the remainder of this chapter, research on the science learning of Black students and practices that have been shown to be beneficial in improving Black students’ interest and learning in science are outlined. This includes Black students’ science identities and culturally relevant education approaches.

Multicultural Science Education Multicultural education is a field that developed as a result of the civil rights movement (Banks 2013; Baptiste and Archer 1994). It began as Black people in the United States, and other groups advocated for curricula reform that reflected the culture and history of their group (Banks 2013). Multicultural education addresses not only cultural differences but is inclusive of gender, class, ability, and age (Baptiste and Archer 1994). Multicultural education developed generally at first and over time developed in subject-specific ways. Atwater (1994) notes there is no one definition of multicultural education but describes it as “a field of disciplined inquiry devoted to research using quantitative and qualitative approaches and to the development of educational policies and practices so that all students can learn” (p. 1). Banks (2013) describes multicultural education as “the idea that all studentsregardless of their gender; sexual orientation; social class; and ethnic, racial, or cultural characteristics- should have an equal opportunity to learn in school” (p. 3). Nieto (1993) suggests many people who attempt multicultural education misunderstand it as an additive approach when it requires a structural change to content and instruction. Baptiste and Archer (1994) further describe the differences in implementation by delineating three levels of multicultural education. The first level includes the superficial celebration of holidays or a course about a specific group. The second level includes a more diverse community in the school and courses that overlap (Baptiste and Archer 1994). The third and final level includes multiculturalism guiding decisions and the philosophy of the program (Baptiste and Archer 1994). Multicultural education is made up of five dimensions: content integration, the knowledge construction process, an equity pedagogy, prejudice reduction, and an empowering school culture and social structure (Banks 2004). Each of these dimensions can be implemented along a spectrum. Content integration describes integrating multiple cultures and groups within the subject area (Banks 2004). The knowledge construction process is how cultural understandings and viewpoints are reflected on and identified in the classroom (Banks 2004). Equity pedagogy approaches teaching in a variety of ways to improve student achievement and prejudice reduction attempts to address prejudicial attitudes students may hold (Banks 2004). Finally, an empowering school culture and social structure require reflection and critical examination of how the culture of the school influences different groups (Banks 2004). Multicultural education was incorporated into the field of science education within the next decade. Atwater (1994) noted that multicultural education had primarily been used in social sciences and occasionally in mathematics. She argued that multicultural education must be incorporated into science instruction to use the

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

217

skills students bring with them into the classroom, improve all students’ understanding and learning, and enable all students to understand scientific concepts and use science in their decision-making (Atwater 1994). Black eighth grade science students became more interested in studying science when cultural inclusion, a combination of content integration and equity pedagogy, was used in their class (Key 2003). Multicultural science education encompasses social justice, analyzing varied perspectives and enacting anti-racism in the science classroom (Gil and Levidow 1987; Atwater 2010). Integrating this practice effectively for Black students requires the examination of curricula and classroom practices to root out and eliminate endemic racism and colorblindness in the science classroom (Le and Matias 2019). Science is often viewed as an objective, universal truth (Le and Matias 2019). This view of science as blind to race and ethnicity protects racism from being eliminated from science education (Le and Matias 2019). By nature, multicultural science education must reject the perspective of science as objective and divorced from culture. Multicultural science education centers students’ cultures and valuing other cultures through a social justice and anti-racist position. Recognizing cultural differences in science and the need for social justice in science requires that science being culturally developed. It also recognizes that science can have negative and inequitable impacts on groups.

Science Identity and Viewing Themselves as People Who Do Science Varelas et al. (2012) describe identity as “lenses through which we position ourselves and our actions and through which others position us” (p. 324) and that there are multiple types of identity. There are the identities individuals perceive of themselves in the present, actual identity, and designated identity (Varelas et al. 2012). Designated identity are the identities individuals and others expect for them to inhabit and may come to inhabit in the future (Varelas et al. 2012). Black students may be given the designated identity of a troublemaker, underachievers, or unengaged in science classrooms (Emdin 2016; Wade-Jaimes and Schwartz 2019). This influences how teachers interact with these students and thus influences how students interact with the teacher, other students, and the materials in the classroom. Students may also begin to embody the expectations of their teachers (Gershenson et al. 2016). Researchers have studied the connections between students’ identity, emotions, and learning in part to better understand why schools fail to adequately prepare students from marginalized groups in science (Elmesky and Seiler 2007). To assist Black students in developing positive scientific identities, teachers can structure their classrooms in such a way that helps Black students make connections between science in the classroom and science in their communities (Elmesky and Seiler 2007). The connection to student identity and emotions is in line with Boykin’s (1986) description of the centrality of communalism, expressive individualism, and affect to Black culture.

218

J. Henley

Black elementary students were found to have confidence in their ability to do science while having varying pathways into science and their views of science (Varelas et al. 2012). Allowing students to form their understandings and views of science means acknowledging Black students do not all learn or enter science in the same way and the emotions they connect to their past science experiences influence their present science learning (Varelas et al. 2012). Black students have been shown to have an interest in science when given the opportunity to explore their own interests and describe the science they partake in through their everyday lives and when their voices and knowledge are valued (Seiler 2001). Framing science curricula around students’ interests may result in less standardized curricula but can still teach critical thinking and other skills necessary for Black students to be successful in science careers (Seiler 2001). As we examine ways to assist Black students in viewing themselves as people who can do science and as scientists to improve their science learning, we must analyze the inclusion of Black role models in the science classroom. For decades researchers have performed the “draw a scientist” test asking students to draw a scientist to gain an understanding of when children developed a view of a scientist and how variables such as class and sex influenced their view (Chambers 1983). The draw a scientist test and variations of it have been performed many times across the globe with startingly consistent results. From 1957 to present, students overwhelmingly perceive scientists as male and most commonly as White (Mead and Metraux 1957; Chambers 1983; Ferguson and Lezotte 2020). In particular, Black students were found to be more likely to draw scientists as White than as Black (Finson 2003). Black students have expressed the need for Black scientist role models to increase participation in the science field (Brand et al. 2006). In science spaces, Black students often do not feel included, may be marginalized, or may be viewed as not belonging. To help correct this, curricula should showcase the scientific achievements of individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds including both African and African American culture (Murfin 1994). This is important not only for the increase of Black students’ ability to view themselves as scientists but also for teachers to be able to view Black students as potential scientists. Mutegi (2013) discusses the importance of recognizing the systemic view of Black people as an inferior other unlikely to be able to do science by American culture. Including the accomplishments of Black scientists and how African science has contributed to global scientific knowledge may be one strategy useful in combating the belief that Black people are less capable of science. Understanding how Black students view themselves as connected to science is an essential part of multicultural science education. Atwater (2010) states multicultural science education empowers “science teachers and their students [to] believe that they are able to act effectively to change their worlds by using science theories, principles, concepts, skills, and ways of thinking” (p. 103). Black students with a strong science identity are able to view themselves as scientists or science people through multicultural science education. These identities empower Black students to use their science knowledge to affect the world around them in line with the aims of multicultural science education.

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

219

Culturally Relevant Education Culturally relevant education are types of instruction and pedagogies that attempt to center student culture and experiences with a focus on social justice culminating in the goal of improving student learning and establishing the classroom as a social justice space (Aronson and Laughter 2016). Culturally relevant education is a framework encompassing multiple concepts within educational spheres focused on the goals of including student culture, student experiences, and social justice. Aronson and Laughter (2016) identify four tenets of culturally relevant education: academic skills and concepts, critical reflection, critical competence, and the critique of discourses of power. Students in classrooms enacting culturally relevant education are experiencing inclusive classrooms that build on their prior knowledge and cultural capital, learn and value both their culture and other culture, reflect critically and analyze the society around them, and confront injustice across society (Aronson and Laughter 2016). In examining five studies on culturally relevant education in science, Aronson and Laughter (2016) found culturally relevant education was an effective strategy for students in science classes both in improving science achievement and students feeling academically and politically empowered through science. Science is often viewed as being a field for White men and by Black students as irrelevant to their daily lives (Butler et al. 2014). Science teachers may not know how to disrupt this perception (Butler et al. 2014). Culturally relevant education is a strategy through which science educators can transform this view. As an approach to science education centered on culture and social justice, culturally relevant education is an example of multicultural science education. One aspect of culturally relevant education is the concept of culturally congruent instruction. Parsons (2008) refers to culturally congruent instruction as attempts to integrate culture into the process of education by recognizing and addressing the differences between the norms of school and the norms of students’ communities. This can describe many strategies that have become popular in education such as culturally relevant and culturally responsive teaching. Parsons (2008) found that when Black cultural ethos as describe by Boykin was incorporated into classrooms student achievement improved. Unfortunately, teachers did not use natural opportunities to implement Black cultural ethos in their classrooms. One of the major components of culturally relevant education is culturally relevant pedagogy. Culturally relevant pedagogy was introduced by Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) with the three tenets of students experiencing academic success, student development and maintenance of cultural competence, and student development of critical consciousness. She found that underserved students perform better when these tenets were practiced in their classrooms. Culturally relevant teaching requires challenging students to choose academic excellence and make it a positive trait. Cultural competence uses students’ culture for their own learning and allows them to be true to themselves. Critical consciousness is the idea of students using their success and cultural competence to identify and challenge the status quo thus producing informed, critical, and active citizens. Critical consciousness is of particular importance in the science classroom because students of color often

220

J. Henley

recognize racism inherent in science and science classrooms even if they do not explicitly name it (Boutte et al. 2010). The result of this recognition may manifest in Black students resisting science as it is traditionally taught. Addressing and calling out the racism present in traditional science and science teaching can help combat this and allow Black students to recognize that critique has a place in the science classroom. Black students’ experiences with racism and discrimination in their science classrooms influence their science learning. King and Pringle (2017) found Black girls expressed that they experienced discrimination in STEM classes due to being Black. Black students’ experiences of discrimination influence their science learning experience. Critical consciousness in the science classroom gives these students space to address and unpack the forces marginalizing them in STEM settings and reframe STEM into a place where they feel they belong (King and Pringle 2017). Another critical component of culturally relevant education is culturally responsive teaching. Culturally responsive teaching was introduced by Dr. Geneva Gay (2002) and is defined by her “as using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively” (p. 106). Gay (2002) argues framing curricula through the lives and experiences of students will increase student interest, make curricula more meaningful, and improve students’ learning experiences. For Black students’ learning to be improved, teachers must understand and be responsive to their ways of communicating, how they relate to each other, their values, and their norms (Gay 2002). As science teachers use cultural characteristics and experiences of Black students to teach them more effectively, their classrooms may begin to value Black culture as described by Boykin (1986). This could include movement and music as a part of pedagogy, connection to community and community norms, appreciation of students’ emotions, and conversation about the perceived conflict between students and teachers to ensure it is not an instance of cultural misunderstandings (Boykin 1986; Noblit et al. 2007). Culturally relevant science education as an approach to multicultural science education is effective in teaching Black students because it connects science learning to students’ communities and values. This requires a learning curve for teachers. For effective learning for Black students to take place, teachers must show respect for the cultural background of students and the funds of knowledge they bring with them into the classroom (Tobin 2006). When teachers do not practice this, they risk alienating students in the science classroom (Boykin 1986). For culturally relevant science education to be effective, teachers have to go beyond shallow conceptions of students’ culture and deeply consider how culture and interactions outside of the science classroom affect interactions inside of the science classroom (Tobin 2006). Further, culturally based instruction should include consideration for the science experiences Black students bring with them into the science classroom. Black children often have less of the cultural and science capital useful in a traditional science classroom (Archer et al. 2015); however, Black students have other experiences with science that are not valued in the science classroom. Atwater (2000) provided the examples of urban pollution or seeing the growth of weeds and other

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

221

examples include hair care and cooking. Black students have useful experiences based on their culture and lived experiences, and these must be included in the science classroom to improve the science learning of Black students. Hip Hop Ed(ucation) uses hip hop in urban classrooms and connects science learning to students’ culture and lived experiences by connecting students’ classroom experiences and what they are learning with what they experience in their home lives (Emdin et al. 2016). Emdin discusses giving students the opportunity to explore and reflect on their emotions while creating and performing a sciencethemed rap. He asserts unresolved negative emotions students experience are barriers to them being successful academically and that these negative emotions and experiences can be directly related to the science classroom and science assessments (Emdin et al. 2016). Hip Hop Ed offers students an outlet to express these negative emotions, thus removing a barrier to learning for them. Further, the students can make connections between scientific concepts they are learning in science classrooms and their inner conflict or turmoil. This can strengthen the connections students make between the science they are learning in school and their lived experiences. Hip Hop Education is an approach to multicultural science education because it disrupts barriers between students and academic achievement, values students’ cultures, and is empowering to students. Hip Hop Education utilizes cogenerative dialogues to interrogate how well a lesson was received by students and can be further used to “bridge cultural, racial, and ideological misalignments and address critical issues in the science classroom” (Emdin 2007 p. 322). Bayne (2010) defines cogenerative dialogue as the creation and implementation of a new culture in a field. Cogenerative dialogues offer the opportunity for the teachers, their students, and other stakeholders to work together in developing a classroom uniquely suited to meet the learning needs of each student (Lehner 2007; Bayne 2010). The teacher and their students share the responsibility of discussing what takes place in the classroom and shaping how the classroom should function. This gives teachers who may not have a connection to the community their students live the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of their students, students’ cultures, and how to most effectively help their students learn. In his study, Emdin (2007) found Black students’ behavior was perceived as the lack of ability or desire to be successful in science; however, these behaviors may exist because they are asked to participate in ways of being contrary to their cultural norms. Cogenerative dialogue provides the opportunity to examine and be reflective of the culture of the science classroom and make improvements for students (Bayne 2010). The amount of time students spend in classrooms makes them experts of the culture of classrooms, and, thus, students are uniquely knowledgeable in how these cultures can be improved (Bayne 2010). Cogenerative dialogue provides a pathway for students to express not only why things may feel foreign to them but also what they are interested in relative to the science classroom. The opportunity to give feedback and discuss classroom strategies with teachers gives Black students more power and input over their learning and improved opportunities to learn science. It then becomes the responsibility of science education to help prepare educators to

222

J. Henley

provide this opportunity for Black students. Cogenerative dialogue is a good approach to multicultural science education because it is empowering to students in shaping their school science experiences. Additionally, cogenerative dialogue provides opportunity for stakeholders to be reflective and critical of the science curricula and instruction. This allows for the recognition and elimination of colorblindness and endemic racism within classroom culture. Finally, cogenerative dialogue focuses on the voices of students participating in a specific classroom. This prevents the essentializing of Black students based on generalized or stereotyped beliefs about Black students.

Conclusion Many of the research and strategies discussed in this chapter are an important part of improving science learning for Black students; however, it is important that we do not lump all students of the African diaspora together (Lehner 2007). While there is an overarching Black culture, members of the overarching Black culture may belong to various microcultures or subcultures (Banks 2013). Microcultures can have differences from the more dominant or overarching culture; therefore, Black culture can look different between Black immigrants, members of different socioeconomic statuses, from state to state and from urban to rural (Banks 2013). Science teachers and science education researchers must be careful not to essentialize Black students as having the same culture. They must also take the time to thoroughly examine and understand the culture of students in their classrooms. Multicultural science education is an important avenue to improve the science experiences of Black students. Multicultural science education has been defined in multiple ways. It is characterized by a focus on social justice, valuing the culture of students and others, a critical approach to varied perspectives, and an anti-racist approach so that all students can learn effective and be empowered to enact change in society (Gil and Levidow 1987; Baptiste and Archer 1994; Nieto 1993; Banks 2004; Atwater 2010). An additive approach with multicultural science education is not enough; instead, structural changes are necessary to curricula and instruction for effective change for Black students (Nieto 1993). There are multiple approaches and strategies that will assist in meeting the aims of multicultural science education. These include addressing students’ science identities, culturally relevant education, hip hop education, and cogenerative dialogue. Much of the research on Black students’ science learning shows they are interested in and care about science but are perceived and positioned as if they would not or are not able to achieve in science fields (Wright 2011). Black students must be given space to voice their interests in science and express how classroom experiences affect their science interest and learning. Research is needed on how teachers can give students space to do this in their classrooms, particularly in schools with large class sizes. One pathway may be in giving students the opportunity to describe their experiences and interests in science in narrative form in order to learn about the

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

223

emotions they connect with science learning and how they view themselves with respect to science (Varelas et al. 2012). Cogenerative dialogue, Hip Hop Ed, and the encouragement of students to develop and use creolized language to give students further connections to science and improve students’ science learning. These strategies offer an opportunity for teachers to express and maintain high expectations for their students. By showing Black students that their contributions to the classroom are valuable, it can relieve some of the stress students may feel regarding stereotypes about them and address negative emotions students have in connection with science classrooms. Additionally, cogenerative dialogue is one approach that may be of use in forging connections between students and students and teachers as well as allowing teachers to learn more about the culture of their students (Lehner 2007). Cogenerative dialogue are an opportunity to critically examine and change classroom culture to be more inclusive of students (Bayne 2010). Additionally, because Black students’ communities and lived experiences are necessary in creating a positive science learning environment, we need to continue to research effective ways to incorporate families and community members into students’ science experiences. Involving members of the community who share an ethnic or racial background with students and are actively involved in science fields also offers students the opportunity to visualize science as a field where Black people can hold space and science as a field where Black people can succeed. Giving Black students the opportunity to interact with any working scientists and learn more about the contributions of African and Black scientists offers a pathway to increasing student interest in science and the opportunity to position themselves culturally as people who do science. Having role models in science is important for students’ interest in science and ability to see themselves as scientists; every effort should be made to incorporate the accomplishments of diverse groups of scientists, particularly Black scientists, into curricula. The recent proliferation of #BlackInSTEM hashtags (#BlackInScience, #BlackMammalogists, #BlackInNeuro, #BlackInAstro, #BlackInMarineScience) on social media sites offers an opportunity for science educators to connect to active Black scientists with a willingness to work with Black students and highlight their work. Further, teachers need to be able to acknowledge the systemic view of Black students as inferior to others and be able to combat this view with conceptualizations of Black people as successful scientists. Research should be undertaken on the impact of a science curriculum with more diverse role models on both teachers and Black students view of scientists and the impact on Black students’ interest and learning in science. Finally, we must reconsider how Black student learning and achievement are measured and by what lens we view academic success. We have long known that standardized tests have a racial bias so we must develop better ways to ascertain Black students’ science learning and provide avenues for Black students to showcase their science learning. We must stop referring to Black students as underachievers in science when we cannot accurately gauge how much they have learned.

224

J. Henley

Sieler (2001) stated “mainstream science and science education can themselves benefit and grow from the recognition and inclusion of distinctly African American ways of thinking, being, and knowing” (p. 1012). While the focus of this chapter is on improving the learning opportunities for Black students, this is not solely for the benefit of Black people. Improving access to science for students of diverse cultural backgrounds and diverse ways of thinking will allow science itself to grow and improve for everyone. In order to make this a reality and improve the learning outcomes for Black students, we must listen to them. We must frame our instruction and curriculum around them and be attentive to their feedback. Through the described practices and a thorough and full integration of multicultural science education, more Black students may find themselves better served in the science classroom and access multiple pathways into science.

Cross-References ▶ Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of African American Girls ▶ On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius

References Adams HH (1984) African observers of the universe: the Sirius question. In: Sertima V (ed) Blacks in science: ancient and modern. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, pp 27–46 American Medical Association (2020) New AMA policies recognize race as a social, not biological construct. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama-policies-recognizerace-social-not-biological-construct Anderson M (2018) Black STEM employees perceive a range of race-related slights and inequities at work. PewResearch.org. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/10/black-stememployees-perceive-a-range-of-race-related-slights-and-inequities-at-work/ Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J (2015) Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Sci Educ 99(2):199–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21146 Aronson B, Laughter J (2016) The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: a synthesis of research across content areas. Rev Educ Res 86(1):163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654315582066 Atwater MM (1989) Including multicultural education in science education: definitions, competencies, and activities. J Sci Teach Educ 1(1):17–20 Atwater MM (1994) Introduction: invitations of the past and inclusions of the future in science and mathematics education. In Atwater, Radzik-Marsh, and Strutchens 1–3 Atwater MM (1998) Science literacy through the lens of critical feminist interpretive frameworks. J Res Sci Teach 35(4):375–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199804)35:43.0.CO;2-N Atwater MM (2000) Equity for Black Americans in precollege science. Sci Educ 84(2):154–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:23.0.CO;2-R Atwater MM (2010) Multicultural science education and curriculum materials. Sci Act 47(4):103– 108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121003631652

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

225

Banks JA (2004) Multicultural education: historical development, dimensions, and practice. In: Banks JA, Banks CAM (eds) Handbook of research on multicultural education, 2nd edn. JosseyBass, San Francisco, pp 3–29 Banks JA (2013) Multicultural education: characteristics and goals. In: Banks JA, McGee Banks CA (eds) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives. Wiley Publishers, Hoboken, pp 3–23 Baptiste HP Jr, Archer C (1994) A comprehensive multicultural teacher education program: an idea whose time has come. In: Atwater MM, Radizk-March K, Strutchens M (eds) Multicultural education: inclusion for all. The University of Georgia, Athens, pp 65–90 Bayne G (2010) Capturing essential understandings of the urban science learning environment. Learn Environ Res 15(2):231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9112-8 Boutte G, Kelly-Jackson C, Johnson G (2010) Culturally relevant teaching in science classrooms: addressing academic achievement, cultural competence, and critical consciousness. Int J Multicult Educ 12(2):1–20. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v12i2.343 Boykin AW (1986) The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American children. In: Neisser U (ed) The school achievement of minority children: new perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Publishers Brand BR, Glasson GE, Green AM (2006) Sociocultural factors influencing students’ learning in science and mathematics: an analysis of the perspectives of African American students. Sch Sci Math 106(5):228–236 Brandt A (1978) Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings Cent Rep 8(6):21–29. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3372911/brandt_racism.pdf?sequence¼1 Brown B (2005) The politics of public discourse: discourse, identity and African-Americans in science education. Negro Educ Rev 56(2&3):205–220 Brown JC (2017) A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquirybased science education in K-12 settings: implications for advancing equitable science teaching and learning. J Res Sci Teach 54(9):1143–1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21401 Butler MB, Atwater MM, Russell ML (2014) Introduction: culture, equity, and social justice for science teacher educators. In: Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler MB (eds) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–7 Buxton CA, Provenzo EF Jr (2010) Teaching science in elementary and middle school: a cognitive and cultural approach, 2nd edn. Sage Publications Cannady MA, Greenwald E, Harris KN (2014) Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce. Sci Educ 98(3):443– 460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108 Chambers DW (1983) Stereotypic images of the scientist: the draw-a-scientist test. Sci Educ 67(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213 Claussen S, Osborne J (2012) Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Sci Educ 97(1):58–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21040 Crain W (2004) Biased tests. Encounters 17(3):2–4 Eileen CP, Travis C, Jamila SS (2005) The Black cultural ethos, students’ instructional context preferences, and student achievement: an examination of culturally congruent science instruction in the eighth grade classes of one African American and one Euro-American teacher. Negro Educational Review 56(2):183–203 Elmesky R, Seiler G (2007) Movement of expressiveness, solidarity, and the (re)shaping of African American students’ scientific identities. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2(1):73–103. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-007-9050-4 Emdin C (2007) Exploring the contexts of urban science classrooms. Part 1: investigating corporate and communal practices. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2(2):319–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422007-9055-z Emdin C (2016) For White folks who teach in the hood. . . and the rest of y’all too: reality pedagogy and urban education. Beacon Press Emdin C, Adjapong E, Levy I (2016) Hip-hop based interventions as pedagogy/therapy in STEM: a model from urban science education. J Multicult Educ 10(3):307–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JME-03-2016-0023

226

J. Henley

Fears D (2010) Conference remembers Henrietta lacks as ‘unsung hero of modern medicine’. Washingtonpost.com. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/ AR2010092502819.html?tid¼a_inl_manual Ferguson SL, Lezotte SM (2020) Exploring the state of science stereotypes: systemic review and meta-analysis of the draw-A-scientist checklist. Sch Sci Math 120(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ssm.12382 Finson KD (2003) Applicability of the DAST-C to the images of scientists drawn by students of different racial groups. J Elem Sci Educ 15(1):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174741 Gay G (2002) Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. J Teach Educ 53(2):106–116. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003 Gershenson S, Holt SB, Papageorge NW (2016) Who believes in me? The effect of student-teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Econ Educ Rev 52:209–224. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.econedurev.2016.03.002 Gil D, Levidow L (1987) General introduction. In: Gil D, Levidow L (eds) Anti-racist science teaching. Free Association Books, London, pp 1–11 Green AM (2013) The systemic misuse of science. In: Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler MB (eds) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Springer, Dodrecht, pp 11–28 Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Galvez SMN, He B, Jurafsky D, McFarland DA (2020) The diversityinnovation paradox in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117(17):9284–9291. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1915378117 Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(46):16385–16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0403723101 Hoppe TA, Litovitz A, Willis KA, Meseroll RA, Perkins MJ, Hutchins BI, Davis AF, Lauer MS, Valantine HA, Anderson JM, Santangelo GM (2019) Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/Black scientists. Sci Adv 5(10). https://doi.org/10.1126/ sciadv.aaw7238 Kean S (2019) Science’s debt to the slave trade: historians confront the tainted origins of key plant and animal collections. Science 364(6435):16–20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.364.6435.16 King NS, Pringle RM (2017) Black girls speak STEM: counterstories of informal and formal learning experiences. J Res Sci Teach 56(5):539–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21513 Ladson-Billings G (1995) But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Pract 34(3):159–165 Ladson-Billings G (2013) Lack of achievement or loss of opportunity? In Closing the opportunity gap: what America must do to give every child an even chance. http://proxy-remote.galib.uga. edu/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct¼true&db¼e000xna& AN¼564209&site¼eds-live&ebv¼EB&ppid¼pp_Cover Ladson-Billings G (2014) Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harv Educ Rev 84(1): 74–84 Le P, Matias CE (2019) Towards a truer multicultural science education: how whiteness impacts science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:15–31 Lehner E (2007) Describing students of the African diaspora: understanding micro and meso level science learning as gateways to standards based discourse. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2(2):441–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9062-0 Lemke JL (2000) Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. J Res Sci Teach 38(3):296–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:33.0.CO;2-R McDaniels AK (2017) Henrietta Lacks’s family wants compensation for her cells. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/henrietta-lackss-family-wants-compensation-forher-cells/2017/02/14/816481ba-f302-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html Mead M, Metraux R (1957) Image of the scientists among high-school students. Science 126(3720):384–390

9

Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural. . .

227

Morgan PL, Farkas G, Hillemeier MM, Maczuga S (2016) Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educ Res 45(1):18–35. https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X16633182 Murfin B (1994) African science, African and African-American scientists and the school science curriculum. Sch Sci Math 94(2) Mutegi J (2013) “Life’s first need is for us to be realistic” and other reasons for examining the sociocultural construction of race in the science performance of African American students. J Res Sci Teach 50(1):82–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21065 National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2019) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/assets/digest/ nsf19304-digest.pdf National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_ Risk_1983.pdf Nature Medicine (2020) Ending systemic racism in medicine. Nat Med 26:985. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41591-020-0993-2 Nieto S (1993) Affirmation, solidarity, and critique: moving beyond tolerance in multicultural education. Multicult Educ 1(4):9–12. 35-38 Noblit G, Hwang S, Seiler G, Elmesky R (2007) Forum: toward culturally responsive discourses in science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2(1):105–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9046-5 Ojanuga D (1993) The medical ethics of the ‘father of gynaecology’, Dr J Marion Sims. J Med Ethics 19(1):28–31 Parsons E (2008) Learning contexts, Black cultural ethos, and the science achievement of African American students in an urban middle school. J Res Sci Teach 45(6):665–683. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.20240 Phillips M (2006) Standardized tests aren’t like t-shirts: one size doesn’t fit all. Multicult Educ 14(1):52–55 Rahm J, Downey J (2002) “A scientist can be anyone!” Oral histories of scientists can make “real science” accessible to youth. The Clearing House 75(5):253–257 Riegle-Crumb C, King B, Irizarry Y (2019) Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educ Res 48(3):133–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X19831006 Rodriguez A, McGuire KM (2019) More classes, more access? Understanding the effects of course offerings on Black-White gaps in advanced placement course taking. Rev High Educ 42(2): 641–679. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0010 Saini A (2019) The long reach of race science. New Scientist 242(3230):40–43. https://doi.org/10. 1016/s0262-4079(19)30873-5 Seiler G (2001) Reversing the “standard” direction: science emerging from the lives of African American students. J Res Sci Teach 38(9):1000–1014. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1044 Steele CM, Aronson J (1995) Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of AfricanAmericans. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:797–811 Stein L (2007, October 17). World-renowned geneticist draws fire for claims that Africans are intellectually inferior. ScientificAmerican.com. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/ world-renowned-geneticist-draws-fir/ Taffe MA, Gilpin NW (2021) Equity, diversity, and inclusion: racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health. elife 10. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65697 Tobin K (2006) Aligning the cultures of teaching and learning science in urban high schools. Cult Stud Sci Educ 1(2):219–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-005-9008-3 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, & National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2015) 2015 science assessments. [data set] https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2015/#acl?grade¼12 2015 NAEP Van Sertima I (1984) The lost sciences of Africa: an overview. In: Sertima V (ed) Blacks in science: ancient and modern. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, pp 7–26

228

J. Henley

Varelas M, Kane JM, Wylie CD (2012) Young Black children and science: chronotypes of narratives around their science journals. J Res Sci Teach 49(5):568–596. https://doi.org/10. 1002/tea.21013 Wade-Jaimes K, Schwartz R (2019) “I don’t think its science”: African American girls and the figured world of school science. J Res Sci Teach 56(6):679–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea. 21521 Watkins WH (2001) The White architects of Black education. Teachers College Press Welner KG, Carter PL (2013) Achievement gaps arise from opportunity gaps. In Closing the opportunity gap: what America must do to give every child an even chance http://proxyremote.galib.uga.edu/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct¼true& db¼e000xna&AN¼564209&site¼eds-live&ebv¼EB&ppid¼pp_Cover Willinsky J (2020) The confounding of race in high school biology textbooks, 2014–2019. Sci Educ 29(6):1459–1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00104-y Wissehr C, Barrow LH, Concannon J (2011) Looking back at the sputnik era and its impact on science education. School Sci Math 111(7):368–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011. 00099.x Wright BL (2011) Valuing the “everyday” practices of African American students K-12 and their engagement in STEM learning: a position. J Negro Educ 80(1):5–11

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in Multicultural Contexts

10

Randy Yerrick and Erin Kearney

Contents Teaching and Learning Science in Urban Multilingual Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Are the Gaps for EB Science Learners and Their Teachers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaches That Support Science Learning for EBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two Vignettes Reflecting Efforts at Professional Development to Support Science Educators in Teaching EBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vignette #1: Inquiry-Based Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vignette #2: A Translanguaging Strategy to Improve Science Learning for EBs . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Translanguaging Strategies in Science Teaching and Learning (from Celic and Seltzer 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brown’s (2017) Seven Pillars of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Several Stepwise Curricular Examples of Constructing Dichotomous Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

230 232 236 240 241 247 250 252 255 256 258 259 262

Abstract

This chapter addresses the challenges living out the creed of several national educational reforms to teach science in a way that is inclusive and multicultural. Language can often be a barrier to science because of specific vocabulary and narrow interpretations of science discourse. Balancing culturally sustaining, translanguaging teaching strategies in science classrooms with the expectations of high achievement on standardized science assessments can be a challenge for R. Yerrick (*) California State University, Fresno, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Kearney State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_16

229

230

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

science teachers. The authors leverage their research and in-service science teacher professional development to explicate the challenges of teaching science in an urban context with Emergent Bilingual (EB) learners in grades 4–12. Implications for the development of culturally responsive and sustaining teaching practices, reimagining of current science assessments, and future research are discussed. Keywords

Linguistic Diversity · Emerging Bilingual Learners · Urban · Science Inquiry · Translanguaging · Teaching Strategies · Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy

Teaching and Learning Science in Urban Multilingual Contexts Teaching and learning landscapes in K-12 urban settings in the United States are rapidly shifting, due to fast-paced demographic change and various reform efforts that call for radical change in learning standards, curriculum, and instruction. The United States is becoming more and more linguistically diverse with nearly 40% of the US population identifying as racially/ethnically minoritized and 13% are foreign-born (US Census Bureau 2018). Most states saw growth in their English language learner (ELL) populations of at least 50% in the past decade (Office of English Language Acquisition 2015). At the same time, students enrolled in ELL programs have actually decreased in some states like California, New York, and Florida (Harris and Sullivan 2017) leaving many mainstream teachers with minimal training to address this increased linguistic diversity. The pressures associated with such change on an already stressed educational system understandably create dilemmas for teachers and challenges for students. Today’s science educator, in encountering students’ many languages, cultures, and vastly different educational and personal histories, often feels ill-equipped and/or overwhelmed. These diversities can prove especially challenging in the absence of critical professional development and needed resources. What this chapter shows, however, is that equipping teachers with practical tools to engage these diversities can represent the realization of powerful potentials for both urban teachers and learners. Alongside clear approaches and practical tools, teachers need a mindset and vocabulary that can meet the moment. Education of multilingual students is especially prolific and dynamic in its terminology, and teachers’ deliberate choices in using one term over another can be part of larger shift in orientation to educating multilingual learners. For example, while the term “English Language Learner” (ELL) is still prevalent in popular, professional, and academic discourses, “Emergent Bilingual” (EB) – the term we adopt – recognizes that multilingual children are not solely developing English as they learn in schools but are in fact developing a broader, singular repertoire that includes features of more than one socially named language (e.g., English, Spanish, Karen, Somali, etc.); regardless of the language of instruction, the medium of learning will always be the full range of linguistic resources students have available (García 2009; Wei 2018). The shift in terminology

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

231

represents one possible act in creating the multilingual ecology – the sounds, sight, presence of many language practices – that is needed to challenge English-only hegemony in classrooms (García et al. 2018). While staggering disparities are clear in research on science learning outcomes between EBs and their peers (Scott et al. 1995), some researchers have impressed the importance of avoiding use of the term “achievement gaps” in science education to explain these phenomena. These scholars recognize the structured inequity “baked into” the system, and thus refer to disparities in learning outcomes as the result of “opportunity gaps” – thus inviting us to shift our focus from outcomes to classroom experiences and shifting the blame from learners and the responsibility on to the schools and educators who run them. Overall, acknowledgment of the deficit view of learners that still tends to permeate our current educational system and efforts to promote more asset-based views and practices are currently much needed. It is this current science education context that brings us together as authors, researchers, and teacher educators to discuss what issues remain and what progress can be made in effort to resolve the opportunity gaps for underachieving learners (Flores 2007; Milner 2012). Both authors of this chapter study the interaction and fluidity of cultures and identities in classrooms and teachers’ abilities and dispositions for creating pluralistic, inclusive instructional environments. Randy Yerrick is a science educator with limited experience in multilingual contexts, and Erin Kearney has extensive experience in translangauging research and transformative praxis but little science education expertise. Emergent bilingual science students are a population of interest we share, and we are brought together by convenience in the same professional development context, as we both engage regularly with schools in our community. In our sharing of resources, strategies, and insights we find it essential to discuss approaches to instruction in transdisciplinary ways. In order to bring both of our perspectives to bear upon the issue of equitable instruction and policies we have situated our conversation around actual school-based events – enabling us to immerse the reader in classroom-based practice and offer each of our unique standpoints and struggles with regard to supporting EBs and their teachers. It is important to note, we have both worked at the same institution of higher education advocating for change in teacher education. Though we have worked in the same department for over a decade, it is rare that collaborations and discussions such as these occur outside of our intentional efforts to be collaborative in these research and real-world contexts. These collaborative efforts do not emerge naturally from all academic contexts. Higher education has been often typified as operationalizing its work outside of K-12 schools’ day-to-day endeavors and within selfcontained siloed working environments found in many research institutions. We agree with Rodriguez (2019) that as teacher education professionals, we share, the need to (re)engage our ethical commitments and turn our activist lens inward. [asking]. . . In what ways does our research and activist work effect transformative change in our own teacher education programs? More specifically, in what ways are we using findings from our own studies to instigate transformative change in our colleagues’ practices through our programs and our institutional policies for the benefit of pre-service teachers? (p. 12).

232

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

We, as change agents, share access to the same schools, share commitment to promoting equitable access and meaningful school experiences for all science learners, and share a dedication to making sustainable change at teacher, classroom, and building level practice. Specifically, we hope to support student and teacher empowerment in urban schooling such that they can transform teaching and learning away from standardized, English text-dominant, and assessment-driven curriculum and instruction and toward deeper intellectual engagement growth in identities, relationships, and cultural belongings. It is important to note that when the term culture is used in this chapter, it encompasses classroom, community, and disciplinary culture and norms. We are challenged to think about what our role is in prompting teacher change and change for EB students and how we can document, support, and sustain change that reduces the opportunity gaps we observe that educational systems create and sustain for students and teachers both knowingly and unknowingly. We subscribe to the notion of building learning communities based upon an assetand research-based approach. That is to say, we value and see as beneficial to all educational endeavors the knowledge, life experiences, linguistic and cultural diversity, and community connections that students bring to classrooms. We prioritize in our research and teacher education efforts, identification and development of pedagogies that teachers can enact to make central this rich diversity in their classrooms, aiming for outcomes, which transcend mere academic achievement goals. We aim to draw the reader’s attention to the inequities EBs face in schools, which are instantiated in the structures, practices, and policies of urban public school contexts. We recognize that, as a field of science education, we have done a less than stellar job to alleviate or mitigate these through research-informed practices for science learners whose home languages are languages other than English. We take an asset-based approach, which highlights the plurality of resources in the classroom context to help us navigate those inevitable challenges and tensions. We also recognize as teacher educators that most of the science teachers we have had a part in preparing at our very institutions and are often not personally attuned to navigating multicultural and multilingual contexts. As nearly 80% of public school teachers in the USA are White (NCES 2015) and many are monolingual English speakers (Pennington et al. 2019), we would not expect them to enter with such self-awareness nor the skills and knowledge to offer transformative solutions. Still, we must recognize our part as science teacher educators as potentially culpable in continuing to propagate the linguistic barriers, which continue to impede EB student success despite over decades of science education reforms.

What Are the Gaps for EB Science Learners and Their Teachers? Today’s science teachers are faced with difficult choices. In our work we intend to explicate existing gaps between what we know across science education and language instruction and the science teaching practices and enacted beliefs in public schools. These gaps include, but are not limited to the following: 1) A deficit view of

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

233

EBs among teachers characterized by reductionist/universalizing (color-blind) instruction, 2) a misunderstanding of how EBs can acquire new languages and learn academic content simultaneously, and 3) a broad professional development gap ranging from initial teacher preparation and extending into in-service professional development, which offers little focus on EBs in general, but more crucially lacks attention to the types of instructional practices that could be of most impact. While research and reform efforts continue to promote the notion that all children can learn science, predominant classroom practices intent on “assisting” and “accommodating” EBs often expand the gap between EBs and their peers. These practices may promote a false sense of accomplishment or provision for teachers or even add to the deficiencies of current science teaching practices. Often times, efforts to assist EB science students are propagated in ignorance as teachers believe that treating children “the same” is the right choice for maintaining some external standard they feel responsible to. Literature is replete with examples of “colorblind” notions of STEM educators reinforcing perceived gaps between successful and unsuccessful students in various ways (Walls 2016). In part, this is due to the existing power differences between White teachers and “others” in public school, the hegemony of Whiteness in educational settings and what Rosa and Flores (2017) refer to as raciolinguistic ideologies, that is, the co-naturalization of language and race in ways that create and perpetuate inequality, especially through deficit perspectives (Flores 2019). As diversities of all kinds are increasingly acknowledged in today’s classrooms, differentiation of instruction clearly stands out as one avenue for reshaping instructional practice. Differentiated instruction is a familiar concept for classroom teachers, yet a majority of science teachers believe that they are not well prepared to meet the needs of EB students (National Center for Education Statistics 2013; Villegas et al. 2018). As science educators, we have yet to definitively address how current or future teachers will develop the kind of knowledge, dispositions, and awareness needed to address the wealth of linguistically diverse learners showing up in middle school science classrooms. A common misconception among teachers is that science content knowledge can only be gained after EBs acquire or “master” English. This is a common but problematic teacher belief as it tacitly discriminates on the basis of language instead of ability and produces harmful barriers to an already underserved science learner population. There are some school contexts where such teacher assumptions about EBs are more urgent than others. For example, in districts where there are large immigrant populations and also refugee students with little or no formal educational experience, treating students as deficient and ill-prepared to learn content until they have mastered English is a prescription for failure. Teachers and schools also have fewer resources to meet the needs of increasingly heterogeneous classes. To remedy teachers’ self-professed ineptitudes and to attempt to address widespread failure of schools to see and make central the linguistic needs of all students some large districts systemically adopt curricula focusing on decoding and basic literacy skills. These programs may be implemented with neither attention to the cultural identities of students nor with any single personnel on site at the school who

234

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

may speak students’ mother tongue (e.g., Arabic, Malay, Mandarin, Karenni). While approximately three quarters of EBs in US schools are Spanish users, the remaining 25% speak nearly 400 different languages, making one-size-fits-all curricular solutions all the more problematic. In larger urban districts, school leadership commonly mandates pacing guides for science curricula, adopting standardized measures of science learning, and implementing generic reading programs. These programs often script or omit their teachers’ insight, ability, and inclination to modify or customize science learning not just for English-speaking students, but for EBs altogether. Too often this kind of deskilling approach toward teachers (Cuban 2009) overlooks or marginalizes opportunities to meet the needs of EBs. The process of deskilling teachers may create even greater opportunity gaps for EB’s science learning and represents a growing national failure to meet the needs of linguistically diverse children. Some approaches to rectifying marginalization based upon linguistic diversity have been to focus upon the processes, dispositions, and professed cultural practices of science as a discipline. Often referred to as Nature of Science (NOS), teachers and researchers have promoted an epistemic lens to open opportunities for a wider range of students’ participation. Some have argued that experiences may improve the academic achievement of underrepresented students of science (Geier et al. 2008; Tan 2011) and can reduce the impact of achievement differences across student groups (Wilson et al. 2010). Many of these NOS authors promote a notion of inquiry instruction – though inquiry has long been noted as a non-monochromatic approach to science instruction. Inquiry instruction and the notion of promoting the NOS have been touted as one means to negotiate a variety of students’ knowledge, background experiences, and assets. However, opponents argue that, if inquiry instruction is not closely wetted to cultural knowledge and expertly executed, inquiry-based science instruction may actually challenge students’ cultural ways of knowing and run contrary to a teacher’s goal to be inclusive (Gay 2002; Meyer and Crawford 2011). There are two primary opponents to the use of inquiry instruction to promote equity in science education classrooms. One is epistemological and the other pedagogical (Rodriguez 1998). Epistemological critics point to the origins of NOS instruction and the data that has informed its propagation. Though NOS supports the argumentation of ideas through the exploration of data, its roots are deeply steeped in Western culture. Educators steering away from standardized, factual, compartmentalizations of science may be navigating their pedagogy through Westernized views of science that have been studied among predominantly majority group students (Rodriguez 2015; Walls 2016). When Walls (2016) examined all the research in the past two decades exploring the use of NOS in classrooms he found, White participants were the majority population under study in 29 of the 30 studies where race was reported. Though the 294 persons who were identifiable by race represent only a small fraction of the total, Whites were the overwhelming majority population at 84% (Walls 2016, p. 10). Walls and other researchers interrogate an NOS representation and argue that blindly promoting such a model among science teachers and students is tantamount to supporting structured racism. Rodriguez (2015) and Walls (2016) astutely

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

235

observed researchers publishing NOS studies failed to even discuss their own race and cultural belongings when reporting their data. This is problematic as, promoting NOS as required K-12 science education curriculum, also places NOS research at the forefront of not only dictating what K-12 NOS content is taught, but how to best teach that content, and finally, how future science educators will teach it going forward (Walls 2016, p. 3). Pedagogical or practical critics of inquiry instruction for the purpose of promoting equity argue that inquiry has such a broad spectrum of implementations and definitions that no clear attributions can be made regarding its impact. There exists little direct evidence that inquiry improves specific learning outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse learners (Geier et al. 2008; Lee 2005). Furthermore, in its wide array of interpretations, inquiry instruction can be promoted in teacher education and practiced in the classroom as a pristine set of processes, absent of bias, without any student knowledge basis or any deeper understanding of student culture, experiences, and knowledge. If poorly implemented, inquiry instruction could marginalize many underrepresented students. There are, therefore, consequences for promoting NOS as a required framework to guide schools’ curriculum, assessments, and pedagogy. If district science leaders use NOS research studies to narrowly constrain science interpretations, Walls (2016) argues it has the potential “of not only dictating what K-12 NOS content is taught, but how to best teach that content, and. . .how future science educators will teach it going forward” (p. 3). Moreover, there is a range of practitioner approaches to teaching EB students science in urban contexts. One is to teach lots of vocabulary in memorization form and review throughout the year the recall of that vocabulary on practice assessments. Among teachers who desire to teach through models that are more philosophically aligned to science as a discipline, teachers might include inquiry practices or even adopt a framework consistent with research emphasizing the NOS. Regardless of a teacher’s approach there are consequences and subsequent opportunity gaps for EB science learners. Hence, some curricular and pedagogical adjustments may actually serve to marginalize EBs. There are consequences, intended and unintended, for every approach a teacher may use to guide their efforts to be more inclusive. What may be interpreted on the surface as a positive effort to attend to more cultural or epistemic commitments of science to traverse common understandings for EB learners can actually lead to further marginalization. Overall, the intellectual currents of our discipline, the curricular models, and practices we advocate and broad policies and standards around science all impinge on the quality of EBs experience in classrooms and can in some cases create gaps. Part of what may lead to opportunity gaps for EB science learners is, on the one hand, teachers treating students “the same” (i.e., making no adjustments to instruction or curricula for EBs), and, on the other hand, teachers making “accommodations” to make explicit intended curriculum and content more accessible. A further challenge to successful and meaningful science education for EBs in K-12 schools is a professional development gap. From initial teacher preparation to professional development for practicing teachers, there is rarely a deep enough engagement in

236

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

order to shape both mindset and practice in ways that better serve EBs. Educators in general feel ill-equipped to teach EBs (Villegas et al. 2018), and opportunities for teacher learning at all stages of their careers are lacking (Villegas et al. 2018). Even when teachers have exposure to broad theories or more narrow instructional strategies for supporting EBs, this does not appear to translate well to classroom practice. In the face of these challenges, much can be done by science educators and those who work in teacher education and professional development. Notably, emphasis on the design of school and classroom spaces toward environments that are more inclusive and welcoming of students’ diverse experiences and identities, shifts in instructional and relational practices of all kinds, and efforts to address dispositions, attitudes, and outlooks of teachers, especially with regard to the ways they view students in more positive light, are foundational elements of progress.

Approaches That Support Science Learning for EBs There exists a strong and growing body of research in the promotion of equity and diversity-conscious science education for EBs (Hart and Lee 2003; Lee 2019; Lee et al. 2008; Brown 2017), which bears great potential to positively inform practice. Unfortunately, there is an apparent disconnect across research, practice, and policy. Despite literature that emphasizes consideration of students’ intercultural repertoires and linguistic assets, the intercultural competence of teachers, and the pedagogical ability of teachers to stretch their own and students’ repertoires as central to successful, meaningful education of EBs, there is at the same time, a growing trend reported in literature that suggests that science is being represented broadly in classroom instruction as text-driven, fact-based, narrowly defined, and its manifestation more objectivist and increasingly “a-cultural.” Several authors suggest that the nature of assessments and accountability in America is a primary driving force for this trend (Boaler 2003; Fine 2005; Hayden 2011). It is as if assessment experts and creators of policy are unaware or unimpeded in their promotion of science, which is not only less equitable but also looks less and less like science that is practiced by a community of diverse members (Boaler 2003; Bryan and Atwater 2002; Fine 2005; Kearns 2011; Rodriguez 2015; Walls 2016). Many researchers have supported the notion that building content knowledge and a range of intersecting competencies (disciplinary, linguistic, general academic skills, etc.) is fostered when cultural knowledge, artifacts, and assets of students and teachers are central in classrooms. Building on the work of Ladson-Billings (1995, and 1999), who first called for teachers to cultivate cultural competence in students and to teach in culturally responsive ways, researchers like Mary Atwater and others have pushed science educators to reevaluate representations of science in the classroom and to recognize and reverse past trends, which exclude those underrepresented by a predominantly White and male discipline (Atwater 2011; Bryan and Atwater 2002; Flores 2007; Milner 2012; Russell and Atwater 2005; Suriel and Atwater 2012). Drawing attention to culturally inclusive means of instruction, Atwater and her peers have put forward many ways to teach, to prepare

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

237

science teachers, and to study teaching in ways that reverse the marginalization traditional science teaching has had on a diverse student body (Atwater 1996; Bryan and Atwater 2002). Paris (Paris 2012; Paris and Alim 2017) adopted Ladson-Billings (1995) into his framework for culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP), which seeks to perpetuate and foster – to sustain – linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive social transformation. CSP positions dynamic cultural dexterity as a necessary good, and sees the outcome of learning as additive rather than subtractive, as remaining whole rather than framed as broken, as culturally enriching strengths rather than replacing deficits. Culturally sustaining pedagogy exists wherever education sustains the lifeways of communities who have been and continue to be damaged and erased through schooling (Paris and Alim 2017, p. 1). In science education, research promoting the expansion of teachers’ knowledge and practical repertoires toward the production of culturally responsive or culturally sustaining learning environments has taken many forms. Among them, Rodriguez and Kitchen (2005) support the notion of connecting learning practices with the impact on equitable learning spaces. Their approaches contrast with the practice of teachers gaining additional cultural knowledge about students without the consideration of “why” students learn science. Using the framework of Socio-Transformative Constructivism (Rodriguez 2001) they argue that it is only when teachers learn about students’ cultures for the purpose of leveraging content knowledge to improve students’ surroundings and potential that content instruction can achieve greater equity and social justice. In other work, Valdés emphasizes the shifts in cultural identity learners that students experience as they acquire a new language in school. There exists a great potential for teachers to build trust, confidence, engagement, and content connections through teachers’ use of culturally sustaining pedagogies. With some thoughtful investment, teachers have the chance to counter the long-standing trend of teaching science content through off-putting traditional methods like lectures, memorization, and repetitious recall strategies. Teachers can implement new forms of instruction, which helps students to grow in confidence in their home and at school as they develop new languages and new evolving identities coupled with the academic learning they achieve. Attending to representation and use of students’ languages in educational spaces is also important. While examination of multilingual ecologies (García and Menken 2015) – the languages represented, used, and valued in classrooms and schools – has not yet been a central focus of science education research, there exists an expanding body of knowledge that suggests a deeper understanding of the connections between students’ home languages, lives, and experiences and the process of building such understanding through relationships does much to improve students’ science learning. Furthermore, attention to the natural translanguaging practices of EBs and integrating this understanding of language learning and use into a translingual pedagogy in the science classroom is likely to promote academic learning as well as healthy linguistic and cultural identities and growth among students. Vogel and García (2017) explain that translanguaging in EBs means:

238

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

that rather than possessing two or more autonomous language systems, as has been traditionally thought, bilinguals, multilinguals, and indeed, all users of language, select and deploy particular features from a unitary linguistic repertoire to make meaning and to negotiate particular communicative contexts. Translanguaging also represents an approach to language pedagogy that affirms and leverages students’ diverse and dynamic language practices in teaching and learning. (p. 1).

In the context of science classrooms, translanguaging can take place through a range of instructional strategies and activities. The Translanguaging Guide for Educators (Celic and Seltzer 2012) offers many examples of translanguagingbased instructional strategies in science teaching, such as creating a culturally relevant learning environment, writing multilingual language objectives, creating multilingual listening center and using multilingual texts (see Appendix A for detailed examples drawn from the guide). Brown (2017) conducted a meta-synthesis of literature examining culturally responsive inquiry science practices and promoting equitable science learning. Brown employed the Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP), which is a validated protocol operationalizing CRP, and analyzed the complementarity of inquiry-based and culturally responsive science practices. Using seven identified pillars: Classroom Relationships, Family Collaboration, Assessment, Curriculum/Planned Learning Experiences, Pedagogy/Instruction, Discourse, and Sociopolitical Consciousness (see Appendix B), Brown was able to evaluate instances when practitioners, teacher educators, and researchers were knowledgeable and more intentional about promoting equitable science learning experiences. Among the most impactful practices were those related to creating sociocultural connections for content, creating models, connecting sociopolitical meaning to science content, building stronger teacher–community–student relationships around content, and providing opportunities for critique and meaningful interactions around commonly shared issues and events where students and teachers together can obtain, evaluate, and communicate information and analyze and interpret data to co-construct scientific explanations in the classroom (Brown 2017). Other authors attend more specifically to the role of language during science instruction in linguistically diverse classrooms. Researchers have explored the use of inquiry-based pedagogical practices as a means for supporting both science processes and science vocabulary development as well as deeper understanding of science content (Hart and Lee 2003). These findings are shared across a variety of cultural and linguistic contexts, though caution is offered that inquiry science should be taught in ways that do not directly challenge cultural beliefs of learners. Tan (2011) and Johnson (2011b) argued that inquiry science teaching can be conducted in a way that is complementary to a culturally responsive stance toward ethnic and linguistic diversity, and others have argued inquiry can empower students to ask better questions, improve students overall scientific literacy, and offer needed student direction to otherwise marginalizing learning environments (Warren et al. 2001).

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

239

To foster and sustain equitable learning environments for EB science learners, researchers have also focused on attitudes and beliefs that can, in conjunction with other factors, undermine or support culturally and linguistically supportive pedagogies. Lee and Fradd (1998), for example, studied teachers as they helped students understand content as well as making specific connections between their classroom norms, academic content, English literacy, and participation in co-constructed tasks. They found that teachers’ preestablished beliefs about students and their abilities combined with limited support from administrators to create a wider expectation of connection and success can impede teachers’ long-term effectiveness with linguistically diverse students. Hence, the need to examine urban school policies regarding student assessment, teacher beliefs and dispositions, and standards for instruction can have a great impact on EB teaching and learning as the provision of language resources. Elsewhere, Lee and colleagues identified three vital areas of intervention to expand teachers’ knowledge of and implementation of translanguaging practices (Lee and Buxton 2011). Specifically, their research studied the teachers’ beliefs regarding the locus of their pedagogical struggles with teaching science to EBs. Specifically, the areas identified by teachers incorporated (a) practices, which drew upon deeper content knowledge (b) teaching practices that drew upon the support of other literacies like English and Mathematics, and (c) practices, which overtly limited sustained any meaningful application of content and inquiry processes in science. These and related studies revealed a strong bias of teachers defining problems of instruction and resulting inequity as residing outside of their control, reflecting a sense of little agency in being able to address challenges. Still, many researchers report progress identifying ways teachers can play a key role during instruction (Nam et al. 2012; Tolbert et al. 2017). Teachers can help students understand classroom norms, can help make connections between academic content, their linguistic and English literacy development, and they can leverage the cultural resources students bring to class. Teachers can also mitigate pressures of standardized testing by influencing school testing schedules and protocols, educating principals about instructional time for science, and promoting inquiry rather than standardized test preparation (Lee and Buxton 2011; Johnson 2011b; Lee and Fradd 1998; Nam et al. 2012). Another way to learn this is by welcoming inquiry practices in classrooms where students’ contributions are encouraged and counter-stories can be told, which are revoiced through the students’ cultures and experiences. Inquiry-based science can provide “a rich environment for simultaneous cognitive and linguistic development” (Kessler and Quinn 1987, p. 97). Bransford and Donovan (2005) describe the essential components of science inquiry as answering meaningful questions, making data/evidence-based decisions, collaborating, authentically problem solving, engaging in social interaction, using specialized language, and using specific representations and tools. Inquiry strategies allow for greater engagement in some cases by reducing linguistic demands on students through providing different means for students to demonstrate and participate in learning other than an oral mode. Modes

240

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

such as drawing, writing, acting, and creating digital video all can provide a foundation for the dual development of scientific content and a new language, allowing students to access and apply the discourse skills that they brought to the class and to develop new ones. In some cases, the provision of tools (like those mentioned above) brought about an entirely different understanding of children’s abilities and contributions. Children can learn better through the use of inquiry strategies that access a variety of learners’ strengths, and in this way the notion of scientific literacy is expanded and enhanced. Taking advantage of opportunities to invite students’ cultures and languages and to build relationships with students and their communities has had documented positive impact on student science learning. Teachers may gain access to vast cultural knowledge and resources students bring with them, which helps them to better recognize their learning needs and view students through an asset-based lens. Learning about students’ cultures also allows teachers to take advantage of students’ existing linguistic and cultural content knowledge and skills. Students are not arriving in classrooms from a vacuum but from a home and community rich in funds of knowledge (Moll et al. 1992). Diversity should be approached from a posture of strengths and not marginalized deficits. What is it that children know? What can they currently do, and how can this help make connections to intended content and experiences? How can the classroom be a place that nurtures science learning but also intercultural growth and identities? These are questions central to a culturally and linguistically responsive/sustaining science teacher. Children bring with them a wealth of experience and knowledge that can be a great asset in learning science, but it requires that teachers make efforts to first become aware of and then honor and integrate these linguistic and cognitive resources.

Two Vignettes Reflecting Efforts at Professional Development to Support Science Educators in Teaching EBs In the vignettes that follow, we provide two examples of professional development efforts where our experiences and research directed practices may inform larger recommendations for supporting educators of EB science students in other contexts. We also share them with the purpose of illustrating what sites of teacher learning, either in teacher preparation or ongoing professional development, can draw from these contexts. Randy has worked with science educators in a large urban district offering professional development as well as peer-to-peer mentoring to address microcultures in schools, their classroom discourse norms, and decentering the traditional representations of science. Erin has focused on supporting classroom teachers of many content areas, including science, as their schools, in the same urban school district, and participated in long-term school change and professional development initiatives aimed at better supporting EB students (between 2011 and 2019). In this district, more than 30% of the student population is classified as requiring English as a Second Language service while many more are multilingual and

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

241

therefore EBs; with very small percentage of EB students passing the state exam in science (Johnson 2011b; Zawicki and Jabot 2003). We have intentionally selected two nonequivalent vignettes to illustrate the wide range of need and variance among urban EB science classrooms. Vignette #1 immerses the reader in an inquiry-based science learning and attempts to leverage the experiences, knowledge, and cultural resources students bring to science class individually. Vignette #2 immerses the reader in a school community context where teachers have embraced a translanguaging approach to curricular interventions (including science) and the continued challenges to improve, share, and invest in the creation of culturally sustaining curriculum and corresponding pedagogy. These classrooms are at opposite ends of the spectrum in many ways. One is an isolated teacher who describes herself as simply “surviving day to day.” The others demonstrate collaboration among teachers and support from peers, administration, and educational stakeholders external to the school itself. One examines the improvisation and enactment of culturally responsive pedagogy. The other is the predicating process for building and sharing curriculum and assessments prior to teaching and the establishment of school classroom culture utilizing specific strategies of translanguaging. Both are demanding and challenging work. The hope is that readers can situate themselves somewhere between the extremes and draw meaningful insights for teaching, learning, and assessing EB in urban refugee contexts and for working alongside teachers. Our efforts in both settings were to prioritize the expansion of linguistic, cultural, and academic repertoires as well as nurturing of students’ identities. The two vignettes highlight different elements of engaging EBs in science learning and several points about supporting teachers as they develop their practice regarding working with their EB students. We emphasize that these are illustrative reflections. They are borne out of actual events and representative of a collection of experiences that are not meant to generalize, but to engage the reader in two separate school contexts. As we reflect on the recurrence of these events it causes us to unpack the tensions underlying any effort to shift from traditional practices. Both examples highlight asset-based pedagogies that draw on a range of student linguistic and cultural resources and that seek to make space for all classroom participants to expand their disciplinary knowledge, language abilities, literacy, and cultural repertoires.

Vignette #1: Inquiry-Based Science Teaching Our first vignette is extracted from the largest urban district serving large immigrant populations in a Midwestern city of more than 200,000. Our teacher whom we will call “Shirley” nears retirement with more than 20 years of experience teaching science and is overwhelmed with the changes in district policy to make her school more responsive to the student population representing over 41 global languages. Both Randy and Shirley are White, middle-aged, monolingual science teachers by training. Shirley’s school has been the site of de facto tracking of both the largest immigrant placement in the district as well as the de facto site for students with

242

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

learning difficulties. Though the district channels students to this school, there have been limited additional resources supplied – certainly disproportionate to the student needs. In the midst of her struggles as a monolingual teacher, Shirley knows she is not reaching all her students in ways her district reform leaders profess. Shirley is a part of a literacy project where teachers’ self-assessment of needs is to “cope” with issues of widespread teacher turnover, the influx of multiple cultures and languages not supported in classrooms, limited textbooks options, large Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) populations, and a significant number of families new to the USA who are dependent upon a variety of social services to acclimate to their newly found homes. Shirley has taught a ninth grade Living Environment curriculum that is strongly tied to mandated state assessments, mandated state standardized labs, and district regulated testing schedules and curriculum pacing guides. For her class of 25 students, Shirley has identified with Randy a curricular target that she would like to improve through planned instructional tasks. It is a concept that is mandated by the New York State Regents exam, administered every year, and a concept that has brought her great discouragement. Shirley requested help with the activity construction dichotomous (or taxonomic) key for classification of flora and fauna. There are literally thousands of online examples of dichotomous keys used by teachers, but her current context limits the effectiveness of the resources she has collected over the years. Dichotomous keys, tools used to help identify scientific species are not new biological constructs. Sometimes they are taught as branching, treelike diagrams, or cladograms, but they are used to show how scientists have decided on a set of relationships between certain species based upon an agreed set of characteristics or evolutionary history (see Appendix C). Each branch represents a departure or dichotomous decision, which requires the student to place the specimen along a specific path determined by a series of binary decisions. Shirley has rarely looked outside of resources provided by the district and her peers, and she struggles to understand why her students consistently struggle to expertly use dichotomous keys as a classification tool in Living Environment. In conversations, Shirley points to a lack of basic vocabulary among students and overall low proficiency in English as issues in pursuing instruction in her routine way. As discussed, alternatives to the current approach, many suggestions are dismissed by Shirley because she perceives that “They can’t. . .” Despite Shirley’s doubts, she agrees to co-teach with Randy, the university coach, to discuss videos taken during co-instruction, to allow Randy to lead certain lessons, and to later co-teach and implement instructional practices as a means to better understand the nature of the learning issues in her classroom. On the first day of the flora and fauna classification lesson, Shirley began with general class procedures (e.g., announcements, attendance, introducing Randy as a partner and Co-instructor) and proceeded to discuss the printed sheet I was distributing to students. The sheet had only written instructions in English, no diagrams, no indication of what a completed diagram would look like, and no key to check answers. A second sheet of only numbered pictures was given to students separately. It had clearly been copied and recopied over the years as a handout as the text and

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

243

descriptions had faded and in some examples was hard for even an English speaker like myself to read. The first sheet amounted to a list of English instructions to examine the picture and fill in the blank provided (see Appendices). Shirley gave one example of how she, as a student, might read the description and fill in the blank based upon a single feature description. The first example of the completed diagram was the most disparate and obvious since it departed from all other shared characteristics but one of the collections. All other answers would be dependent upon a series of dichotomous (yes/no) answers. Shirley then divided the students into groups of four and gave students her expectations for what was to be done by the end of the period (Fig. 1). Shirley then proceeded to wander the room from table to table as I sat down with my group hoping to assist and to learn about Shirley’s students. With some students Shirley was very specific, deliberate, and accommodating as she attempted to direct the small group of students at her table with each question. “Well this one has long needles. Soooooo. . ..[raised intonation]?” With other groups she grew increasingly agitated. Shirley would look up occasionally from the table she was working with and call loudly a student by name. She would scowl or ask “Are you working on your dichotomous key?” They would look down, smirk, or lower their head and smile to the person next to them uttering something in their native tongue. It was hard for me to predict which students would receive the direct answers from her and which students would be scolded.

Fig. 1 Shirley’s assigned work

244

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

When asked about how she had decided upon grouping students, her description was a rather ad hoc arrangement based upon cultural and linguistic connections she had learned since the beginning of the year. “I seated these three with Davon because he speaks French and his English is pretty good. Their language background has some French in it, so they can work through him to help interpret what they are supposed to do.” Another table of three different language boys, Shirley appeared to roll her eyes. They spoke Somali, Italian, and an African language I did not recognize (it might have been Tigrinya). Dismissingly she explained, “You can’t tell on any given day if they’re gonna work for you or not.” However, my interpretation of the event was different than other “disinterested” students I have encountered. This trio of male students did not ignore her as she came by to assist. They did not appear to dismiss the assignment nor shove it aside as I have seen other students do. They did not show any disdain for school but genuinely appeared to try to make sense of the task. I understood that they had become disconnected after 10 min of repeated efforts to interpret the task, seemingly confused on how to proceed. I partly understood their sense of futility as I worked with my own group to try and decipher the text and pictures. Yet, this group received less help, likely because they resorted to talking and joking with each other as they waited for her assistance. The assumption she had apparently made of these behaviors that day was that these were disinterested learners and troublemakers. I could observe Shirley becoming more and more nervous about her students’ completion of this exercise as she moved around the room. Shirley is not alone in her feelings of being overwhelmed with uncertainty and demands for her attention from so many different directions. Many teachers do not feel sufficiently prepared to teach academic subjects like science with refugees and EBs. The majority of teachers working with EBs do not believe that they are adequately prepared to meet learning needs of their language learners (Lee 2005; Villegas et al. 2018). The issue is further compounded, since EBs may not present behavioral problems, and thus their needs may go unnoticed. Still, amid these various barriers to learning, inquiry-based science instruction has been shown to simultaneously provide an alternative context for developing both English and science proficiency (Jarrett 1999; Kessler and Quinn 1987; Lee and Buxton 2011). Based on what I had observed of the lesson and the students, I offered support to Shirley for a second attempt at the lesson’s content, but with an adjusted instructional approach. My approach was three-fold to provide: 1) cultural relevance of the learning artifacts presented, 2) general understanding of the academic task and the intended products, and 3) scaffolded support for incrementally connecting their students learning experiences with the content represented on the paper assignment. After the first class, I took note of the trees and bushes in the neighborhood and obtained (without permission) small samples from the local park and trees along the street. I knew that many of these samples were not representative of many of the students’ home country flora, but neither were the examples given on the state exam. In my opinion, this approach was at least drawing attention to their observation of their immediate local environment. I also gathered together coins and currency

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

245

collected from trips I had recently taken. These were meant to introduce a kinesthetic and visual component to the abstracted activity represented only by text directions on their sheet as well as to leverage whatever knowledge and experiences learners brought with them to class. Shirley agreed to let me teach and the next day began with a lineup of students at one end of the room as we marched forward shoulder to shoulder, dropping off students with each dichotomous decision we made. • • • •

If your home country is on the continent of Africa, stop here. If your home country is the USA, stop here. If the state you were born in is NY, stop here. If your home language is English, Spanish, French. . ..stop here... here... here...

Home country flags that are included throughout the school made the distinction of relevant countries easier and groupings of students easier. I drew a map of our classroom and the resulting positions of the 25 students from the activity. I then connected the dots to make a taxonomic representation of our identity classification. To the best of their ability, I asked them to discuss with their neighbors the meaning of the activity, the map, and their place in it. Next, I provided a bag of mixed coins and currency to four different Tables. I asked them to group them and find similarities and differences we might use to classify them. I had recalled research I had read years before about the abilities of young children to come up with their own ways of classifying rocks and how these unique ways could be leveraged to construct meanings in mineralogy. Student scribes documented words in multiple languages to produce descriptions like “round,” “silver,” “foldable,” “gray,” “numbers,” and other labels depicting similarities and differences. We then decided which differences “mattered” as a class, combined all the currencies from different bags into the middle of the room, and proceeded to make another taxonomic chart as we did with our homes of origin. To ensure students understood the arbitrary nature of our decisions, we changed our criteria and produced an entirely different classification. This is consistent with the NOS thought as taxonomies can change based upon current knowledge of the field (e.g., see Zachos 2018). Finally, it was time to return to the two-page handouts Shirley had provided on day one. Around the room were piles of leaves, branches, and samples for classification as many of the features required observations of how the branches and leaves are aligned or staggered on the limb. Students brought leaves and limbs to their tables, asked questions from across the room, and together helped one another to complete one worksheet, Student 1: Needles? Three? [in a cluster] Student 2: No fives Student 2: [waving a sample] Student 1: Yeah, try that one. Bring it over

246

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

Audibly there were many discussions in many dialects working through the meaning of the questions and directions. Although I was unaware of it at the time, inviting students to draw on their full linguistic repertoires while carrying out learning tasks, even if the end product will be written or spoken in English, aligns with the translanguaging strategy of “multilingual collaborative work” (Celic and Seltzer 2012, p. 62). Shirley still circulated throughout the room, but the nature of students’ questions was fundamentally different from the previous day. While questions from students on the previous day focused on what answers belonged in the blanks, students appeared more focused in the new lesson upon the comparison of the images portrayed on the sheet and the representative sample from the real world. Some of their questions also focused on the graphical depiction of the taxonomy. There were previously few questions during the former lesson regarding groups or families of leaf examples, but after the third consecutive day of instruction, students were aware of and asking questions about where and how characteristics of samples were clustered on the worksheet. The recognition of the placement of answers with the taxonomic diagram was helpful for more students to complete and assist others in their group. When Shirley and I discussed the two lessons (the initial and the one I modeled), she demonstrated a certain amount of ambivalence. She noted that doing both of our lessons meant that she had devoted more than twice as much instructional time than she had in the past. She also noted that, despite the additional time, not all students were able to complete the taxonomic map by themselves. As a result, she was not entirely convinced that she would take this much time away from the pacing guide next time, remarking: “We have to get through this chapter before December to be ready for their standardized test coming up in January,” she advised. However, she was able to note several observations from her students who had been silent and reserved before. • Leaf veins and stems are different and this difference mattered • Other features were predictable differences, lobes, needles, branches, broad v. narrow leaves, bark • Leaves can be staggered or opposing • Needles can come in specific numbered groups • Answers in the blanks and the examples on the sheet could be used for plants NOT listed on the sheet • Broad and narrow leaves were often the result of the temperature of the region where they were native Seeing these specific student understandings develop, Shirley was positive about the instructional modifications and surprised by some students’ change in participation and willingness to vocalize and to collaboratively participate in their group. Students who had been passive became more active participants, wanting to observe more of the samples throughout the room. Some students noted that some plant species actually did survive in other climates overseas. Students shared more about

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

247

themselves as learners (I learn better with these outside examples) as well as personal information (I like animals more than plants). Overall, in the case of many students, there was a noteworthy improvement in effort and scientific understanding. Shirley was optimistic about her students’ new understanding of dichotomous keys. Shirley was also aware that this modification did not remedy all the challenges she and her students face but was nonetheless an improvement over past efforts.

Vignette #2: A Translanguaging Strategy to Improve Science Learning for EBs In another neighborhood of the focal city, in the heart of a hyper-diverse, largely refugee community, an international preK-6 elementary school of approximately 800 students representing 70 home or heritage countries and speaking over 30 different languages applied to be part of a multiyear, grant-funded initiative to effect change toward greater support of EBs. The school was one of only a small number in the entire city district to be labeled “in good standing” based on test scores and continued its work to support its 75 teachers (ESL and “general education”) as well as staff and administrators as they all worked to educate and provide a welcoming school environment for its students. Most children at the school were multilingual or EBs (based on interviews with school staff and observations at the school), but 57% of the school population were officially classified by the district as requiring ESL services in a recent school year, based on results of a state test of English proficiency. The project the school applied to was the CUNY-NYSIEB (City University of New York-New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals) initiative (www.cunynysieb.org), which has created a network of university actors and hundreds of New York State schools between 2011 and 2019. Guided by the notion that translanguaging – the fluid movement along a singular repertoire of linguistic resources representing many socially named languages – is the natural meaning-making state of multilinguals, the CUNY-NYSIEB project and participating schools embraced this as a resource and asset for teaching and learning and through joint, long-term school change-professional development plans, adopted two anchoring principles: (1) supporting a multilingual ecology for the whole school and (2) treating multilingualism as a resource in education. School building leaders applied to participate and then over the course of sustained partnership with scholars, researchers, teacher educators, and professional development experts that made up the CUNY-NYSIEB project team, developed a school-based leadership team (made up largely of teachers), set and pursued specific goals for better supporting EBs and drew on the support of the larger network of university-based experts they had access to as well as colleagues in other schools who had developed translanguaging expertise. Erin was an associate investigator on the CUNY-NYSIEB research and professional development team and worked over the course of several years with many schools in Western New York as they developed and implemented their school change plans.

248

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

The international elementary school described here was the first school in the city district to join the project in 2014 and continued its participation for 3 years. At this school, the teacher-led team articulated two broad goals to guide their school’s improvement efforts: GOAL # 1: To build the capacity of our parents to enable better participation in the school community, identifying and nurturing our parent leaders who will participate in school decision making. GOAL #2: Implement Translanguaging as means of affirming linguistic and cultural identities of identified groups and as a means of supporting students’ development of both English and home languages. The school already had a well-developed, school-wide multilingual ecology when it joined the CUNY-NYSIEB project, one that represented the many languages of the school on a large-scale welcome sign in the entryway and on signage and displays of student work of all kinds throughout the school. Where the rich multilingual diversity of the school was less developed, however, was in leveraging many languages for teaching and learning purposes within classrooms. That is, multilingual ecologies within classrooms, designed with the express purpose of promoting academic learning, were less numerous. In recognizing this, the school-based leadership team crafted Goal #2 and began working with Author 2 and another CUNYNYSIEB associate investigator to explore the Translanguaging Guide (http://www. cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-March2013.pdf) for strategies that might be most appropriate to try. The team settled on creation of multilingual listening centers, especially since the elementary-school aged children were often still developing literacy in all of their languages. An emphasis on spoken language in creating these resources, then, could support learning of academic content as well as biliterate development. Multilingual listening centers are “a way for emergent bilinguals to listen to texts in both English and their home languages” (Celic and Seltzer 2012, p. 87). They can be set up on any kind of audio-enabled equipment (in use in classrooms, we have seen old Walkmen and cassette tapes, audio files on tablets with earbuds, laptop audio playing from a website) and can take on many configurations and contexts. The purpose for creating multilingual listening centers at the school was to develop resources for the classroom that would allow students to draw on their home languages in ways that built concepts in a range of academic areas (including science) and that supported English language development at the same time. These multilingual listening centers were planned as a differentiation tool, in a sense, since they were intended for use when students were in small groups or working in stations. Students at one station or part of the room could do pre-lesson background building (along content or linguistic lines) with the benefit of listening to or viewing home language segments while other students prepared for the lesson in other ways.

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

249

Once the school identified multilingual listening centers as a focus of their school plan for integrating greater translanguaging pedagogy, our role on the CUNYNYSIEB team was to provide further information and to facilitate initial planning processes, especially, as the leadership team would orchestrate the ongoing efforts to establish this resource and practice in the school. At one of the initial planning meetings, the team of teacher leaders decided that the multilingual listening centers could include stories in students’ home languages, either parallel to or related in content or theme to an English-medium story, but they also were very interested in providing short listening segments in the school’s top four languages (Karen, Somali, Burmese, Nepali) around key concepts from each content area. This led to an exercise in identifying key concepts and anchor terminology for each grade level and each subject area. For some subjects, existing resources greatly facilitated this process. In science, the district’s science kits were organized around key topics, concepts, and experiences but also included short lists of terms that could then be taken up as the key resources for building multilingual listening center resources. For example, the Grade 2 topic having to do with habitats identified small sets of vocabulary for each of three lessons: Lesson 1: Habitat Diversity Adaptation

Lesson 2: Tundra

Lesson 3: Wetland Marsh Swamp

This provided the teacher-leader team with a starting point in designing the multilingual listening centers. The teachers searched for video content online (often using the 2lingual search function of Google) that illustrated these concepts and terms in students’ home languages. They also searched for similar video content in English. Once home language videos were identified, the teachers communicated with instructional support staff who worked at the school and who spoke the top home languages of students. This was an important step in verifying that the language in the video was age- and content-appropriate. These videos were organized on tablets in topic folders and in class, teachers could then have students access the videos as pre-lesson background building so that all students could be cued to the most relevant terminology and the key concepts of a lesson at its start. Creation of such a resource in the school was not without its challenges. Finding time to gather resources and bring in the appropriate staff support to shape useful tools was a consistent challenge among teacher leaders who were often busy with many responsibilities beyond their instructional duties. Curricular work in this direction was supported by the building leaders, with the principal even granting some summer curriculum development time and pay to advance the creation of the multilingual listening centers. Adoption of the centers across classrooms was another challenge. While the teacher leader team was deeply involved and invested in multilingual listening centers, spreading the news of their existence and then assisting teachers at the school to take up use of these in their classrooms required

250

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

professional development time as well as efforts toward making the case for why taking up use of this tool would be beneficial to students. Because the multilingual listening centers were created at the school and with the school’s science curriculum in mind, professional development sessions were more easily structured around how exactly they could be integrated into upcoming units. The multilingual listening centers are still in use at the school, a few years out from their original creation. Their positive impact is identifiable at least in part in their continued use; in smaller moments, the salutary effect of their presence as part of the multilingual ecology of classrooms at the school is visible when children who were having trouble understanding the focus of a science lesson or its key components are able to get hooked in from the beginning when lesson content is previewed in a linguistic resource they can more easily understand. CUNY-NYSIEB observational and multilingual ecology inventory data indicated such shifts in student participation, as well as the centers functioning in a way that granted access to curriculum at the crucial beginning point in a lesson, when this was not necessarily occurring previously. In using the multilingual listening centers at the start of a lesson, students are either gaining academic content vocabulary in English to refer to concepts they already understand and know, or they are simultaneously building concept and language that they need to succeed in science class. For teachers, there is time and student attention gained as well as deeper learning cultivated when students can all start a lesson with some shared foundational understandings around sciencerelated language and science content, and they can build this shared classroom knowledge in a way that draws on a fuller range of children’s linguistic resources. Many teachers at the school were surprised to realize, for example, that their students’ understandings of science were in some cases quite well developed and in identifying the relevant term in English through watching a video, the students were able to engage more actively in the lesson. Teachers also realized that across languages, many scientific terms showed similarities, and simply hearing a similar science term pronounced in a familiar way could facilitate students’ rapid access to the lesson content. Benefits to student learning and to teachers’ planning and instruction were abundant in developing multilingual listening centers at the school, and the teacher leaders process for development underscores the power of locally developed strategies and materials and teacher-led efforts to effect change in better supporting multilingual children’s science learning.

Conclusion In order to advocate for EBs, to grow trust with school personnel, and to begin to make shifts in contexts like these, significant effort is required on both the part of teachers and researchers. We as professors and teacher educators can contribute to discussions of effective teaching practice in schools, can serve as a bridge to impactful research or even dedicate time in urban classrooms modeling particular practices. Other roles are imaginable and needed, if we wish to be engaged in our communities – creating or holding spaces where deficit views of EBs can be

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

251

challenged among teachers and in schools, supporting efforts to identify and redesign reductionist instructional responses, clarifying misunderstandings of how EBs can acquire a new languages and learn academic content simultaneously, and broadening the impact of teacher learning across initial teacher preparation into in-service professional development. This work requires we also recognize the real and constraining pressures to rethink our professional spaces and community conversations. Such broad endeavors compel significant time and resources to establish critical spaces for teachers to figure out how such practices can actually be honed in their own instructional repertoires, practices, and policies and how reshaping of perspectives can lead to greater success for both teachers and learners. We acknowledge that each of these gaps is exacerbated by the normal points of tension in the K-12 environment – policy efforts aimed at scripting curricula and the corollary deskilling of teachers, lack of time and resources to actually work on improving one’s teaching practice, the demands of the profession to “do science teaching” in particular ways, the local pressures from a department and school to value (or not) students and teaching in particular kinds of ways, and the pressures of local and state-mandated standardized testing of content with minimal language support. Managing the pressure to teach toward traditional assessments that come in the form of dichotomous keys, fill in the blank assessments, multiple choice, and short answer responses that are heavily reliant upon the interpretation of English written text is a constant pressure for teachers in our current assessment-driven context. Such tasks regularly appear on State-mandated science assessments and generally do not effectively parse out linguistic and cognitive struggles students may have. Standardized assessments may reinforce existing inaccurate assumptions teachers hold for EB and L2 students. English-only climates in schools also pose significant challenges to teaching and learning as well as the sense of belonging students and teachers cocreate in classrooms. It is not the norm to think of schools or “doing science” (or any subject for that matter) as potentially or inherently or productively multilingual, but this possibility certainly exists. Creating resources that teachers can leverage even in a supportive environment takes significant individual and collective investment and will likely not yield immediate improvements in standardized achievement tests. We must be willing to look more broadly for evidence of progress and of achievement, which almost always stretches beyond the merely academic when it flourishes. Creating a professional community where teachers can sustain a trajectory toward the use of tools and the inclusion of inquiry into instruction with the belief that changes are necessary is certainly work against the grain (Simon 1992). Combatting embedded assumptions that students are incapable of participating in science or that inquiry learning will be too hard for them may lead teachers to avoid efforts, which could enrich the science experiences for all students. Inquiry instruction can, however, be structured into science classrooms in a way that is inclusive and can be culturally responsive, sustaining and nurturing to students who are typically marginalized in urban American classrooms. Are we to interpret that just because a teacher’s students continue to fail on standardized tests that they have failed to learn anything valuable? Even with

252

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

support, teachers like Shirley continue to feel the pressure of standardized testing as a measure for any and all scientific literacy (Boaler 2003; Fine 2005; Kearns 2011; Hayden 2011). We contend there are a variety of sets of evidence that children are learning in the above classrooms. Children begin to vocalize their beliefs more. They listen and try and develop stronger and more connected identities to their new classroom environments, though their participation may not yet be as full as we hope for. What do we point our teachers and administrators toward when we hope to “stay the course” for innovations that are showing progress? We share a concern for the ways academic progress is measured among EB science students. There are few if any good measurements available to teachers for measuring content understanding, process skills, for students who have yet to navigate the expert content, relate content to academic expectation, and connect to their own experiences.

Implications It is clear from the literature that teachers need to expend additional effort identifying students’ linguistic and cultural experiences in order to connect those experiences, learning strategies, background knowledge, learner characteristics, and culture to improve opportunities for their learning. Whether these efforts are supported by public school districts or not, such efforts demonstratively improve the engagement and learning of linguistically and culturally diverse students. Changing the learning context from traditional, factual, text-based instruction to inquiry learning is nontrivial, but researchers argue that changing traditional instruction toward a more culturally sustaining approach, which includes inquiry instruction, can enhance students’ communication of their understanding in a variety of formats, including written, oral, gestural, and graphic forms (Lee and Fradd 1998; Warren et al. 2001; Driver et al. 1994; Lee et al. 2004; Rodriguez 2008; Yerrick and Roth 2005; Warren et al. 2001). Students need to recognize existing structures and demands before expanding into new and uncertain discourse norms. Rich, detailed accounts of promoting student discourse and the explication of student perspectives are not only critical to research in science education, but also helpful in changing school’s hegemonic practices. Such teaching endeavors empower students to provide the feedback necessary to facilitate their success. These studies have revealed that, before students engage in science, mutually inclusive and renegotiated discourse communities must be created and implemented to engage all learners in equitable science education. Given the support of the broader literature there are several direct implications for: 1) reshaping school science experiences for EB, 2) revising policies and practices for teachers of EB, and 3) shaping future science education research. First, reshaping the science classroom experience requires refocusing on what matters most. Without a shift toward cultural inclusiveness and culturally sustaining approaches to teaching, science teachers will predictably resort to conservative pedagogical orientations and corresponding assessments to deliver content and to manage their uncertainties. Diversions, distractions, and alternative paths to

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

253

exploring science content may result in less than predictable questions and answers inviting uncertainty. Research has clearly demonstrated for decades that without active reshaping of beliefs and practices, departures from traditional practices are framed as issues of control and management rather than issues of student learning (Cuban 1993; Goodlad 1984; McNeil 2013). Shirley’s students were less in need of her “controlling” efforts than they were in need of meaningful connections between the science constructs they were expected to learn and the experiences and knowledge they bring through the classroom door that day. We must commend educators like Shirley for recognizing when new perspectives and help are needed. Yes, it took considerably more time and effort. Yes, Shirley saw different facets of her learners that day and ways to engage more students. No, all the barriers for successful EB science learning were not resolved in 1 day. Second, revising policies which drive science curricula and assessment practices is long overdue given the track record of the exclusion of underrepresented groups and the constraints on representations of knowledge. Several scholars have drawn attention to the incompatibility of reform rhetoric to specific detail for enacting inclusive science classrooms (Atwater and Riley 1993; Rodriguez 2010, 2015; Walls 2016) for teachers of EB. Existing standardized testing measures continues to hegemonize the science learning process in the USA particularly for underrepresented populations with limited access to White, affluent cultural capital (Boaler 2003; Brimijoin 2005; Fine 2005; Hayden 2011; Jorgenson and Vanesdol 2002; Kearns 2011; Longo 2010; Scott et al. 1995). There is significant literature that point to the way teachers then resolve classroom dilemmas based upon personal experience or school policies often uniformed by the culture and background of learners (Fradd and Lee 1999; Bryan and Atwater 2002; Hampton and Rodriguez 2001; Hart and Lee 2003; Lynch 2000; Rodrıguez and Kitchen 2005). Teachers need support in order to interpret the complex environment in which they work as they continue to try to balance changing demands from shifting national standards, changing school demographics, and recommended practices for EB science learners. Indeed, as the multiyear, statewide project advancing translanguaging philosophies and practices in New York State shows in the vignette above, when significant investments of time and resources and thoughtful creation of collaborative partnership plans for school change are pursued, real shifts in teachers’ practice, students’ experiences, and schools’ cultures are possible. And these efforts are likely to endure and have lasting effects. We await Shirley’s students’ state-standardized scores at the end of the year. She has since moved on to her next content unit where a number of other text heavy packets she has collected over the years will be reexamined. Though Shirley was able to collect measures that showed students’ improvement in their English literacy, their increased effort in the task, and their connections with their knowledge of local and international flora and fauna through the activity described above, we do not necessarily believe her commendable efforts alone will translate directly into improved achievement on the task routinely included on the State-mandated exam. There still exists a strong need to connect educational innovation borne from thoughtful reevaluation of traditional practices with the reported “achievement

254

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

gaps” on standardized exams. Our hope is to impact local teachers’ practices and offer continual push back against the forces that limit access of urban EB students to a kind of science learning, which is recognizable through their own cultural lens. Finally, science researchers are drawing increasing attention to the lack of equity for bilingual, EB, and English as Second Language Students (ESL). There remain major concerns regarding teachers’ knowledge and dispositions toward EB and Western centric science representations. Science, as it is represented in the majority of US schools K-12, has had a dramatic effect on many underrepresented groups and their advancement and success in college. It is crucial for the students to have a vested interest in new forms of science classroom discourse for other obstacles, like disinterest and hopelessness, to be addressed. Renegotiating the learning environment is a process that has garnered recent interest by researchers studying scientific literacy and the importance of discursive identity (Brown et al. 2005; Jarrett 1999; Kessler and Quinn 1987; Moll et al. 1992; Tan 2011). Understanding students’ efforts to simultaneously balance the negotiation of academic tasks within an urban context as well as how they are interpreting science content is essential for informing research and future practices for teachers working with EB science learners. As Lee has argued, Researchers should aim to identify linguistic and cultural experiences that can serve as intellectual resources for science learning, as well as beliefs and practices that may be discontinuous with the specific demands of science disciplines. To do so requires a balanced view of [EBs] intellectual resources and the challenges they face in learning science. (Lee 2005, p. 527)

Lee further argues that existing literature fails to address issues of empowerment with EB students. Students from our first vignette who were unaware of how to approach the dichotomous key assignment first attempted the task with whatever limited connections they could make to this abstracted task and text-heavy instructions. Students without direct help and support from Shirley quickly waned in attention and their resulting actions were quickly interpreted by Shirley as disinterest and a “management problem.” Because of the immediate and extensive nature of demands put upon teachers in urban classroom environments, teachers cannot be expected to balance, explore, and adjust their teaching on their own. While support from researchers and teacher educators can be useful, teachers can also make room in their science classrooms for students themselves to occupy positions of knowledgeholders. One of the key benefits of the translanguaging approach described in vignette two above, where students’ home languages become audible in the classroom, is that students become empowered to access curriculum and participate in teaching and learning. The content of the clips at the multilingual listening centers empower teacher and students to take the curriculum in another direction than the one normally prescribed by the English-medium materials or perhaps the exclusive experience and perspective of the teacher. Translanguaging opens curricular, instructional, and participatory spaces that stand to empower all classroom actors.

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

255

In the absence of live and interactive examples for teachers to immerse themselves in, we also support the practice of researchers documenting and exploring these newly formed communities and interventions to support EB science students. Online repositories, institutional archives, and local community sharing are all viable options for expanding teachers’ notions and their ability to envision similar practices in their own schools and classrooms. Ideally, commensurate contexts are best, so that teachers can see credible and engaging accounts of teaching EBs and relate them to their own settings. In addition to their limited history and exposure to these practices, teachers are also at times faced with resistance from pervasive beliefs of fellow teachers, policies that emphasize testing, scheduling that challenges sharing among teachers, and other barriers to teachers enriching our understanding of EB science students (Lee and Buxton 2011). Within these shared communities, teachers can share, explore different notions of teaching science. Even if the teachers don’t feel successful in their explanations and experimentation, the process can point to places where solutions can be interrogated or even discarded as unfeasible. The facilitation of transdisciplinary observations, inter-visitations, tasks that lead to critically examining the assumptions and framing of the problem, and applying more broad solutions is the ultimate goal. Such efforts are necessary for new and practicing science teachers as we recognize they are likely not receiving this kind of mentorship in their teacher preparation programs, despite the fact that we know so thoroughly that we are currently failing to live up to our creed of teaching science in ways that eliminate opportunity gaps for all students.

Cross-References ▶ A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms ▶ Elementary Teacher Preparation in the Borderlands ▶ “I Don’t Speak Science”: Preparing Monolingual Teachers to Work with Multilingual Learners ▶ It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx Learners’ Native Language to Learn Science ▶ Preparing Secondary Science Teachers to Teach Linguistically Diverse Students ▶ Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding Translanguaging in Multicultural Settings ▶ Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse Multicultural Classrooms ▶ Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of Arab Countries ▶ Using Project-Based Learning to Leverage Culturally Relevant Pedagogy for Science Sensemaking in Urban Elementary Classrooms

256

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

Examples of Translanguaging Strategies in Science Teaching and Learning (from Celic and Seltzer 2012) Translanguaging Strategy Description

Example in Science

Translanguaging Strategy Description

Example in Science

Creating a Culturally Relevant Learning Environment “[T]eachers use students’ own backgrounds and knowledge to build bridges to content understandings. To do this, we must create a learning environment where emergent bilinguals feel represented and valued, bringing their cultures into the classroom in a meaningful way” (p. 13) “Science and math are more universal subjects across cultures. However, for the science or math concepts you are teaching, you can try to give a real-world application that is culturally relevant to your [EB] students. The most powerful way to do this is to connect the math concepts to a multicultural social studies or science unit you are teaching at the same time. You can also explore social justice issues related to science and math. For example, www.radicalmath.org has examples of math used for social justice issues relevant to students with diverse backgrounds.” (p. 13) Multilingual Language Objectives “When you teach a unit of study, you plan your lessons around learning objectives. . .. When you teach bilingual students, it’s imperative to also consider what language they will need to understand and use to be successful with those learning objectives. For each of your learning objectives, you can include Language Objectives to specify exactly what language your students will need to understand and use (Freeman and Freeman 2009; Celic 2009). This language is authentically tied to the content you’re teaching, and necessary for students to be successful with the learning activities. . ..For example: You can’t teach about human impact on the environment without teaching cause and effect signal words and the science vocabulary related to the topic.” (p. 44) “A 4th grade self-contained ESL teacher combined a science unit on the solar system with a reading unit of study on Nonfiction Texts and a writing unit of study on Feature Articles. The language objectives for this integrated unit were: • Understand and use vocabulary words related to the solar system. • Use comparative (bigger than, smaller than, closer than, etc.) and superlative adjectives (the biggest, the smallest, the closest, etc.) During the integrated unit, students read a wide range of nonfiction texts about the solar system through read alouds, shared readings, guided reading, and independent reading. Some of these texts were in their home languages, and others were in English. Students also chose books on other nonfiction topics of interest for their independent reading. Emergent (continued)

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

Translanguaging Strategy Description

Example in Science

Translanguaging Strategy Description

Example in Science

257

bilinguals discussed what they were learning in the texts with ‘turn and talk’ partners and book clubs, using a combination of their home languages and English (see Collaborative Work strategies). As a culminating product, students each wrote a feature article about what they were learning about the science topic. Their feature articles were mainly written in English, and shared with the school community. Emergent bilinguals used translanguaging when reading texts and discussing their learning to develop content knowledge and to understand new science vocabulary. They then used this knowledge and language to write in English.” (p. 53) Using Multilingual Texts “Traditionally, bilingual programs are the only classrooms that use texts written in students’ home languages. However, [EBs] in ANY classroom setting – mainstream, ESL, or bilingual – benefit from reading texts in both English and their home language.” (p. 81) “Creating translations of a content-area text A 5th grade teacher always used a particular trade book to help her students learn about rock formation. Since this text was fundamental to her science unit of study, she asked two different volunteers to translate it into her EBLs’ home languages (Spanish and Mandarin). One volunteer was a parent, and the other a paraprofessional at the school. The teacher had her EBLs read the home language version before she used the English text in class. This built her EBLs’ background knowledge, and improved their understanding of the English text, including the science vocabulary. It also helped her EBLs feel more confident participating in the science discussions.” (p. 84) Multilingual Listening Centers “A Listening Center is a way for emergent bilinguals to listen to texts in both English and their home languages. Listening Center activities can take on different forms depending on what support you want to give your emergent bilinguals.” (p. 87) “A 4th grade ESL teacher had several students from Bangladesh in her classroom one year, but had no texts or other resources in Bengali. She was able to enlist one of the student’s family members to record some key English texts the class was using for social studies and science units into Bengali. While the family member wasn’t as comfortable with spoken English, she was able to read English quite well. She took home the texts each month, and created a recording in Bengali that explained what the text was about. For some texts, she wrote down the translation on post-it notes, and adhered them to each page, putting the Bengali translation side-by-side with the English text.” (p. 90)

258

Brown’s (2017) Seven Pillars of Instruction

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

Several Stepwise Curricular Examples of Constructing Dichotomous Keys

259

260

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

261

262

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

References Atwater MM (1996) Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. J Res Sci Teach 33(8):821–837 Atwater MM (2011) Significant science education research on multicultural science education, equity, and social justice. J Res Sci Teach 49(1):1–5 Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspectives, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77(6):661–668 Boaler J (2003) When learning no longer matters: Standardized testing and the creation of inequality. Phi Delta Kappan 84(7):502–506 Bransford JD, Donovan MS (2005) Scientific inquiry and How people learn. In: National Research Council (ed) How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 397–420 Brimijoin K (2005) Differentiation and high-stakes testing: an oxymoron? Theory Pract 44(3):254–261 Brown JC (2017) A Metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquirybased science education in K-12 settings: implications for advancing equitable science teaching and learning. J Res Sci Teach 54(9):1143–1173 Brown BA, Reveles JM, Kelly GJ (2005) Scientific literacy and discursive identity: a theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Sci Educ 89(5):779–802 Bryan LA, Atwater MM (2002) Teacher beliefs and cultural models: a challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Sci Educ 86(6):821–839 Celic C (2009) English language learners day by day, K-6: a complete guide to literacy, contentarea, and language instruction. Heinemann, Portsmouth Celic C, Seltzer K (2012) Translanguaging: a CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. CUNYNYSIEB, New York Cuban L (1993) How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990. Teachers College Press, New York Cuban L (2009) Hugging the middle: how teachers teach in an era of testing and accountability. Teachers College Press, New York Fine M (2005) High stakes testing and lost opportunities: the New York state regents exams. Encounter: Educ Meaning Soc Justice 18(2):24–29 Flores A (2007) Examining disparities in mathematics education: achievement gap or opportunity gap? High Sch J 91(1):29–42 Flores N (2019) Translanguaging into a raciolinguistic ideologies: a Personal reflection on the legacy of Ofelia García. J Multilingual Educ Res 9(5):45–60 Fradd SH, Lee O (1999) Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educ Res 28(6):14–20, 42 Freeman D, Freeman Y (2009) Academic language for struggling readers and English language learners. Heinemann, Portsmouth García O (2009) Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective, 1st edn. Malden, Wiley-Blackwell García O, Menken K (2015) Cultivating an ecology of multilingualism in schools. In: Spolsky B, Inbar-Lourie O, Tannenbaum M (eds) Challenges for language education and policy: making space for people. Routledge, New York, pp 95–108 García O, Seltzer K, Witt D (2018) Disrupting linguistic inequalities in US urban classrooms: the role of translanguaging. In: Van Avermaet P, Slembrouck S, Van Gorp K, Sierens S, Maryns K (eds) The multilingual edge of education. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 41–66 Gay G (2002) Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. J Teach Educ 53(2):106–116 Geier R, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Krajcik JS, Fishman B, Soloway E, Clay-Chambers J (2008) Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. J Res Sci Teach 45(8):922–939 Goodlad JI (1984) A place called school. Prospects for the future. McGraw-Hill, New York Hampton E, Rodriguez R (2001) Inquiry science in bilingual classrooms. Biling Res J 25(4):461–478

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

263

Harris B, Sullivan AL (2017) A framework for bilingual school consultation to facilitate multitier systems of support for English language learners. J Educ Psychol Consult 27(3):367–392 Hart J, Lee O (2003) Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Biling Res J 27(3):475–501 Hayden MJ (2011) Standardized quantitative learning assessments and high stakes testing: throwing learning down the assessment drain. Philos Educ Arch 2011:177–185 Jarrett D (1999) The inclusive classroom: teaching mathematics and science to English-language learners. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland Johnson CC (2011a) The road to culturally relevant science: exploring how teachers navigate change in pedagogy. J Res Sci Teach 48(2):170–198 Johnson J (2011b) Science is for me: a case study of English language learner achievement, discourse and attitudes within an urban, middle school science classroom. Unpublished Dissertation Jorgenson O, Vanosdall R (2002) The death of science?: what we risk in our rush toward standardized testing and the three R’S. Phi Delta Kappan 83(8):601–605 Kearns LL (2011) High-stakes standardized testing and marginalized youth: an examination of the impact on those who fail. Can J Educ 34(2):112–130 Kessler C, Quinn ME (1987) ESL and science learning. In: Crandall JA (ed) ESL through contentarea instruction: mathematics, science, social studies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 53–84 Ladson-Billings G (1995) Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. Am Educ Res J 32(3): 465–491 Ladson-Billings GJ (1999) Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: a critical race theory perspective. Rev Res Educ 24(1999):211–247 Lee O (2005) Science education with English language learners: synthesis and research agenda. Rev Educ Res 75(4):491–530 Lee O, Buxton C (2011) Engaging culturally and linguistically diverse students in learning science. Theory Pract 50(4):277–284 Lee O, Fradd SH (1998) Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educ Res 27(4):12–21 Lee O, Hart J, Cuevas P, Enders C (2004) Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. J Res Sci Teach 41(10):1021–1043 Lee O, Maerten-Rivera J, Penfield RD, LeRoy K, Secada WG (2008) Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: results of a first-year professional development intervention. J Res Sci Teach 45(1):31–52 Longo C (2010) Fostering creativity or teaching to the test? Implications of state testing on the delivery of science instruction. Clearing House 83(2):54–57 Lynch S (2000) Equity and science education reform. Erlbaum, Mahwah McNeil LM (2013) Contradictions of control: school structure and school knowledge. Routledge, New York Meyer X, Crawford BA (2011) Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6(3):525–547 Milner HR IV (2012) Beyond a test score: explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. J Black Stud 43(6):693–718 Moll LC, Armanti C, Neff D, Gonzalez N (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Pract 31(2):132–141 Nam Y, Roehrig GH, Kern A, Reynolds B (2012) Perceptions and practices of culturally relevant science teaching in American Indian classrooms. Int J Sci Math Educ 11(1):143–167 National Center for Educational Statistics (2015) Table 204.27: English language learner (ELL) students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by grade and home language: 2013–14. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.27.asp? current¼yes Office of English Language Acquisition (2015) Profiles of English learners (ELs). Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/fast_facts/OELA_FastFacts_ProfilesOfELs.pdf

264

R. Yerrick and E. Kearney

Paris D (2012) Culturally sustaining pedagogy: a needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educ Res 41(3):93–97 Paris D, Alim HS (eds) (2017) Culturally sustaining pedagogies: teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press, New York Pennington J, Brock C, Salas R, Gavelek J (2019) Repositioning White monolingual Englishspeaking teachers’ conceptions of language: counterstories and embodied learning. Urban Educ. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919884345 Rodriguez AJ (1998) Strategies for counterresistance: toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. J Res Sci Teach 35(6):589–622 Rodriguez AJ (2001) From gap gazing to promising cases: moving toward equity in urban education reform. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1115–1129 Rodriguez AJ (2008) The multiple faces of agency: innovative strategies for effecting change in urban school contexts. SENSE Publishing, Rotterdam Rodriguez AJ (2010) Science education as a pathway to teaching language literacy. SENSE Publishing, Rotterdam Rodriguez AJ (2015) What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards. J Res Sci Teach 52(7):1031–1051 Rodriguez AJ (2019) (Re)engaging our ethical commitments and becoming activists in our own backyards: using research to expose, disrupt and transform Opp(Regre)ssive science/STEM teacher education practices. J Activist Sci Technol Educ 10(1):9–22 Rodriguez AJ, Kitchen R (2005) Preparing prospective mathematics and science teachers to teach for diversity: promising strategies for transformative pedagogy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey Rosa J, Flores N (2017) Do you hear what I hear? Raciolinguistic ideologies and culturally sustaining pedagogies. In: Paris D, Aalim S (eds) Culturally sustaining pedagogies: teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 175–190 Russell ML, Atwater MM (2005) Traveling the road to success: a discourse on persistence throughout the science pipeline with African American students at a predominantly White institution. J Res Sci Teach 42(6):691–715 Scott LA, Rock DA, Pollack JM, Quinn P (1995) Two years later: cognitive gains and school transitions of NELS: 88 eighth graders (NCES 95-436). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC Simon RI (1992) Teaching against the grain: texts for a pedagogy of possibility. Bergin and Garvey, New York Suriel RL, Atwater MM (2012) From the contributions to the action approach: White teachers’ experiences influencing the development of multicultural science curricula. J Res Sci Teach 49(10):1271–1295 Tan A (2011) Home culture, science, school and science learning: is reconciliation possible? Cult Stud Sci Educ 6(3):559–567 Tolbert S, Calabrese Barton A, Moll L (2017) What can teachers do to restructure power dynamics in science classrooms? In: Bryan L, Tobin K (eds) 13 questions: reframing education’s conversations: science. Peter Lang Publishing, New York Villegas AM, SaizdeLaMora K, Martin AD, Mills T (2018) Preparing future mainstream teachers to teach English language learners: a review of the empirical literature. Educ Forum 82(2): 138–155 Vogel S, García O (2017) Translanguaging. In: Noblit G, Moll L (eds) Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/ acrefore-9780190264093-e-181 Walls L (2016) Awakening a dialogue: a critical race theory analysis of US nature of science research from 1967 to 2013. J Res Sci Teach 53(10):1546–1570 Warren B, Ballenger C, Ogonowski M, Rosebery A, Hudicourt-Barnes J (2001) Rethinking diversity in learning science: the logic of everyday language. J Res Sci Teach 38(5):529–552 Wei L (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Appl Linguis 39(1):9–30

10

Supporting Teachers of Emergent Bilingual Science Students in. . .

265

Wilson CD, Taylor JA, Kowalski SM, Carlson J (2010) The relative effects and equity of inquirybased and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. J Res Sci Teach 47(3):276–301 Yerrick RK, Roth W-M (2005) Establishing scientific discourse classroom communities: multiple voices of teaching and learning research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah Zachos FE (2018) Mammals and meaningful taxonomic units: the debate about species concepts and conservation. Mammal Rev 48(3):153–159 Zawicki JL, Jabot M (2003) The June 2002 Regents physics exam: a brief analysis.! Perspectives on science education. New York State Science Education Leadership Association, Albany

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of African American Girls

11

Katie Wade-Jaimes

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culture of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Identity as a Cultural Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scientific Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identity and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Culture of Science and Women of Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender, Race, and Science Identity in K-12 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conflict Between Students’ Culture and Culture of Science and Impact on Identity . . . . . . Using Funds of Knowledge to Resolve Conflicts Between Identities and Support Science Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figured Worlds and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positioning/Recognition by Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Identity Development in Out-of-School Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

268 269 270 272 272 274 276 277 280 281 284 286 290 291 292

Abstract

This chapter will consider the importance of multicultural science education through the lens of identity. Frameworks of identity and scientific identity development have been used in various ways to understand the experiences of students in science classrooms as well as to explore how students come to see themselves as a “science person,” which is viewed as a necessary step to pursuing science in future educational and career trajectories. This is particularly important for populations who have been underrepresented in scientific careers, for example, African American girls, who are likely to report a high level of interest and K. Wade-Jaimes (*) Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_13

267

268

K. Wade-Jaimes

engagement in science during middle school but are unlikely to want to pursue science as a career. One way to understand this lack of career interest is through the perspective of identity: if African American girls are not able to see themselves as the type of person who does science, they will be less likely to want to pursue science as a career, despite finding it interesting or doing well in science classes. This chapter demonstrates how the monocultural presentation of science in schools in the United States limits students’ ability to identify as a science person and explores how a multicultural approach to science education can support the development of a science identity, particularly for African American girls. Keywords

Gender · Girls · Race/ethnicity · Identity · Multicultural

Introduction Recently, the National Science Foundation (NSF) updated their report on “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering,” a large-scale examination of the state of science and engineering at the postsecondary and career levels (National Science Foundation 2019). At the surface, the report seems to have good news: the percent of all science and engineering degrees earned by “underrepresented women and men,” which the NSF defines as Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and American Indians or Alaska Natives, in the United States has increased from 1996 to 2016. This trend is true at all levels of postsecondary education, from bachelor to doctoral degrees, with underrepresented women earning doctoral degrees showing the largest gains and the highest percentages. It would be nice to leave it at that and indicate that over the last 20 years diversity (and, by implication equity) in science and engineering programs has improved. However, looking a little more closely at the data reveals other messages. While Latinx men and women do generally show upward trends for most disciplines within science and engineering, Black or African American men and women show flatter lines, particularly for engineering, physical science, and mathematics and statistics. When looking even closer, Black and African American women show decreases in the percent of Bachelor’s degrees earned in computer science (from close to 5% to just over 2%), mathematics and statistics (4% to 2%), physical sciences (3–2.5%), and engineering (just under 2% to 1%). These decreases are significant when considering both the low numbers of Black and African American women earning degrees in these fields to begin with and the decades of “interventions” that have been targeted at students of color and girls. The data showing how these interventions, many of which focus on access to science and engineering, have not increased the number of Black and African American women in many science and engineering fields demonstrates that this underrepresentation is not a simple matter of access. Research has also shown that Black and African American students, particularly girls, are skilled and engaged in science, at least until middle school (Hanson 2008). In order to truly

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

269

address the underrepresentation of Black and African American women in science and engineering, we need to understand why access and engagement are not sufficient to encourage more Black and African American girls to pursue science and engineering degrees and careers. This chapter demonstrates how a monocultural approach to science education, based on Western Modern Science (WMS), has worked to position African American girls in particular as outside of the world of science, limiting their ability to develop science identities (i.e., see themselves as the type of people who can and want to do science) and desire to pursue science at postsecondary and career levels. This chapter will first describe and define a traditional, monocultural approach to science. Next, it will provide conceptualizations of science identity rooted in science as culture to demonstrate how a monocultural approach to science education works to prevent girls and students of color from developing science identities. It will then summarize and synthesize recent literature on science identity development for girls and students of color generally, and African American girls in particular, both in K-12 schooling and in out-of-school time science programs. Finally, based on this research, it will present recommendations for supporting science identity development through multicultural science education. Throughout this chapter, the terms for race and ethnicity used in the works cited will be used.

Culture of Science The framework for K-12 science education recognizes science as its own culture, describing it as a social enterprise with its own social system, norms, tools, and practices (National Research Council 2012). The framework also acknowledges that the community and culture of science “exist in the larger social and economic context of their place and time and are influenced by events, needs, and norms from outside science, as well as by the interests and desires of scientists” (p. 27). Included in the framework is a chapter devoted to equity in science education, which references the diverse cultures represented in today’s classrooms. Unfortunately, the framework does not address the history of the culture of science that is assumed to be the standard for classrooms and does not examine if and how the culture of science is in conflict with other cultures. Considering the history of science, it is clear that the culture of science was and continues to be shaped by white, male, middle-class ideals. The traditional model of science typically taught in today’s science classrooms in the United States is Western Modern Science (WMS), institutionalized in Europe in the seventeenth century and based on white, middle-class ideals and values (Aikenhead 1996; Lemke 1990; Walls 2014). Aikenhead (1996) summarizes the cultural features of WMS as being “mechanistic, materialistic, masculine, reductionistic, mathematically idealized, pragmatic, empirical, exploitive, elitist, ideological, inquisitive, objective, impersonal, rational, universal, decontextualized, communal, violent, value-free, and embracing disinterestedness, suspension of belief, and parsimony” and describes science as “socially sterile, authoritarian, non-humanistic, positivistic, and absolute truth” (p. 9). Science is also commonly

270

K. Wade-Jaimes

presented as authoritative and powerful, difficult, and at conflict with common sense (Lemke 1990, 2011). Considering the diversity of today’s classrooms, particularly in urban settings in the United States, it is unsurprising that the culture of WMS is in conflict with the personal, family, and social cultures of many students (Aikenhead 1996; Lemke 1990; Meyer and Crawford 2011), with science classrooms described as “cultural interface zones” (Norman et al. 2001) or “borderlands.” Like any border, crossing into the culture of science is easier for those who speak the language and hold similar values (Aikenhead 1996; Meyer and Crawford 2011). The narrow, specialist focus of science in many classrooms, reflective of the culture of WMS, promotes WMS as the one right way to understand the world, omitting human impact through a focus on abstract, decontextualized, technical language without emotion, values, or humor and privileges emotional control, orderliness, rationality, achievement, punctuality, and social hierarchy (Lemke 1990). Education, and science classrooms in particular, can then be seen as a gatekeeper for science (Walls 2014), maintaining the white, male, middle-class ideals and values that define WMS. This monocultural presentation of science, combined with the lack of anything reflecting students’ own cultures, has the effect then of alienating students, particularly students of color, from science (Emdin 2010). Clearly, how one views science impacts how one views oneself as a learner of science (Norman et al. 2001), meaning these cultural conflicts prevent students from identifying with science (Atwater et al. 2013). It is important to understand that different students will have different experiences in the same classroom (Norman et al. 2001). This helps understand why the statistics presented above are much different for African American women compared to Latina women or African American men, for example. Accordingly, an intersectional approach to understanding African American girls’ unique experiences in science and development of science identity is crucial (Atwater 2000).

Science Identity as a Cultural Act In education research, there are several common, and overlapping, frameworks for understanding identity. In these frameworks, identity is generally conceptualized as having two principal components, performance and recognition (Gee 2001). In addition to these components, the role of agency and power is often included in conceptualizations of identity. This section will synthesize relevant and commonly used theories of identity and present a working conception of scientific identity for understanding the science identity development of African American girls that will be used to understand the research reviewed in this chapter. The first component of identity, performance, indicates that one must engage in actions that are representative of an identity or type of person. Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to this as participation in authentic activities representative of a given community of practice. Communities of practices are influenced by the cultural norms in which they are situated. For example, a student engaged in a classroom community of practice would participate in authentic activities of that community,

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

271

such as taking notes, reading a textbook, and completing typical assignments. By participating in these activities, i.e., “performing” the identity of a student, an individual gradually learns what being a student means and adopts the “master identity” of a student. Holland et al. (1998) build on this conceptualization of identity development through communities of practice to describe an “identity in practice.” An identity in practice is formed through participation not in communities of practice, but in figured worlds. While a community of practice generally implies a community in which learning and adopting given master identities is the primary goal, a figured world is a more nebulous “realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (p. 52). While Holland et al. (1998) compare figured worlds to communities of practice, they stress the importance of power in determining who is entitled to, as well as disqualified from, a specific identity in a given figured world. For example, a classroom can be considered a figured world where certain ways of being a student are recognized, such as raising one’s hand to speak in class, and others are not, such as calling out answers. Gee (2001) also highlights the importance of performance and participation in developing identities, describing how certain combinations of saying and doing (i.e., language, gestures, clothing, etc.) are recognized in certain ways, i.e., signify certain identities. Gee refers to the recognition of these performative combinations as discourses; the discourse of a student might include wearing a school uniform, raising one’s hand to speak, and using non-vernacular forms of English. The second component of identity is that of recognition. It is not enough for a person to engage in the performance of an identity; it has to be recognized by others as representing that identity as well. Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to this recognition as the legitimacy of the type of participation that individuals have in communities of practice. To be legitimate, the activities need to be authentic to the community and recognized as such by both community members and outsiders in order for a master identity to develop. Holland et al. (1998) refer to a similar type of recognition in their conception of figured worlds; the rules of a figured world determine who can and cannot be recognized as a given identity. They discuss the role of positionality and how power, status, and relative privilege are negotiated within figured worlds to determine the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable identities. Gee (2000) also includes recognition with the concept of figured worlds, arguing that recognition within a figured world is the key to identity development. The role of agency is also important in identity development. Although Lave and Wenger (1991) acknowledge the sociocultural context of communities of practice, recognizing the role of power to limit some individuals’ participation in communities of practice either through access to resources or legitimation of the individual’s participation, they do not describe this process in detail. This creates no means for new types of identities, those not already conceptualized in a community of practice, to be produced. Holland et al. (1998) argue that identities are authored through an ongoing process of improvisation, where both culture and subject positioning impact individual’s actions and identity development. Improvisation occurs when one uses

272

K. Wade-Jaimes

the resources available to them, in a given figured world, to achieve a specific goal that might not be assumed possible in that figured world. For example, in the figured world of a classroom, it might not seem possible for an individual who calls out answers instead of raising their hand to be recognized as a good student. However, that student might use other resources, such as intelligence, charm, or humor, to both call out answers and gain recognition from the teacher as a good student. Gee (2001) also focuses on the macro-level processes, circulated and maintained by society, that construct and sustain given discourses as indicative of specific identities, as well as the microlevel interactions between individuals through which certain combinations are recognized, contested, and negotiated. Similar to Holland et al.’s (1998) improvisation, which can lead to the recognition of new identities for individuals, Gee’s (2001) negotiation process can also, in time, lead to the recognition of new discourses on a macro level. Carlone et al. (2015) refer to this as the agency – structure dialectic – and demonstrate how agency is influenced by structures, which can, in turn, be changed and shaped by the actions of individuals and groups.

Scientific Identity Using the conceptions of identity described above, a scientific identity can be defined as being recognized as a “science person” through full participation in scientific culture through a scientific community of practice where one develops a scientific identity by engaging in authentic scientific activities to learn and use scientific discourse. Carlone and Johnson (2007) developed a model for scientific identity based on Gee’s conception of identity and discourse. Their model includes performance, recognition by meaningful others, and competence; they argue that all three are necessary to be a “science person.” They also argue that scientific identities (which can be understood as socially situated identities) are influenced by racial, ethnic, and gender identities. Because of the cultural production of identities and the macro-level discourses defining how individuals should perform certain identities, including what it means to be a “science person,” a woman, or a person of color, certain identities are not available to certain people because of conflict created between identities; for example, a woman of color may perform a science identity and may be scientifically competent, but unless they gain recognition from meaningful others (i.e., other scientists, potential employers), they cannot fully develop a scientific identity. Viewed another way, an individual’s figured world of science may only include white males as prototypical scientists, marginalizing women of color and preventing them from developing science identities.

Identity and Culture This chapter argues that the traditional culture of science, based on white, masculine, middle-class ideals, can be viewed as overlapping with traditional, oppressive ideologies of gender and race, positioning women, and particularly African

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

273

American women, outside of the culture of science. In particular, middle-class, white standards define appropriate women as nice, polite, quiet, and passive (West and Zimmerman 1987). For example, Renold and Allan (2006) examined high achieving girls and identified tension between the roles of “being bright” and “doing girl” (p. 460). In this work, teachers were more likely to recognize “being nice” (p. 462) as a good student, particularly when the student was working class and non-white. Even for girls who are trying to position themselves as feminine and clever, both teachers and peers often undermined their efforts, describing the girls as bossy, selfish, or arrogant. This tension is amplified when focusing specifically on African American girls, who, when compared to the middle-class, white discourses of femininity, are viewed as too loud or aggressive to be proper women and, therefore, cannot be viewed as proper students. For example, Fordham (1993) describes how African American high school girls must “learn silence” (p. 14) in order to be taken seriously as students. Morris (2007) shows how African American girls and young women are encouraged to be more feminine, or ladylike, at the expense of academic achievement. The teachers in the study described the students as being too loud and wearing inappropriate clothing and sought to control the bodies of these students, encouraging them to be more quiet, passive learners. Youdell (2003) also examined how institutional discourses of ability and race, examined through the “minutia of everyday life in schools” (p. 5), created “identity traps” for students. Students who successfully developed African American youth/street culture identities were seen as anti-school. In the study, teachers and staff of the school saw African American bodies as needing additional surveillance and bodily control. When these findings are contrasted with the culture of science being serious and orderly, it is clear that stereotyping African American women as loud and out of control means that not only are they not recognizable as “good students” but they are also not recognizable as potential scientists. Research has shown how students of color and women/girls are often unable or unwilling to cross the border of science and therefore are excluded from the culture of science and prevented from developing science identities. Despite both populations having high interest in science during school, women and students of color are less likely than white men to pursue science as a career, indicating that because the culture of science is foreign to them, it is difficult to participate in it fully and develop a scientific identity. For example, Archer et al. (2015) demonstrated that Black students and parents in the United Kingdom are less likely than white students and parents to consider scientific careers as “thinkable” options, indicating that students are not forming science identities. Many of the of the aspects of the culture of science described above were found to be influential in parents’ and students’ views of science: Black students and parents had narrow, stereotypical conceptions of scientists as wearing white lab coats and goggles, images that were incompatible with students’ views of themselves. Additionally, Black parents and students were more likely to see science as particularly difficult and only for very intelligent, sometimes geeky, students. Black parents were also more likely to see science as a white, masculine undertaking, describing daughters as “girly girls” who were not as likely to be interested in science.

274

K. Wade-Jaimes

The Culture of Science and Women of Color The culture of science has been described as a “chilly” environment for women (and people of color), with researchers arguing that the “very nature” of science is exclusionary (Clark Blickenstaff 2005, p. 383) and referring to the ways in which traditional science spaces are unwelcome and alienating. This section sets the context for how the culture of science, as experienced by practicing scientists in postsecondary and career settings, impacts women and people of color in general, and Black women specifically, particularly in terms of science identity development. It is not meant to be a thorough review of literature on postsecondary science experiences (see Ong et al. (2011) and Ireland et al. (2018) for detailed reviews of the literature related to women of color in science and African American women in science, technology, engineering, and math [STEM], respectively), but rather demonstrate the importance of considering the culture of science itself as it impacts identity development. The remainder of the chapter focuses on the experiences of African American girls in science via either formal or informal education. While “school science” may be distinct from practicing science, this section is meant to give an overview of the practical impacts of the culture of science as these influence science education in K-12 settings. Research has highlighted the role of culture and belonging for students of color, both women and men, in postsecondary science programs and the work (and damage) often associated with persistence. For example, Brown et al. (2013) detailed the ways stereotypes and microaggressions impact African American undergraduate students majoring in science. They argue that, “Subtle forms of racism (microaggressions) may limit the extent to which Blacks can feel like full members of the science community. As a result, those who are able to matriculate through the system must do so at a cost” (Brown et al. 2013, p. 11). Similarly, Brown et al. (2016) describe how African American undergraduate science majors feel excluded from the scientific community and are viewed as less talented than their peers. Even students who successfully persisted in science had added stress, which was magnified if the student was isolated from other African Americans. Connecting this to racist underpinnings of the culture of science, Brown et al. (2016) explain, “Being told, both symbolically and directly, that you were not supposed to be in an environment through backhanded compliments would affirm any sense of cultural distance an individual would feel” (p. 161). In reviewing the literature related to women of color in postsecondary STEM programs, Ong et al. (2011) detailed the many factors that contribute to their underrepresentation, highlighting the role of “climate” (p. 182), which is a reflection of the culture of science. Focusing specifically on Black women in STEM, Ireland et al. (2018) reviewed literature focused on the experiences of Black women in STEM and identified identity as a primary theme in the research base. Ireland et al. (2018) describe the many ways identified in the research that the culture of science impacts STEM learning environments of Black women at the postsecondary level, creating inhospitable climates for Black women in particular through exclusion, microaggressions, alienation, and isolation. Similar to the research described above, research focusing specifically on Black and/or

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

275

African American women has identified the ways institutions and STEM departments create unwelcoming environments for African American women (e.g., Rincón and George-Jackson 2016) and perpetuate gendered and racial stereotypes (e.g., Gibson and Espino 2016), leading to isolation and disengagement resulting from trying to fit into a white, masculine culture (e.g., Herzig 2010). Focusing more specifically on the science identities of women of color, Johnson et al. (2011) describe the “treacherous terrain of science,” based on the high-status, exclusive culture of science. Studying three women of color in science fields, Johnson et al. (2011) described three different types of spaces: spaces where no science identity is available, spaces where there are conflicts between science identities and other (either wanted or unwanted) identities, and spaces where the women could construct science identities without conflict. In spaces where no science identities were available, including formal education or home contexts, the women viewed their identity performances as a means of survival, i.e., to avoid violence at school or controlling parents at home. Spaces that produced conflicts included conflicts between identities that were valuable to the women, for example, engaging in political action instead of focusing on science classes, as well as unwanted identities, for example, being asked to consider construction work instead of engineering work or encouraged to switch majors to a nonscience field. Women were described as having to deemphasize their personal identities in order to perform science identities in these spaces. Spaces where science identities were possible and without conflict included specialized areas such as pharmacy school, where the focus of science identity recognition was on scientific ability instead of race or gender. The authors highlight how these spaces were not readily available to everyone and that the participants had to survive and navigate the culture of science long enough to find and be accepted into these spaces. The authors also stress the ongoing additional work the women had to do in order to persist in science and how this persistence was based on the women’s abilities to navigate the culture of science, not to any changes occurring within the culture. Carlone and Johnson’s (2007) influential framework for science identity (described above) was based on the experiences of women of color with careers in science fields and the assumption that gender and racial identities affect science identity. The authors describe three science-related identities available to the women of color in the study: research scientist, altruistic scientist, and disrupted scientist. All three groups of women were practicing scientists, but the women who saw themselves as research scientists were the only ones able to see connections between themselves and science, as well as to receive significant recognition in terms of fellowships and authorships. The other two groups were not able to author traditional science identities. Altruistic scientists had redefined science, focusing on their goals of helping others and altruism. These participants had also reconsidered whose recognition was valuable. They did not receive the same type of recognition as the research scientists, some explicitly rejecting traditional recognition from science professors, for example, but valued recognition that aligned with their altruistic motivations in science. The third group, the disrupted scientists, received negative recognition as scientists and described how ongoing, negative experiences in science

276

K. Wade-Jaimes

had left them feeling neglected and discriminated against in science. While they did not abandon their goals as scientists and viewed themselves in much the same way as research scientists, they did not receive the same types of recognition as research scientists. Women in this group described how they were alienated and excluded from science labs and other spaces when they could not conform to the cultural norms of these spaces. One participant explained the feeling of not belonging in the culture of science by saying that when she was in a science space, it felt as if, “I’m in somebody else’s home” (Carlone and Johnson 2007, p. 1203). It is particularly important to note that while all participants were women of color, of the four Black women, none were in the research scientist group and three were in the disrupted science group. As other researchers have highlighted (e.g., Ireland et al. 2018), this underscores the need to understand the experiences of African American women in particular and also highlights how the culture of science is uniquely exclusionary for African American women. The research reviewed here also demonstrates how much of the focus has been on how populations can learn to survive and persist within the oppressive culture of science. There is no room for or support of new types of identities, for negotiating or improvising new ways of being a “scientist” or “science person” within the culture of science. Instead, an assimilationist approach is presented to learning how to navigate the culture of science, which does not disrupt or change the culture of science. The rest of this chapter is based on the hope that K-12 education could be a space for just such a disruption, leading to an acknowledgement of and valuing of multicultural approaches to science.

Gender, Race, and Science Identity in K-12 Education The previous section focused on research from postsecondary and career settings – what is sometimes thought of as “real” science. These contexts are clearly influenced by (and have the potential to influence) the culture of science. “School” science is framed as distinct from “real” science, in both positive and negative terms. In K-12 schooling, students learn about science and scientists, with much different motivations than practicing scientists. School science is still clearly and strongly influenced by the culture of science, as demonstrated in the research reviewed below. However, K-12 education also has the potential to reimagine the culture of science, in both formal and informal spaces. This section reviews literature related to the culture of science and its impact on K-12 students’ science identity, particularly for students of color and girls. This review includes research conducted in both in-school and out-of-school settings. First, research that details conflicts that are created between students’ cultures and the culture of science is considered. The next section describes research that has addressed ways to resolve these conflicts, specifically through accessing and validating students’ funds of knowledge. Next, research that takes a figured world approach to understanding the identities available to students’ in science classrooms is presented, followed by the importance of recognition by significant others in science identity development. Finally, research assessing the

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

277

potential for out-of-school time (OST) science programs to support science identity development for girls and students of color is presented. For all sections, research that focuses on students who have been marginalized by the culture of science is presented along with research that specifically focuses on African American girls. See Table 1 for a description of all studies included in this review.

Conflict Between Students’ Culture and Culture of Science and Impact on Identity Using Gee’s framework of discourse and identity, research has focused specifically on tensions between the culture of science and students’ personal or social identities within classrooms. Brown (2004) showed that African American students experienced cultural conflict in science classrooms, recognizing that there was a stigma and cost to engaging in scientific discourse. Even when students were struggling to acquire scientific content knowledge, they resisted engaging in scientific discourses, by withholding knowledge and refusing to participate in activities or discussions in class even when they had valuable, scientific contributions to make. Yerrick and Gilbert (2011) also found tension between scientific and cultural discourses for lower track students of color. In this study, the role of the teacher and “implicit science curriculum,” which perpetuated low expectations and included no real participation in scientific practices, are cited as reasons for students’ marginalization from science identities. Much research has focused on the scientific identity development and achievement of girls in general, particularly focusing on the positioning of girls into feminized “good student” identities. In one series of articles, Archer et al. (2010, 2012) and DeWitt et al. (2012) looked at a cross section of students in and around London over a 5-year time frame (from age 10 to 14). They found that as young as 10, students held gendered views of science, and although all students enjoyed “doing” science, girls were less likely to see science as a potential career, i.e., less likely to see themselves “being” a scientist (Archer et al. 2010). Archer et al. (2012) found that science identities more often aligned to typical masculine identities, such as being dangerous, and were in tension with typical feminine identities; both boys and girls stated that girls would not make good scientists. In addition to gendered educational discourses, discourses of science as hard, only for naturally smart people, and uncool were prevalent and further constrained the science identities. When the researchers examined a subset of the sample that consisted of girls who did want to be scientists, they found that some girls carefully balanced a science identity with a heterofeminized identity of restraint, popularity, and well-roundedness (i.e., science was only one part of their identity), allowing them to be seen as both feminine and scientific (Archer et al. 2012). Most girls, however, were described (by themselves and their parents) as geeky, non-girly, and although not one sided, interested primarily in academic pursuits. The authors point out that both groups of girls represented middle-class discourses of femininity, with no indication of overlap with working-class or cultural identities.

278

K. Wade-Jaimes

Table 1 Research cited in chapter and approach to identity Focus Author(s) All Archer et al. 2010, 2012 students Kamberelis and Wehunt 2012

Gender

Race

Elementary students Charteris 2014 New Zealand classroom Ramnarain and de Beer 2013 South African students DeWitt, Archer, and Osborne, 2012 Students and parents Calabrese Barton et al. 2008 Girls Eisenhart and Edwards 2004 Girls Eisenhart 2008 Girls Gonsalves 2014 Gonsalves et al. 2013 Hughes et al. 2013

Girls Girls Girls

Rahm et al. 2005 Riedinger and Taylor 2016 Tan et al. 2013

Girls Girls Girls

Seiler 2001

Moje et al. 2004

African American boys African American students Black students and parents Latinx

Adams and Gupta 2013 Basu and Barton 2007 Moje et al. 2001

Students of color Students of color Students of color

Scott and White 2013 Vakil 2014 Yerrick and Gilbert 2011

Students of color Students of color Students of color

Brickhouse and Potter 2001

African American girls African American girls African American girls African American girls

Brown 2004 Archer et al. 2015

Race and gender

Population All students

Brickhouse et al. 2000 Calabrese Barton et al. 2012 Gholson and Martin 2014

Approach to identity Gender and scientific identities Hybrid discourse practices Agency and positioning Hybrid identities Perceptions of science and science people Merging practices Hybrid identities Positioning and funds of knowledge Funds of knowledge Hybrid identities Interest, self-concept, and role models Hybrid identities Experiential identity Gap between interest and identity Funds of knowledge Discursive identity Science capital, positioning with respect to science Personal funds of knowledge Place and identity Hybrid identities Student and teacher discourses Cultural Identities Situated cognition Tension between cultural and scientific identities Urban and science identities Multiple social identities Identity over time and space in figured worlds Peer positioning (continued)

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

279

Table 1 (continued) Focus

Author(s) King and Pringle 2019

Carlone et al. 2011

Population African American girls African American girls African American girls African American girls African American girls African American girls African American girls African American, Hispanic girls Dominican girl Girls and students of color Girls of color

Davis 2002 Rahm and Moore 2016 Rahm 2008

Girls of color Girls of color Girls of color

Tan and Barton 2008b

Latinas

Carlone and Johnson 2007

Women of color

Olitsky et al. 2010 Pringle, Brkich, Adams, WestOlatunii, and Acher-Banks Wade-Jaimes and Schwartz Wade-Jaimes et al. 2019 West-Olatunji et al. 2008 West-Olatunji et al. 2010 Calabrese Barton and Tan 2009 Calabrese Barton and Tan 2008a Carlone et al. 2014

Approach to identity Multidimensionality and counter spaces Identity obstacles in figured worlds Teacher positioning Discourses in figured worlds Communities of practice Self- and parent positioning Counselor positioning Funds of knowledge Identity across time Social and scientific identities in figured worlds Disassociation from science Communities of practice Identity in practice Meaning making, positioning, and hybridity Merging identities in figured worlds Performance, recognition, and competence

In a study focused on African American girls and cultural identities, Brickhouse and Potter (2001) examine two African American girls’ identity development through science communities of practice as they transition from middle school, where they were positioned as strong science students, to a computer sciencebased high school. The authors argue that for one student, an urban identity is marginalized in the science community of practice of the school, making it difficult for that student to develop a science identity. The student and her parents state that she is out of place and invisible in her all-white science classroom and her teacher positions her as a student who is not good in science. The other participant, also an African American girl, was from a suburban neighborhood and had access to computers and technology outside of school that supported her identity development in school, where she was also accepting of a good student identity as described above. The authors argue that the girls’ comfort or discomfort with taking up white, middle-class identities that were privileged in their schools impacted their success in school and ongoing identity development.

280

K. Wade-Jaimes

Using Funds of Knowledge to Resolve Conflicts Between Identities and Support Science Learning Recent research has also examined how various discourses can be used together to enhance students’ science learning instead of creating tension. Also using Gee’s framework, Moje et al. (2001) examined the conflict between teacher and student discourses in a science classroom, suggesting students need an opportunity to merge scientific and popular discourses productively. In later work, Moje et al. (2004) investigated how students use personal funds of knowledge, i.e., personal discourses, in science. The authors found that while students were using family, community, peer, and popular culture funds of knowledge and discourses, they were doing so privately and their use was not leveraged in the classroom. The authors suggest that creating hybrid spaces where students are encouraged to access multiple discourses is necessary to support scientific discourse use and, therefore, identity development. Using this framework, Ramnarain and de Beer (2013) examined how participation in a science expo allowed high school students in South Africa to use science and nonscience identities to select topics and work on science projects. Other research has examined how students can merge discourses or switch between discourses; for example, Kamberelis and Wehunt (2012) call this discursive hybridity and examined how students appropriated and redeployed various discourses in a science classroom, and Charteris (2014) examined how students enact hybrid discourses to create identity and agency in science classrooms. Calabrese Barton and Tan (2009) use the frameworks of both Lave and Wenger (1991) and Gee (2000) to identify the funds of knowledge students bring to school and how they are leveraged in a middle school science unit on food and nutrition for girls at a predominantly African American and Hispanic school. Like Moje et al. (2004), the authors are interested in hybrid spaces where students’ cultural experiences are valued along with scientific knowledge. Students were observed using family, community, peer, and popular culture funds of knowledge and discourses during the activities. Using Lave and Wenger’s community of practice framework, the researchers argue that this created new ways for students to engage in the community of practice in the classroom (and therefore ways to improvise and negotiate new identities) that would not have been possible without this hybrid space. Considering science as a unique culture, and identifying discourses that are circulated as part of this culture, demonstrates the conflict as well as potential that exist when other cultures intersect with the culture of science. This is particularly relevant when considering identity development through performance (practice) and recognition. It is obvious from the studies reviewed here that conflict exists between school science discourse and students’ personal or cultural discourses. Each study gives clear examples of how student discourse is not valued in science classrooms, either purposefully (i.e., Yerrick and Gilbert 2011) or accidentally (i.e., Moje et al. 2001), leading to students feeling marginalized and alienated from science.

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

281

Figured Worlds and Identity Another approach to understanding science identity for students of color and girls in K-12 science settings is through the figured world model. Using Gee’s (2001) framework, Tan and Barton (2008a) trace one Dominican girls’ identity in science class over the course of her sixth-grade year. In the same classroom, Tan and Barton (2008b) use a framework of identities in practice, communities of practice, and figured worlds to explore how two Latina students improvise identities that allow them to combine social identities with scientific identities in practice, successfully merging different figured worlds. In both papers, the authors recognize the importance of the teacher in positioning the girls as science experts, like Holland et al. (1998), and they also stress the importance of the girls’ agency in creating new identities through engaging in tasks that weren’t specifically assigned by the teacher. In the same classroom as above, Calabrese Barton et al. (2008) further explore the ways in which the middle school girls merge science practices and different types of knowledge. They argue that through both sanctioned and unsanctioned use of scientific resources and identities, the girls are able to position themselves as legitimate participants in the science classroom community of practice. These merged practices, or newly negotiated scientific discourses, can function to transform the community of practice, allowing the girls to circumvent the norms of the community of practice that might have been disengaging or silencing. Carlone et al. (2011) compared two fourth-grade science classes, both based on reform-based science teaching, and demonstrated how in one space, girls of color (Latina and African American) disassociated with science despite having similar interest and aptitude of their peers. In this classroom, science became individualistic, with a focus on finding the right answer and performing for the teacher. This contrasted with the other classroom, which privileged curiosity and asking questions, allowing for a broader definition of who can perform and gain recognition for a science identity. Although both of these classrooms were very similar in terms of structure and activities, the first valued science as knowing large vocabulary words and always having the right answer; in other words, it was influenced by a more traditional culture of science. This led to the African American and Latina girls indicating that they were not “science people” and identifying the white students as the science people in the classroom. Using Holland et al.’s (1998) framework of identities in practice, Carlone et al. (2014) followed three students (one boy from El Salvador, one white girl, and one African American girl) as they transitioned from fourth- to sixth-grade science classes to explore the interaction between their social identities and scientific identities. Carlone et al. (2014) describe each classroom as different versions of school science figured worlds, with different norms and positionings. They found that if students’ social identities were well-aligned with the “celebrated subjected positions” of the classroom, established and recognized by the teacher, they meshed well with scientific identities. In the fourth-grade classroom, the teacher valued students who demonstrated scientific traits such as curiosity and approached science

282

K. Wade-Jaimes

learning through inquiry-oriented activities. These characteristics meshed well with all three students’ social identities, positioning all of the participants as strong scientists. Because of the “good student” discourse of the sixth-grade figured world, all three students were less likely to identify with science, either seeing themselves or being seen by others as good science students, in sixth grade compared to fourth grade. Drawing also on the combined framework of identities in practice, communities of practice, and figured worlds, Tan et al. (2013) explore what they call the “science identity gap,” the difference between girls’ overall interest in STEM and interest in STEM-related careers. They examine 16 girls’ (white, Asian, and African American) identity work across school, after-school, and home contexts to see how their identities in practice change in response to participation in different figured worlds. They found that the girls’ narrated scientific identities, how they described themselves, and embodied identities, how they performed scientific identities, could fall into four categories: partial overlap, significant overlap, contrasting overlap, and transformative. The categories differed in how the girls saw themselves and were recognized by their teachers as well as how well the relationship between the narrated and performed identities could support future scientific identity development. The significant overlap category fits the description of the macro-level “good student” discourse, but the authors suggest it is unlikely to sustain an interest in science as the girls were framed as consumers of science rather than producers. The partial overlap and transformative categories were likely to create sustained interest in science because the girls were more likely to pursue outside of school science opportunities that created a reinforcing cycle between the narrated and embodied identities. When the overlap between identities conflicted, the girls usually did not fit “good girl” discourses and were marginalized from school science; however, they did see the importance of science in problem-solving and understanding the world outside of school. Brickhouse et al. (2000) focused on four African American girls, highlighting the importance of the girls’ multiple social identities. Using Holland et al.’s (1998) conception of identity in practice, Brickhouse et al. (2000) examined both the students’ individual agency as well as the societal structures that position the girls within the figured worlds of school science. In examining how the girls’ social identities interacted with science identities, they found that school structures, related to macro-level educational discourses that encourage policies such as tracking, support good student identities more than students’ personal experiences. For example, the two students who had significant interest in science and social identities of leaders and problem-solvers were not positioned as good students by the teacher and were tracked into lower-level science classes. The two students who were obedient and engaged, even when the class was not hands on or interactive, were positioned by the teacher as good science students and recommended for honor-level science class. Because the curriculum didn’t allow multiple ways for the girls to engage in science, such as inquiry-type activities, and deep understanding of the content was not valued by the teacher, the authors suggest that the girls encouraged through the structures of the school to pursue science through, for example, honor classes may not actually develop a sustaining interest in science that is hinted at in the other girls.

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

283

Similarly, Olitsky et al. (2010) also examined the relationship between agency and structure in science identity development for four African American girls, highlighting the ways in which classroom and school figured worlds create obstacles to science identity development, causing students who are interested and knowledgeable about science to discount it as a future career. The authors found that the school in this study, which was a competitive magnet school, had a dominant “smart student” discourse, with “smart students” being naturally gifted, completing all tasks quickly and easily. Because the school administrators and teachers continually referred to the school as only for “smart students” and only a narrow combination of ways of saying, doing, and being was recognized as “smart,” students who did not fit those norms hesitated to participate fully in science and develop scientific identities. For example, in the classroom, only students with the “smart” label contributed to classroom discussions, and students who were not positioned as “smart students” not only did not contribute in class, but they did not take advantage of resources such as peer tutoring because it would signal they were not “naturally smart.” Additionally, students were more likely to trust the answers of a “smart student” than their own work, even when the smart student was incorrect. The authors argue that this prevented a true community of practice from developing, as newcomers to the community are less likely to participate and true negotiation of knowledge is not occurring. The authors also demonstrate that because the smart label is applied to students as early as their first tests in the middle school, students from highly resourced schools who have a strong science background are more likely to be labeled “smart students.” Because these schools are also predominantly white and the students from the predominantly African American schools did not receive the same background in science, white students dominated the “smart student” label, reinforcing macro-level racial discourses of who can be viewed as “smart.” Calabrese Barton et al. (2012) also examined the identity work of two African American girls in middle school. They use a framework of communities of practice and figured worlds to develop identity trajectories for each girl over both time (middle school years) and space (in school, out of school, and home). Through these trajectories, the authors show how identity work in science is not a linear or constant process, with the girls demonstrating increasing and decreasing interest in science over time and also in different contexts. They also show that when the girls’ identity work is recognized and supported, the girls are more likely to see themselves in science in the future. The importance of science experiences in out-of-school time places, particularly those experiences that allowed the girls to engage in scientific practices, is also highlighted, including the extent to which the girls could leverage those experiences in other spaces, such as the classroom. For one girl, the resources she accessed and developed in an after-school space were sanctioned by her teacher in the classroom, who allowed her to present a science video she had created in the after-school program to her science class, supporting her science identity work. However, the second girl did not have a chance to develop resources in the lunchtime science program she attended. Although the program was specifically for girls, it became almost exclusively white girls; the research participant quit attending the

284

K. Wade-Jaimes

program so that she could see her African American friends, who were not in the same high-level classes she was, during lunch. This girl had to choose between a social identity, which is racialized due to the segregated nature of the school she attends, and a scientific identity. In one middle school for African American girls, Wade-Jaimes and Schwartz (2018) explored the figured world of school science and the discourses, or identities, available to girls in that figured world. They demonstrated how the traditional culture of science, intersecting with discourses of race and gender, worked to create positions for African American girls that largely prevented development of science identities. Similar to the studies described above, the primary discourse that received positive recognition in this space was that of the good science student, who was well behaved, polite, organized, worked quickly, and answered questions correctly. Like Brickhouse et al. (2000), this study showed how in this figured world, even students who gained recognition as good science students were not able to engage in authentic means of participating in science, limiting their understanding of science. Even for students who were able to develop a science identity, their preparation for future work in science, for example, in high school courses, may not be sufficient to sustain that identity. These studies demonstrate how girls and students of color are constrained by “good student” discourses, influenced by macro-level discourses that define what a “good student” or “good scientist” looks or acts like. The importance of the figured world of the classroom is apparent; when that figured world includes multiple ways of practicing science and authentic science practices are recognized and legitimated, more students are able to develop scientific identities. When the only celebrated position is that of a “good student,” defined in narrow and gendered and racialized ways, more students are marginalized from developing science identities. As suggested by Moje et al. (2004), the importance of spaces that allow for multiple types of discourses to interact, creating new ways to be a “good science student,” is evident.

Positioning/Recognition by Others Another area of research investigates the positioning of African American girls, by their teachers, their peers, and themselves, in science and mathematics. Pringle et al. (2012) examined how teachers positioned African American girls in math and science classes and found that a focus on standardized testing and managing behavior led to a lack of rigor, disconnections with students’ lives, and teachers knowingly choosing teaching methods that were not pedagogically sound. The authors connected this to positioning of the students by the teachers, who did not see the African American girls as students who could or would pursue math and science careers. West-Olatunji et al. (2010) found similar patterns with school counselors’ positioning of African American girls. West-Olatunji et al. (2008) examined how African American girls positioned themselves as science and mathematics learners and found that while the students

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

285

were aware of their positions, parents and educators were not aware of the impact of how they positioned students relative to science and mathematics learning. In examining a mathematics classroom, Gholson and Martin (2014) found that positioning by other students in the class had more of an impact on African American girls’ learning than did positioning by the teacher. In particular, the participants’ positioning by their peers as smart girls, Black girls, mean girls, and bullies largely determined whether each participant had “inbound” or “outbound” trajectories in the community of the classroom. Clearly, it is important to consider the role of the teacher in students’ science identity development, in both providing learning environments that facilitate science identity development through engagement with science activity and providing recognition (Chappell and Varelas 2020). The role of teacher recognition as well as the importance of everyday classroom actions, largely dictated by teachers, influences how students define a science person as well as whether they see themselves as one (Gamez and Parker 2018). King (2017) presented the descriptions of teachers from Black girls, who describe wanting strong teachers who are welcoming, patient, and make learning relevant. The girls also wanted to feel a sense of belongingness in their science classrooms. Like other researchers, King (2017) argues that this indicates a need to understand how Black girls in particular are experiencing their formal science or STEM learning environments. Also highlighting the importance of the teacher, Archer et al. (2017) observed secondary science classrooms in London to understand the production of science identities and found conflicts between what teachers personally believed and their classroom practices that had implications for students’ science identity development in the classroom. For example, they found that a culture of surveillance in education and a focus on behavior in schools leads teachers to celebrate identities that focus on traditional learning and behavior. Several studies described above also highlight the role of the teacher. For example, Carlone et al. (2014) showed how the “celebrated subjected positions” of the classroom figured world, established and recognized by the teacher, influenced students’ science identities. Other research has also demonstrated that when girls and students of color have ways to participate in scientific discourses in meaningful ways in their classrooms and receive recognition from their teacher, the students’ science identity is supported (Calabrese Barton and Tan 2009; Calabrese Barton et al. 2008; Tan and Barton 2008b). The studies reviewed here demonstrate the importance of figured worlds of science created in and outside of school, particularly for African American girls. These figured worlds often contain racialized and gendered views of who can be a scientist, as well as conflating discourses of “good student” with “good scientist”; i.e., the combination of characteristics recognized as a “good student” was often the same as the combination of characteristics recognized as a “good scientist.” This prevents many students, including “good students,” from engaging in true scientific communities of practice and developing science identities. They also demonstrate how attention to students’ cultural resources, through recognizing and incorporating funds of knowledge in science classrooms, can support students’ identity development.

286

K. Wade-Jaimes

There are several areas that need further exploration in this area. First, although there are many studies that explore the experiences of girls and students of color through the lens of identity, there is less research focused specifically on African American girls. As Atwater (2000) points out, the norm for science education research around gender focuses on white girls. Even in studies that include non-white populations, participants from different ethnic and racial backgrounds are often viewed as one homogeneous group, with no attention given to the unique sociohistorical considerations of ethnicity and race. Mutegi (2013) calls this “invisibility literature,” which avoids issues of race by labeling students as “urban” or “underserved” (p. 85). As Mutegi explains, “by mischaracterizing the population of African Americans as ‘urban,’ issues unique and salient to African Americans are masked. They are rendered invisible” (p. 86). Pinder and Blackwell (2014) argue that research is needed to explore how African American girls uniquely construct meaning from their perspective, focusing on the daily interactions and experiences that shape identity development, particularly for younger students as early experiences with science play a crucial role in scientific identity development throughout the school years. In the studies focusing specifically on African American girls, the importance of having multiple ways to participate and be recognized in science is again apparent. In particular, the role of out-of-school science experiences is highlighted as these programs have the potential to create new spaces where multiple ways of doing science are legitimized, which is particularly important when legitimization does not happen in the classroom. The papers in this section also point to the structural obstacles to science identity development created by schools and classrooms and highlight the importance of examining the racial histories and impacts of these structures specifically on African American girls.

Science Identity Development in Out-of-School Time As highlighted above, one means of disrupting the traditional culture of science often perpetuated within schools and science classrooms is to focus on out-of-school science programs (Philip and Azevedo 2017). Out-of-school time (OST) science programs are programs that occur outside of regular school hours, i.e., after school or during the summer, that aim to support or enhance classroom science learning. Unlike many of the classrooms described above, OST programs can be a space to focus explicitly on multicultural approaches to science education and identity building. This section will summarize recent research on OST science programs that focus specifically on identity development for marginalized groups, often through multicultural approaches to science. These programs are often designed around Lave and Wenger’s (1991) model of communities of practice, stressing the importance of multiple ways of participating and being recognized in science. Most of the identity-focused OST programs considered here are also situated in a critical theoretical framework: they assume that certain populations have been marginalized from science learning based on race and/or gender and view this marginalization as a

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

287

result of inherently biased structures in society and education (e.g., Basu and Barton 2007; Seiler 2001). One purpose of these OST programs is to provide opportunities for girls and students of color to engage in authentic science activities and develop science identities that are not available to them in the classroom. In other words, these programs are providing spaces for students to challenge and/or negotiate traditional science culture. The goal of identity-focused OST science programs is to reimagine science as a more inclusive space, often focusing on participation and identity. Hughes et al. (2013) argue that trends in OST STEM programs have evolved as researchers realize that “competency does not equal identity and access does not equal persistence” (p. 1982). Hughes et al. (2013) argue that improving access to science does not equate to challenging the underlying structures preventing marginalized groups from persisting in science. Several of the studies considered here explicitly address the role of power, viewing the goal of OST science programs as providing spaces to question existing power structures (Adams and Gupta 2013) or “reverse the power structure of the school, which has been oppressive to African American students” (Seiler 2001, p. 1001). For identity-focused OST programs, the goal is to create spaces where participants’ own views and experiences are valued in order to foster sustained scientific interest and identities (Basu and Barton 2007; Eisenhart 2008; Rahm 2008; Rahm and Moore 2016). Because of the focus on disrupting the existing power structure in science and providing spaces to legitimize nondominant, multicultural ways of knowing science, identity-focused OST science programs are developed for specific populations that have traditionally been marginalized from science, i.e., women (Eisenhart 2008; Gonsalves 2014; Hughes et al. 2013; Riedinger and Taylor 2016), students of color (Adams and Gupta 2013; Basu and Barton 2007; Hargrave 2015; Scott and White 2013; Vakil 2014), or women of color (Davis 2002; King and Pringle 2019; Rahm 2008; Rahm 2012; Wade-Jaimes et al. 2019). Often in identity-focused OST programs, student and community interests were used as the basis for program content, with researchers designing the program explicitly placing an emphasis on the funds of knowledge of the communities of the participants as part of the design for the OST program. For example, in an afterschool program for girls in a low-income area, researchers first spent months getting to know potential participants, their families, and their community in order to find out what was of interest and important to the local community (Eisenhart 2008; Eisenhart and Edwards 2004). The after-school program they developed focused on technology and digital resources, which was identified repeatedly as important to the community, through activities of interest to the participants, such as graphic design and printing t-shirts. In a similar approach, Gonsalves et al. (2013) first joined an existing after-school program for a semester to learn about the participants and their interests. Activities were planned based on what was observed and discussed in the first semester, leading to the participants creating their own documentaries of science topics they identified as important. As researchers collected field notes during the program, they used those notes to plan what would happen the next week. Seiler (2001) started a science lunch club for African American young men, using their

288

K. Wade-Jaimes

interests as starting points for discussion and investigation. The format of the club was flexible, with students bringing up topics of interest to them and the group discussing how science related to the topic. The planning for the club was conducted jointly between the researcher/teacher and the participants as they kept a running list of topics to consider and decided when and how to explore them. Some identity-focused OST science programs began with more structured plans but still stressed the importance of youth voice and control over the program. For example, Basu and Barton (2007) developed an after-school program with a theme of invention and exploration and presented students with several project ideas, such as reverse engineering, natural dyes, bacteria, or student films, but allowed student to retain control over their own work and projects. Rahm (2008) also stressed the importance of participants having control over their work as they engaged in science fair projects in an after-school program. In an after-school program for app development, Vakil (2014) highlighted the importance of listening deeply to participants and getting to know their interests as part of the implementation of the program, allowing students to choose to explore sociopolitical issues that impact their own lives. Like most OST science programs, identity-focused OST science programs included hands-on, student-centered activities, described, for instance, as inquiry based (Vakil 2014), and science as practice (Rahm 2008). However, an important addition to these programs is the view that knowledge is socially constructed through communities of practice. In identity-focused OST programs, students were able to participate peripherally, i.e., in different ways with different levels of engagement, and their activities were legitimated within and outside of the community, i.e., the results of the program activities were presented to other community members as well as to outsiders. For example, Rahm (2008) describes the importance of “science as practice” (p. 116) as it helps participants’ identity work and sociocultural positioning as scientists, arguing that it is important to “produce, not just consume” science (p. 118). In this program, the production of science fair projects represents peripheral participation in the community of science, as students have multiple ways to participate, while the presentation of those projects to other members of the community as well as outsiders offered legitimation of the scientific activities. Vakil (2014) also allowed multiple pathways for participation in the app development (i.e., research, code-writing, marketing), while situating the activities in the realworld context of the participants’ lives. The final app was presented to the larger community as a useful, working product, legitimating the participation in the community of practice. The after-school program described by Eisenhart (2008) and Eisenhart and Edwards (2004) also allowed students to participate in multiple ways, as well as in multiple contexts. For example, one participant used the skills learned in the afterschool program to create a multimedia presentation to convince her grandmother to allow her to get a pet turtle. The students’ work was legitimated as she shared her presentation with other after-school participants as well as with her grandmother. A common theme in the description of the learning environments of identity-focused OST science programs was the development of hybrid or third spaces. This concept

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

289

has been applied to education to describe students’ identity-forming process when their cultural and personal resources intersect and interact with school resources (Moje et al. 2004). Many of the researchers considering identity-focused OST science programs present them as natural and important places where third spaces are formed, supporting students’ hybrid identity development. For example, Basu and Barton (2007) describe an after-school program as a third space because it is the location of the intersection of students’ science experiences and funds of knowledge. They argue that both types of knowledge are integral and relevant to learning and, in the after-school space, participants are empowered to draw on both without privileging one over the other. Eisenhart and Edwards (2004) argue that a third space develops when participants appropriate science knowledge to accomplish their own goals, i.e., using knowledge of animals as well as technological skills to create a multimedia presentation to convince a grandmother to get a new pet. Rahm et al. (2005) also acknowledge youth appropriation of scientific resources as an important piece of the development of third spaces, which they argue shapes the participants’ identity work. Based on Bhabha’s (1994) postcolonial description of cultural hybridity where identities are formed in in-between spaces, third spaces are: These “in-between” spaces provide the terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood – singular or communal – that initiate new signs of identity, and innovative sites of collaboration, and contestation, in the act of defining the idea of society itself. (Bhabha 1994, p. 2)

In order for students in the after-school program to participate more fully in science, they had to develop hybrid identities where home and school selves were not in tension with each other, shaped by the existence of the third space created in the after-school program. Finally, Gonsalves et al. (2013) described the after-school program as a “de facto hybrid space” (p. 1072), where participants were expected to draw on experiences from multiple contexts (i.e., school, home, community) in order to make sense of the world. In all of these studies, the OST science program was seen as unique in its role as both a science space and a youth space, and researchers valued and used that hybridity to support students’ learning and identity work. All of the identity-focused OST studies described new types of communities of science and new ways for participation in science, challenging the traditional WMS culture of science as discussed above. For example, Seiler (2001) described the science lunch club as a “community that would allow science to emerge from and respond to students’ lives” (p. 1002). Several important themes were noted across the results of these studies. The role of relationships in forming these communities was highlighted in most studies. Eisenhart (2008) describes how different interactions can develop in an after-school program than in a classroom, and Rahm et al. (2014) described the respect for participants and supportive relationships formed in the after-school program as crucial to participants’ identity development. Some researchers also underscored the importance of respectful teacher-student relationships as crucial to emancipatory education (e.g., Seiler 2001; Vakil 2014), which they viewed as a goal of their OST science programs. Multiple studies also reported positive science identity building (Adams and Gupta 2013; Gonsalves et al. 2013;

290

K. Wade-Jaimes

Rahm 2012; Rahm et al. 2014) and engagement with science (Gonsalves 2014; Seiler 2001) as a result of participation in the OST science programs. However, results on the impact of the programs in other contexts were mixed. King and Pringle (2019) describe a summer program for Black girls and explore the ways in which the participants’ identities interacted with their formal and informal science learning. They argue that providing a counter space specifically for Black girls gave the girls agency that impacted their science learning not just in the informal summer program but throughout the year in their formal science classroom. Rahm (2008) found that some students were able to maintain hybrid identities developed after school in school settings but only if they were recognized and legitimated by outsiders. Basu and Barton (2007) found that sustained interest in science developed in the afterschool program only if students could connect it to their visions of the future and felt they had agency. The transition from after-school to school science was also noted by several researchers as an obstacle. Although Adams and Gupta (2013) demonstrated that student participants in an after-school museum program were able to access identities developed in the program during school, Gonsalves (2014) indicated that any positive emotional agency around science that students developed in the after-school program did not cross over to school spaces because of the tension participants felt between everyday science and school science. She argues that not only are the students’ science identities not legitimated in the science class but the hybrid spaces created in after-school programs are not sustainable if they do nothing to disrupt the hegemony of traditional school science (Gonsalves et al. 2013). Similarly, Rahm (2008) demonstrated that although students identified with science during the OST program, they distanced themselves from school science. WadeJaimes et al. (2019) showed how ideologies based on the traditional culture of science, entwined with ideologies around race and gender, limited the success of an after-school program for African American girls, preventing strong science identity development across contexts.

Conclusion The research presented here has shown how the traditional culture of science, based on white, masculine, middle-class ideals, alienates girls and students of color from science and can prevent the development of science identities, particularly for African American girls. There have been a relatively small number of studies to focus exclusively on African American girls and even fewer to adopt intersectional frameworks to understand the unique experiences of African American girls in science. This demonstrates that there is still a need for more research focused on this unique group instead of subsuming African American girls into studies about girls in general, students of color, or even girls of color (Atwater 2000; Ireland et al. 2018). However, based on the research presented here, several recommendations for how multicultural approaches to science education can support the science identity development, and science learning, of African American girls can be made.

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

291

Research has shown that explicitly accessing students’ funds of knowledge and cultural identities in science classrooms, and using them as resources in learning, can help support both science identity development and learning for girls and students of color. Allowing students multiple ways to enact science identities, and providing recognition for those identities, is also important to support students’ development of hybrid identities. As the research presented above demonstrates, the ways in which students engage in science learning can impact their identity development, and, reciprocally, students’ science identity can impact the science learning opportunities in which they engage. Learning from OST programs, it is clear that explicitly providing space for students to critique and reenvision science from multicultural perspectives can help students develop science identities. Creating communities of practice that challenge the traditional, monocultural approaches to science found in school classrooms empowers students to see themselves as science people. However, it is also evident that more research is needed to better understand how to support this identity development across contexts. Many researchers have also pointed out a need for more authentic views of science and a greater focus on the nature of science and engagement in scientific practices instead of static presentations of science as a set of facts. This aligns with current calls for science education reform to focus on doing science. A focus on scientists as real people, specifically African American women scientists, focusing on the subjectivity and emotion of science, and making connections to students’ lives could help support students seeing themselves as the type of people who can, and want to, do science (Walls 2014). Parsons (2008) suggests the incorporation of Black Cultural Ethos (BCE) into science classes to create culturally congruent instruction for Black students. Not only would BCE disrupt the traditional culture of science in classrooms, but it can increase the science learning of Black students, even those already in reform-based science classrooms with inquiry-focused learning environments (Parsons 2008). These suggestions present a more multicultural, and broader, approach to science that could work to support science identity development for all students, specifically students of color and girls. However, based on the research presented here, more work is needed to specifically support the science identity development of African American girls and create cultures of science that do not exclude them as science people and allow them to negotiate and improvise new ways of being science people that are not in conflict with personal and cultural identities.

Cross-References ▶ Improving Black Student Science Learning Experiences Through Multicultural Science Education ▶ Learning from Youth Lives: Towards a Justice-Oriented Multicultural Science Teacher Education ▶ Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

292

K. Wade-Jaimes

▶ On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius ▶ Preparing Teachers of Science for the Multicultural Classroom Through a Global Lens

References Adams JD, Gupta P (2013) “I learn more here than I do in school. Honestly, I wouldn’t lie about that:” creating a space for agency and identity around science. Int J Crit Pedagog 42:87–104 Aikenhead GS (1996) Science education: border crossing into the subculture of science. Stud Sci Educ 27:1–52 Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2010) “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: examining 10/11_year_old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Sci Educ 94:617–639 Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2012) “Balancing acts”: elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Sci Educ 96:967–989 Archer L, Dewitt J, Osborne J (2015) Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Sci Educ 99(2):199–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21146 Archer L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Godec S, King H, Mau A, Nomikou E, Seakins A (2017) Killing curiosity? An analysis of celebrated identity performances among teachers and students in nine London secondary science classrooms. Sci Educ 101(5):741–764 Atwater MM (2000) Females in science education: white is the norm and class, language, lifestyle, and religion are nonissues. J Res Sci Teach 37:386–387 Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodard U, Johnson NH (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful cultural forecasters of science learning and performance. Theory Pract 52(1):6–13. https://doi.org/10. 1080/07351690.2013.743757 Basu SJ, Barton AC (2007) Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. J Res Sci Teach 44(3):466–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20143 Bhabha H (1994) The location of culture. Routledge, New York Brickhouse NW, Potter JT (2001) Young women’s scientific identity formation in an urban context. J Res Sci Teach 388:965–980 Brickhouse NW, Lowery P, Schultz K (2000) What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. J Res Sci Teach 37:441–458 Brown BA (2004) Discursive identity: assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. J Res Sci Teach 41(8):810–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20228 Brown BA, Henderson JB, Gray S, Donovan B, Sullivan S (2013) From access to success: identity contingencies & African-American pathways to science. High Educ Stud 3(1). https://doi.org/ 10.5539/hes.v3n1p1 Brown BA, Henderson JB, Gray S, Donovan B, Sullivan S, Patterson A, Waggstaff W (2016) From description to explanation: an empirical exploration of the African-American pipeline problem in STEM. J Res Sci Teach 53(1):146–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21249 Calabrese Barton A, Tan E, Rivet A (2008) Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. Am Educ Res J 45:68–103. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312 07308641 Calabrese Barton A, Tan E (2008a) From peripheral to central, the story of Melanie’s metamorphosis in an urban middle school science class. Sci Educ 92:567–590 Calabrese Barton A, Tan E (2008b) Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-inpractice: the stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cult Stud Sci Educ 3:43–71 Calabrese Barton A, Tan E (2009) Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. J Res Sci Teach 46:50–73

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

293

Calabrese Barton A, Kang H, Tan E, O’Neill TB, Bautista-Guerra J, Brecklin C (2012) Crafting a future in science: tracing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. Am Educ Res J 50(1):37–75. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212458142 Carlone HB, Johnson A (2007) Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: science identity as an analytic lens. J Res Sci Teach 44:1187–1218 Carlone HB, Haun-Frank J, Webb A (2011) Assessing equity beyond knowledge-and skills-based outcomes: a comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 48(5):459–485. %@ 0022-4308 Carlone HB, Scott CM, Lowder C (2014) Becoming (less) scientific: a longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. J Res Sci Teach 51:836–869 Carlone HB, Johnson A, Scott CM (2015) Agency amidst formidable structures: how girls perform gender in science class. J Res Sci Teach 52(4):474–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21224 Chappell MJ, Varelas M (2020) Ethnodance and identity: Black students representing science identities in the making. Sci Educ 104(2):193–221 Charteris J (2014) Envisaging agency as discourse hybridity: a Butlerian analysis of secondary classroom discourses. Discourse Stud Cult Polit Educ 37:1–15 Clark Blickenstaff* J (2005) Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gend Educ 17(4):369–386 Davis KS (2002) Advocating for equitable science_learning opportunities for girls in an urban city youth club and the roadblocks faced by women science educators*. J Res Sci Teach 39: 151–163 DeWitt J, Archer L, Osborne J (2012) Nerdy, brainy and normal: children’s and parents’ constructions of those who are highly engaged with science. Res Sci Educ 43(4):1455–1476. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11165-012-9315-0 Eisenhart M (2008) Globalization and science education in a community-based after-school program. Cult Stud Sci Educ 3:73–95 Eisenhart M, Edwards L (2004) Red-eared sliders and neighborhood dogs: creating third spaces to support ethnic girls’ interests in technological and scientific expertise. Child Youth Environ 14: 156–177 Emdin C (2010) Affiliation and alienation: hip_hop, rap, and urban science education. J Curric Stud 42:1–25 Fordham S (1993) ‘Those loud black girls’: (black) women, silence, and gender ‘passing’ in the academy. Anthropol Educ Q 24:3 Gamez R, Parker CA (2018) Becoming science learners: A study of newcomers’ identity work in elementary school science. Sci Educ 102(2):377–413 Gee JP (2000) Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Rev Res Educ 25:99–125 Gee JP (2001) Reading as situated language: a sociocognitive perspective. J Adolesc Adult Lit 44: 714–725 Gholson M, Martin DB (2014) Smart girls, black girls, mean girls, and bullies: at the intersection of identities and the mediating role of young girls’ social network in mathematical communities of practice. J Educ 194:19–33 Gibson SL, Espino MM (2016) Uncovering black womanhood in engineering. NASPA J About Women High Educ 9(1):56–73 Gonsalves AJ (2014) Science isn’t just what we learn in school: interaction rituals that value youth voice in out-of-school-time science. Can J Educ 37:185 Gonsalves A, Rahm J, Carvalho A (2013) “We could think of things that could be science”: girls’ re_figuring of science in an out_of_school_time club. J Res Sci Teach 50:1068–1097 Hanson SL (2008) Swimming against the tide. Temple University Press, Philadelphia Hargrave C c (2015) Counter space: analysis of educational structures of an after-school program that fosters black academic success narratives. J Negro Educ 84:348–361 Herzig AH (2010) Women belonging in the social worlds of graduate mathematics. Math Enthus 7(2):177–208 Holland D, Lachicotte W, Skinner D, Cain C (1998) Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

294

K. Wade-Jaimes

Hughes RM, Nzekwe B, Molyneaux KJ (2013) The single sex debate for girls in science: a comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Res Sci Educ 43:1979–2007 Ireland DT, Freeman KE, Winston-Proctor CE, DeLaine KD, McDonald Lowe S, Woodson KM (2018) (un) hidden figures: a synthesis of research examining the intersectional experiences of black women and girls in STEM education. Rev Res Educ 42(1):226–254. %@ 0091-0732X Johnson A, Brown J, Carlone H, Cuevas AK (2011) Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: a multiracial feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science. J Res Sci Teach 48:339–366 Kamberelis G, Wehunt MD (2012) Hybrid discourse practice and science learning. Cult Stud Sci Educ 7:505–534 King NS (2017) When teachers get it right: voices of black girls’ informal STEM learning experiences. J Multicult Aff 2(1):5 King NS, Pringle RM (2019) Black girls speak STEM: counterstories of informal and formal learning experiences. J Res Sci Teach 56(5):539–569 Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Lemke JL (1990) Talking science: language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood Lemke J (2011) The secret identity of science education: masculine and politically conservative? Cult Stud Sci Educ 6(2):287–292 Meyer X, Crawford BA (2011) Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6:525–547 Moje EB, Collazo T, Carrillo R, Marx RW (2001) “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: language, literacy, and discourse in project_based science. J Res Sci Teach 38:469–498 Moje EB, Ciechanowski KM, Kramer K, Ellis L, Carrillo R, Collazo T (2004) Working toward third space in content area literacy: an examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Read Res Q 39:38–70 Morris EW (2007) “Ladies” or “loudies”? Perceptions and experiences of black girls in classrooms. Youth Soc 38:490–515 Mutegi JW (2013) “Life’s first need is for us to be realistic” and other reasons for examining the sociocultural construction of race in the science performance of African American students. J Res Sci Teach 50(1):82–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21065 National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC National Science Foundation, N. C. f. S. a. E. S. (2019) Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019 Norman O, Ault CR Jr, Bentz B, Meskimen L (2001) The black–white “achievement gap” as a perennial challenge of urban science education: a sociocultural and historical overview with implications for research and practice. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1101–1114 Olitsky S, Flohr LL, Gardner J, Billups M (2010) Coherence, contradiction, and the development of school science identities. J Res Sci Teach 47:1209–1228 Ong M, Wright C, Espinosa LL, Orfield G (2011) Inside the double bind: a synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harv Educ Rev Summer 81:172–208 Parsons EC (2008) Learning contexts, black cultural ethos, and the science achievement of African American students in an urban middle school. J Res Sci Teach 45(6):665–683. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.20240 Philip TM, Azevedo FS (2017) Everyday science learning and equity: mapping the contested terrain. Sci Educ 101(4):526–532. %@ 0036-8326 Pinder PJ, Blackwell EL (2014) The “black girl turn” in research on gender, race, and science education: toward exploring and understanding the early experiences of black females in science, a literature review. J Afr Am Stud 18:63–71

11

Multicultural Science Education and Science Identity Development of. . .

295

Pringle RM, Brkich KM, Adams TL, West-Olatunii C, Archer-Banks DA (2012) Factors influencing elementary teachers’ positioning of African American girls as science and mathematics learners. Sch Sci Math 112:217–229 Rahm J (2008) Urban youths’ hybrid positioning in science practices at the margin: a look inside a school–museum–scientist partnership project and an after-school science program. Cult Stud Sci Educ 3:97–121 Rahm J j (2012) Collaborative imaginaries and multi-sited ethnography: space-time dimensions of engagement in an afterschool science programme for girls. Ethnogr Educ 7:247–264 Rahm J, Moore JC (2016) A case study of long-term engagement and identity-in-practice: insights into the STEM pathways of four underrepresented youths. J Res Sci Teach 53(5):768–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21268 Rahm J, Martel Reny MP, Moore JC (2005) The role of afterschool and community science programs in the lives of urban youth. Sch Sci Math 105:283–291 Rahm J, Lachaîne A, Mathura A (2014) Youth Voice and Positive Identity Building Practices: The Case of ScienceGirls. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation 37:209 Ramnarain U, de Beer J (2013) Science students creating hybrid spaces when engaging in an expo investigation project. Res Sci Educ 43:99–116 Renold E, Allan A (2006) Bright and beautiful: high achieving girls, ambivalent femininities, and the feminization of success in the primary school. Discourse Stud Cult Polit Educ 27:457–473 Riedinger K, Taylor A (2016) “I could see myself as a scientist”: the potential of out-of-school time programs to influence girls’ identities in science. Afterschool Matters 23:1–7 Rincón BE, George-Jackson CE (2016) Examining department climate for women in engineering: the role of STEM interventions. J Coll Stud Dev 57(6):742–747 Scott KA, White MA (2013) COMPUGIRLS’standpoint: culturally responsive computing and its effect on girls of color. Urban Educ 48(5):657–681. %@ 0042-0859 Seiler G (2001) Reversing the “standard” direction: science emerging from the lives of African American students. J Res Sci Teach 38:1000–1014 Tan E, Calabrese Barton A, Kang H, O’Neill T (2013) Desiring a career in STEM_related fields: how middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities_in_practice in science. J Res Sci Teach 50:1143–1179 Vakil S (2014) A critical pedagogy approach for engaging urban youth in mobile app development in an after-school program. Equity Excell Educ 47:31–45 Wade-Jaimes K, Schwartz R (2018) “I don’t think it’s science:” African American girls and the figured world of school science. J Res Sci Teach. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21521 Wade-Jaimes K, Cohen JD, Calandra B (2019) Mapping the evolution of an after-school STEM club for African American girls using activity theory. Cult Stud Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-018-9886-9 Walls L (2014) Science education and females of color: the play within a play. In: Multicultural science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–59 West C, Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. Gend Soc 1:125–151 West-Olatunji C, Pringle R, Adams T, Baratelli A, Goodman R, Maxis S (2008) How African American middle school girls position themselves as mathematics and science learners. Int J Learn 14:219–227 West-Olatunji C, Shure L, Pringle R, Adams T, Lewis D, Cholewa B (2010) Exploring how school counselors position low-income African American girls as mathematics and science learners. Prof Sch Couns 13(3):2156759X1001300306. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1001300306 Yerrick RK, Gilbert A (2011) Constraining the discourse community: how science discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. J Multicult Discourses 6:67–91 Youdell D (2003) Identity traps or how black [1] students fail: the interactions between biographical, sub-cultural, and learner identities. Br J Sociol Educ 24:3–20

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in Multicultural US Classrooms and Beyond

12

Maria Varelas, Eli Tucker-Raymond, and UIC Research on Science Learning Course Team

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies of Discourse in US Learning Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hybridity and Its Relation to Science Understandings and Discourses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language, Learning, and Identity Construction: Social and Affective Dimensions of Knowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negotiations of Authority and Power and the Structure-Agency Dialectic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epistemic Heterogeneity and Science Understandings and Discourses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

298 301 301 304 309 315 323 325

Abstract

The chapter examines and reviews science education research over the last 20 years that offers insights into how discourse mediates science learning in elementary school students’ classrooms and age-equivalent out-of-school learning environments in the United States. It highlights perspectives that center the

Course Team Members (in alphabetical order): Diana Bonilla, Tiffany Childress, Darrin Collins, Daniel Fernandez, Jason Foster, Nate Gustin, Leigha Ingham, Jasmine Jones, Scott McCartney, Michael Nocella, Ayesha Qazi, Jorge Santana, Johan Tabora, Kathleen Tysiak, and TaRhonda Woods M. Varelas (*) University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Tucker-Raymond Boston University, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] UIC Research on Science Learning Course Team University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_52

297

298

M. Varelas et al.

intellectual, social, and cultural repertoires of students from minoritized racial, ethnic, and linguistic communities (e.g., African diaspora, Latinx, Native American, and immigrant children), alongside addressing hierarchies of power and epistemologies in science learning and teaching in order to disrupt dominant ideologies of what it means to know and do science. That is, we focus on how science education researchers have engaged with, accounted for, described, theorized, and explained discourses in US classrooms and beyond that have been called for by multicultural education perspectives. In our review of the literature, hybridity and heterogeneity of knowing and discourse, relationships between teachers and students and among students themselves, identity construction and social and affective dimensions of knowing, and structure-agency dynamics associated with authority emerged as constructs that researchers and educators continue to grapple with to reimagine science learning for elementaryschool-aged children. The chapter also captures the movement from discourse as language-centric to perspectives that embrace multimodal development and expression of science understandings. Building on these ideas, it identifies areas of research on science discourses to continue the focus on designing and understanding spaces and places for science learning that disrupt hierarchies of science knowing and communicating. Keywords

Discourse · Epistemology · Language · Agency · Identity · Power · Hybridity · Heterogeneity · Multicultural

Introduction Science understandings and discourses. How do they interact and how has science education research studied them over the past two decades? What do we know from this research area, shaped by the theoretical framings and analytical approaches that researchers have chosen to focus on? More specifically, what do we know about elementary school students’ and age-equivalent youth’s learning in and out of classrooms, and the significance of discourses in science engagement and learning? In this chapter, we bring together studies that help us understand discourse, as talk and other forms of communication, in multicultural science classrooms and informal learning settings in the United States. The focus is on doing so by exploring and synthesizing knowledge from existing literature in ways that inform what we know about discourse in settings that serve African diaspora, Latinx, Native American, and emergent bilingual with English as a second language children, who comprise a large percentage of the historically minoritized communities in the United States. In doing so, we highlight research over the past 20 years that aligns with Atwater and Riley’s (1993) call to understand ways in which people communicate that promote or hinder the enactment of multicultural science education.

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

299

Multicultural science education (Atwater 1996) is concerned with an equal chance at quality science education for all students, with a particular focus on those students who have been historically not afforded such chances, the students in the studies of classroom discourses that we have included here. To enact multicultural science education, educators must value the multiple ways of being that students bring to the classrooms and other learning settings. They must also have a sense of the ways in which power is enacted in institutions and in communicative interactions, positioning some groups or individuals differently than others (Rodriguez and Morrison 2019). Researchers use “discourse” to refer to communication, such as classroom talk, but also to ways of structuring and being in the world that signify identification with a set of values, beliefs, and practices (Gee 2015). At times, researchers in the studies we cite use the phrases “everyday” and “scientific” discourses, usually signifying the latter meaning of discourse. However, these terms are not static and researchers invoke their own orientations toward how those ways of structuring and being in the world are related to one another with implications for the conclusions they draw from their analysis. Over the years, the focus on discourse in learning settings has become prominent as researchers have emphasized meaning making as an active process in which learners build new understandings on what they already know. Likewise, researchers have also highlighted the intertwining processes of thinking and communicating, where communicating has broadened from only considering language to embracing multiple communicative modes, including visual images, gesturing, body movement, diagrams, and others (Kress and Van Leeuwen 2001). As sociocultural approaches to science learning have increasingly framed educational transformation, researchers have also continued to question the ways in which science education is positioned as objective and value-free when, in fact, it is constituted by white, western, and heteronormative values that marginalize the experiences and epistemologies of students of color (Bang et al. 2012). Progressively, researchers have used analysis of discourse (talk and multimodal communication) in learning settings to show the ways in which it is heterogeneous, with multiple discourses (ways of constructing the world; epistemologies) coming into contact and interacting in ways that can promote meaning making opportunities for learners. When educators are attuned to learners as active sense-makers and the ways in which their ideas and ways of making meaning are seen as assets and rights vis-à-vis learning a focus of multicultural science education, they center the identities of those who are most marginalized (Brown 2006; Calabrese Barton and Tan 2020; Varelas et al. 2012b). At the same time, researchers pay attention to the ways in which the structures of science classrooms and other learning settings enable and constrain opportunities for learner agency (Varelas et al. 2015) and expand what counts as science knowledge beyond western forms including nature-human continuum perspectives, moral and affective understandings, sociopolitical ideas, and justice-oriented participation in the world (Bang and Marin 2015; Davis and Schaeffer 2019).

300

M. Varelas et al.

To dig into how science understandings and discourses have been studied in elementary classrooms and age-equivalent learning settings, we searched predominately the following journals: Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Cultural Studies of Science Education, Cognition and Instruction, Linguistics and Education, and Journal of the Learning Sciences. For the last 20 years (2000–2019), we identified 42 articles that focus on science discourse and learning during the elementary school years. We also considered it as a valuable opportunity to analyze and synthesize the works we had identified while collaborating with science education doctoral students – the new generation of scholars and leaders. In Fall 2019, Varelas taught the course CI 570: Research on Science Learning at the University of Illinois Chicago’s Department of Curriculum and Instruction, a required course for the science education specialization of the Mathematics and Science Education PhD program. The 15 graduate students who took the course and are collectively considered as the third author of this chapter worked on an assignment that gave each of them an opportunity to perform a “mini” literature review analyzing and synthesizing two papers. Each student was randomly assigned two of the identified articles. The assignment guidelines were as follows: As you analyze each of the two articles, ask yourselves questions such as:

1. What does this study tell us about discourses, science discourses and other discourses, and their interactions/relations? 2. What theoretical framings underlie the study? 3. Who were the participants on whom the findings are based? 4. What methods were used and how? 5. What counts as discourse(s) in this study and how was it (were they) captured? 6. How do the findings expand, extend, and deepen our understandings about discourses and science learning? 7. How are issues of power, authority, dominance, oppression, privilege, equity, justice part (or not) of the study, explicitly or implicitly? 8. How does the study’s design help us (or not) to consider important dimensions of how discourses shape science learning of children (of elementary and middle school ages) inside and outside of school settings? Your thinking on these questions, and other questions you ponder, should not be offered in the particular order of the questions or for each question separately. Remember this is a mini literature review where you capture and relate only two journal articles. So, capture the big ideas of each article (in a way that makes sense to you and guided by the questions above), interrogate the studies and highlight both the ways in which each study speaks to your thinking about discourses and those that may be missing, and then engage in a comparison between the two studies. In the comparison, bring out similarities and differences between purposes, framings, participants, analytical schemes, evidence, and ideas that emerge from the two studies you focused on.

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

301

After the students submitted their assignments and Varelas read them, one of the 3-hweekly class sessions was dedicated to students sharing important ideas from their mini literature reviews so the whole class learned from each other. This sharing was accompanied by Varelas keeping track of these ideas on a large blackboard. Varelas and Tucker-Raymond added to these mini literature reviews their reviews of the remaining articles and worked together on identifying and refining the themes presented next.

Studies of Discourse in US Learning Settings Four themes were ultimately identified that capture, we believe, prominent and essential dimensions of the scholarship on discourse in elementary school science classrooms and out-of-classroom learning spaces that serve young people from minoritized racial, ethnic, and linguistic communities in the United States. These themes are (a) hybridity and its relation to science understandings and discourses; (b) identity construction and social and affective dimensions of knowing; (c) negotiations of authority and power and the structure-agency dialectic; and (d) epistemic heterogeneity and science understandings and discourses.

Hybridity and Its Relation to Science Understandings and Discourses Recognizing and creating hybrid discourses in and out of the science elementary school classroom have been hailed as a desirable pedagogical practice that can lead to the development of “third spaces” that facilitate young people’s engagement with science ideas and practices (Gutiérrez et al. 1999). The interweaving of everyday discourses (first spaces) and science discourses (second spaces) can create a new, transformative space (third space) – an “imaginary” (Gutiérrez and Calabrese Barton 2015) where youth create new ways in which they construct science understandings, communication, and identities on their own and/or supported by their teacher. As Kamberelis and Wehunt (2012) noted, “hybrid discourse practices involve the interplay of at least three key elements. . .(a) lamination of multiple cultural frames, (b) shifting relations between people and their discourse, and (c) shifting power relations between and among people” (p. 507). Thus, third spaces are not given when two (or more) discourses come into contact but are the result of a transformation of those relations. In what follows, the research on hybridity explores opportunities and challenges in reaching those transformations. Over the years, language has been the center of hybridity research. Brown and Spang (2008) focused on the importance and value of “double talk,” the use of both vernacular (shared ways of communicating among people) and academic science language – new language that needs to be learned and appropriated by students in schools. Language is an essential way in which people affiliate with and participate in communities of practice such as science. For students who have been historically minoritized in science classrooms and the field of science, including African

302

M. Varelas et al.

American students who comprised the fifth grade classroom under study, being supported to develop a science “discursive identity” (Brown 2004) can happen when a teacher makes “conscious attempts to model the vernacular and scientific modes of talk” (p. 730). The results of such efforts were that students “continued to use science language (in double talk form) in small and large group contexts. . .[B]y mandating when students were to use science discourse and by modeling vernacular discourse, students were able to appropriate a discursive identity that actively incorporated their cultural norms” (p. 731). A similar implication emerged in Gomez’s (2007) study in a sixth grade classroom of roughly 75% Latinx students that explored how students negotiated everyday talk with classroom science discourse specifically around science fairs. Gomez built on Halliday’s (1978) “two semiotic functions for language–resource and formation. Semiotic resources are the vocabulary used to communicate social or cultural ways of understanding a phenomenon. A semiotic formation is an ‘institutionalized’ way of talking, gesturing, or behaving” (p. 43). The teacher “commingled classroom science and everyday science talk during his interactions with the students [but] he did not leverage opportunities using either mode of discourse to bridge students’ everyday resources and formations explicitly to named and defined scientific phenomena and to help students develop a meta-cognitive awareness of the context-specific ‘ways’ to talk about and to understand scientific phenomena” (p. 59). Perhaps because of the implicit connections, the students seemed to use mostly “everyday science resources and formations” (p. 59) in their presentations. Hybridity, though, did not materialize in that classroom, as the necessary bridging of resources and formations between everyday and science language was not facilitated by the teacher. For such bridging to be meaningful, there must be a deep understanding of the students’ and their communities’ funds of knowledge so that everyday and science discourses are not considered “competing.” Moje et al. (2001) focused on projectbased pedagogy in a two-way bilingual immersion school where for most students in the seventh grade class under study Spanish was spoken as the first language in their homes. They noted that although both everyday and science discourses were brought into the science class, there was a curriculum “tendency to elicit community and everyday Discourses without scaffolding students’ or the teacher’s integration of community experiences and Discourses with scientific Discourses demanded in the activities” (p. 482) and, thus, positioning them as competing while privileging the science one. For example, the students had to perform a play where pollutants were picketers protesting clean-air legislation, which was considered an opportunity to connect to students’ everyday discourses. In a community where picketing was practiced frequently to support the community’s struggles for equal rights and justice, the play that was part of the science discourse was not only marking science as a competing discourse to the students’ everyday discourse but was also mispositioning their community. “The picketers are the villains, the ‘awful eight pollutants.’ As a result, the text has the potential to construct negative reader and subject positions in which students or their family members could be aligned with negative actors (the picketers), even as the text is used to connect to students’ everyday

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

303

Discourses” (p. 482). In another instance, students interviewed family members to bring everyday discourses into the classroom, but then the “discourse and knowledges that parents and families had about air quality in their communities, when contrasted with the discourse and knowledge provided by science” (p. 485) had to be dismissed because it was not aligning with the science ideas valued in the classroom. The “construction of congruent third spaces in classrooms requires the deconstruction of boundaries between classroom and community, especially for students who are often at the margins of mainstream classroom life” (p. 492). Hybridity for sensemaking is not possible by only attending to superficial ways of bringing in contact everyday and science discourses, particularly when these discourses are valued as separate and distinct from each other rather than continuous. A thorough understanding of everyday and science discourses and ways of bridging them are both necessary for the creation of hybrid, new spaces, and places, of science learning – spaces of exploration and freedom, and places of belonging and attachment (Varelas 2018). Attention to the types of questioning shared in classrooms could support the creation of such spaces and places. In their study in a fourth grade classroom with emergent bilingual students who had immigrated from various countries including Cambodia, Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, and Tonga, Ernst-Slavit and Pratt (2017) identified five categories – managerial, display, reflective, parlance, and higher order questions – and how they impacted the students. “Although questions are prevalent in classrooms, the skill of asking questions is more nuanced and complex than educators may realize. Educators at all grade levels need to be aware of the types of questions they are asking, their frequency, sequencing, and the wait time that transpires between the time the question is asked and a student’s answer” (p. 9) if they are to scaffold students’ meaningful and sustained conversations while bridging discourses. As Ash (2004) highlighted, complex questioning takes place in nonschool settings where family and children work together to develop meaning. For a Spanishspeaking bilingual family with young children who was visiting the Monterey Bay Aquarium, hybrid discourse unfolded as “they crossed several boundaries between everyday and scientific talk, between Spanish and English languages, and between home and aquarium. . .[while] pulling together information to make cognitive leaps into further complexity. . .leaps [that] relied on the funds of experience that members brought with them, complex and generative content, mediation of several kinds, as well as strategies for meaning-making” (p. 880). The parents’ questions served as mediators linking everyday with science discourses as their children served also as intermediaries and translators between their parents and the museum staff. Examining how families who are “expert museumgoers” make meaning while visiting one of the largest interactive science centers in the United States, Zimmerman et al. (2010) also examined how hybridity in communication played out in museum settings and specifically when there was no engagement with museum staff. They showed that families with elementary-aged children and demographic backgrounds that included Chinese American, South Asian, biracial, and families of Caucasian background who also spoke at home a different language than English “transferred biological resources into the moment to make sense of biology exhibits, but also transferred in nonbiological knowledge through analogy and

304

M. Varelas et al.

metaphors involving knowledge gained from pop cultural and everyday activities” (p. 500). The multimodal discourse that grounded the interactions among family members contained verbal connections with everyday experiences along with gestures, “pointing at a specimen or animal, pointing to part of one’s own body, and animating the scientific processes through one’s hands, arms, and other body parts” (p. 487), which led to learning that for the authors meant, “becoming more scientific” (p. 501). The authors argue that the linguistic moves that the families used in the discourse are “emblematic of a generative social practice associated with family life that should inform theory. There is evidence that everyday problem-solving and sense-making discourse predominantly takes this hybrid form as a result of attending to the complexity of everyday life” (p. 501). Thus, the hybridity of science and everyday life, which the families spontaneously engaged in, supported their collective meaning making as they were evoking a variety of cultural resources to connect with the biological content of the exhibits, shaping their current learning moments. Creating learning environments in schools where hybridity takes roots implies that classrooms change physically, politically, and pedagogically. In Calabrese Barton and Tan’s (2009) study in a sixth grade classroom in a school that served about equal percentages of African American and Latinx students, physical changes included the transformation of classroom space into “kitchens” where students could prepare and cook healthy foods; political changes involved changing power dynamics by positioning students as experts and the teacher as a co-learner of nutritional facts of fast foods alongside the students; and pedagogical changes entailed creating space for students to help plan and evaluate lessons. The creation of hybrid spaces expands the boundaries of the science classroom, eliminating the isolation of science learning as a separate world of arcane, unrelatable facts, and positioning students and teachers as collaborators in science knowledge production. A focus on hybridity of discourses emphasizes the pedagogical promise of bringing different discourses into contact to investigate scientific phenomena. It also suggests that employing different discourses simultaneously does not necessarily create a third space in which these discourses can further meaning making. Instead, educators need to scaffold hybrid spaces for making meaning through planning, questioning, and positioning the experiences of youth and families as resources for learning. Moreover, discourses involve more than science understandings. They encompass representing ways of being that allow or deny participants to identify with, and be recognized as, certain kinds of people. In the next section, we highlight identity processes in discourses, along with the social and affective dimensions of knowing.

Language, Learning, and Identity Construction: Social and Affective Dimensions of Knowing Learning and expressing science ideas in a classroom or any other setting is an activity that includes more than engagement with science ideas. When students engage in group meaning making, they also engage their histories of participation,

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

305

their relationships with one another, and their own ways of being in the world and in science. That is, they engage their identities, and their identities are intertwined with their participation and science content learning (Varelas et al. 2007, 2012a, b). Interactions that happen in particular moments in time and space – chronotopes as Bakhtin (1981) called them – are imbued with memory traces (Giddens 1984) that capture the historicity, sociality, and spatiality (Soja 1989) of relationships and interactions, creating the context for constructing science understandings and discourses and imagining possible futures. Identities are multidimensional and students both position themselves and are positioned by others in ways influenced by, and that influence, their participation in science discourse. Brown and Ryoo (2008) used the term “discursive identity” (Brown 2004; Brown et al. 2005) to capture the ways in which language and identity are intertwined. That is, how one presents oneself as a participant in science is largely accomplished through language. They argue that scientific language can be constructed in educational settings as different from other forms of language, thus leading to students, particularly minoritized students, needing to construct different identities in and out of the science classroom. In their study with fifth graders in a school that predominantly served Latinx students and a small percentage of African American students, Brown and Ryoo found success in disaggregating science ideas from language, helping students avoid the need to reconcile different forms of discursive identities. They noted that “the greatest impact on students’ understanding of science language is found in their ability to communicate using science language. In this way, our content-first approach proved to be most effective in perhaps the most difficult aspect of science learning for minority students” (p. 549). For linguistically, racially, and ethnically diverse students, when the norms of classroom discourse are designed to incorporate everyday language practices, not only their conceptual and linguistic understanding of science is strengthened but also their discursive identities are less likely to be challenged. Depending on what is ratified as science, students’ contributions to classroom discourse, which are intertwined with their identities, may or may not be ratified. As Brown (2006) noted, “because science has an elite image, it has the potential to heighten students’ potential identity conflicts as they attempt to manage the tension between maintaining their identity and the identity of a science student. As language is invoked as a resource for signaling one’s identity, the science classroom has the potential to be seen as politically charged spaces where classroom language and participation reflects membership into cultural domains” (p. 98). Moreover, science language is characterized not only by its content and the particular ideas and information that it communicates but also by particular language patterns. Paying attention to both in science discourse becomes particularly important, especially for multilingual students. Focusing on science discourse around retellings of science informational texts, Croce (2015) found that multilingual students could be misidentified as struggling with comprehension whereas they are really comprehending informational texts and sharing their understandings during classroom discourse. “Despite high semantic acceptability during read-alouds, students’ retellings scores were generally found to

306

M. Varelas et al.

be low. This means that most students were using good cueing systems as they read (comprehending), but did not retell much after they read (comprehension). This finding was also similar for students regardless of their native language, location of their school community, or amount of years that they had been in the United States. . .[However] when students were assessed to determine if they were able to engage in some of the language patterns of the texts many students were found to be successful” (p. 103). Thus, often science discourse may position students with various linguistic identities as deficient, whereas what is actually deficient is educators’ and researchers’ capability to capture the full spectrum of their thinking and performing (e.g., Hudicourt-Barnes 2003). Understanding science to include multiple forms of participation is related to the how, what, and why of participation that might allow students to see themselves as belonging to the cultural domain of science. Reveles et al. (2006), in their case study of a third-grade girl’s participation in a science classroom, highlighted the relational dimension of participation when given the space to do so. They focused on a classroom in a school in which 40% of students were identified as Latinx. Rosa, one of the Latinx students, chose to explore how people in her community used plants for herbal remedies. Rosa did not design an experiment and carry it out, but rather made observations, and conducted interviews with people in her community. While taking on this role she may have acted more like an ethnographer than a biologist or botanist, yet her input and findings were valued by the adults in the science classroom. By valuing her cultural and relational connections, the teacher and researchers showed respect for indigenous ways of knowing that were important enough to Rosa for her to center her research around them. As the authors noted, “The explicitness of the ways of being valued, and the flexible manner in which students were able to engage in these practices, show how access to knowledge can be constructed through social interaction” (p. 491). The study also highlighted the ways in which what counts as science is constructed through the tools the teachers and students use, including their language, investigative processes, ways of reporting, and the various symbol systems employed. “Rosa, in particular, was a student who was afforded opportunities to construct a version of science–which drew from the inquiry practices of the classroom–crafted around her unique ways of understanding and investigating. This example demonstrated how what comes to count as science in school may intersect with students’ evolving identities as learners of science and how this can have an impact on future learning” (p. 492). By expanding what tools are used, and what is valued in science classrooms, students are able to draw on a greater range of identities for their full participation. Participating in discourse in classrooms is also an affective enterprise where students construct and express meanings wrapped around feelings and emotions represented not only in words but also in their voices’ pitch, tone, and volume, their facial expressions, and their gestures. Jaber and Hammer (2016) argued that “epistemic affect–feelings and emotions experienced within science, such as excitement of having a new idea or irritation at an inconsistency–is part of what instigates and stabilizes disciplinary engagement” (p. 189). As they examined fourth and fifth grade students’ articulation of emergent science understandings they found that the

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

307

“puzzlement, exasperation, irritation, and enjoyment” (p. 206) expressed in their language and other modes of communication could not be disentangled from conceptual and epistemological understandings. “The experience of having a question is at once conceptual, epistemological, and affective, as is the experience of finding a possible answer” (p. 199). How moments of doing science and participating in science discourse feel for students is an important part of their construction of what it means to do science and, thus, developing identifications with the culture of science as experienced in learning settings. When sixth graders in a school that almost exclusively served Black students made sense of their learning in their science classroom and were offered the choice to share it in any ways they choose, their rap songs and plays revealed how much “affective reactions were an integral part of their engagement in cognitive work” (Varelas et al. 2002, p. 586). One of the co-authors of this study, Barbara Luster, was their teacher aiming to expand the ways her students engaged with science. The study showed that the students’ engagement in science discourse in their classroom could not be divorced from who they were as young Black students in Ms. Luster’s class. Their scientific understandings were deeply embedded in how members of the class interacted with each other (both positive and tension-producing) and the type of bonding they had felt with their teacher. In a play that a student, Anatosha, wrote to share her understandings of sinking and floating, she portrayed “a powerful relationship between her (and some other girls) and the teacher. The girls call the teacher Sister Luster, a phrase common in the African-American culture indicating respect, a sense of community, comradeship, spiritual bonding, and a mentor–mentee relationship. It is also a phrase that indicates Anatosha’s and the other girls’ pride in their heritage, who they are as African-American girls. This phrase was common in Ms. Luster’s actual class, probably reflecting the school’s special effort to emphasize and cultivate nurturing aspects of the African-American community” (p. 593). In that class, students were engaging with each other in ways that showed playfulness, intensity, and banter and how they constructed science ideas was deeply intertwined with their ways of identifying themselves and others, including their Black teacher, in that process. Student positioning takes place in many different ways in the classroom. For newcomers, the spaces where they and their bilingual peers interact “are going to acquire theoretical, empirical, and practical significance for the potentially powerful role they play in mediating students’ engagement with and identification in science” (Gamez and Parker 2018, p. 404). The “the inclusion of relevant, realworld themes and collaborative, inquiry-based problems have the potential to broaden the meaning of science and scientist for all students, [however] newcomers must engage in and assert their legitimate membership in such a space in the English language” (p. 381). The authors found that small group discourse spaces in a third grade classroom at a school that served “the largest number of Spanish-speaking students classified as ELLs in the entire city and is considered by parents and community members as a hub for newcomer students” (p. 384) were consequential for emergent bilinguals’ learning. Their study problematized deficit views in which second generation students are thought to assimilate and be

308

M. Varelas et al.

positioned as different from their native-born peers. “This largely deficit view ignores the complex yet potentially rich explicit and implicit support that secondgeneration peer groups may provide for the academic success of newcomer students” (p. 405). Thus, small group dynamics and the ways in which students position each other as knowers, regardless of the stage of language emergence, play a critical role in newcomers’ participation in science discourse. Such identifications influence and are influenced by the nature of social negotiation among students. Kelly and Brown (2003), exploring third graders’ engagement in a technical design project around solar energy at a school with over half of the student population being Latinx, showed that to engage in the work of problem solving and design, students also needed to engage in multiple forms of negotiation. “The communicative processes constructed by the students to complete the academic task required scientific knowledge and rhetorical strategies–just as in scientific communities, all scientific communication occurs through some rhetorical form (Bazerman 1988)” (p. 522). That is, science in school is a social practice, dependent on negotiation. Such negotiation involves rhetorical strategies outside the scope of the ideas themselves and cannot be disentangled from the social practice of doing science in school. Kelly and Brown also argue that social negotiation is also a part of science, identifying similar practices among practicing scientists. Considering the discourse that is taking place while students are engaged in their own problem solving allows educators to more fully understand students’ science ideas. Although, “discourse situated in actual activity is likely to be more disorganized than in final form presentations. . .[it] may be perhaps more revealing of student knowledge. Furthermore, the production of student discourse in situated, purposeful activity represents more democratic ways of engaging in school science–ways constructed by students for their local purposes–than teacher directed transmission of content and processes” (p. 523). The social negotiation that could take place in classroom discourse offers opportunities to position students like Javier, one of the small-group members that the researchers focused on, as more knowledgeable than other school work would demonstrate. Furthermore, Javier’s “economy of speech and the indexicality of his explanation show [ed] remarkable similarities to the actual talk of scientists in situ” (p. 523), discrediting the historically prevalent master narrative about students of color and their challenges in and with science. Embracing and understanding multiple discourses, identities, and ways of being in science are mediated by what is allowed in classrooms by teachers and the schools they work for and by what is reinforced by students who have been socialized into doing school. To support students to meaningfully construct knowledge and identities, traditional ideas about who can know and what they can know need to be expanded. Such expansion itself is a reason for much of the study of classroom discourse. Who can know and what they can know become negotiated among dialogue participants and the conceptual, ideological, and physical tools at their disposal both structure and emerge from students’ sense-making of science ideas. In the next section, we explore how learning-setting structures and learner agency are co-constitutive.

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

309

Negotiations of Authority and Power and the Structure-Agency Dialectic Authority and power are constantly present in classrooms, used by individuals in various ways and to various degrees, shaping and shaped by classroom discourse. Negotiations of authority and power as dynamic dimensions of classrooms and other learning settings allow students to exercise their agency in whole group and small group discussions that are structures with physical, social, and symbolic dimensions. The dynamic nature of power challenges education researchers and teachers to examine practices that either amplify or attenuate inequity. Engle and Conant (2002) argued that for students to make sense with disciplinary problems, they need to express authority and feel accountability to their own ideas as well as each other’s. Such authority requires students to be able to express agency in how they resolved an issue that they problematized. To express that agency, learners need to position themselves and be positioned by educators as stakeholders, contributors, and experts. By positioning students as authorities within the classroom, students have opportunities to engage more deeply with content (in this study, various aspects of whales) while also engaging with disciplinary practices (such as comparing pieces of evidence to support or reject a claim). The authors argue that the teacher in their study, a fifth grade classroom in an ethnically diverse school had an important role in supporting student agency by using the pedagogical structure of assigning each student a topic in which to become an expert and expecting each student to be involved in the argumentation. As a result, students were seen by their peers as authority figures who had to contribute both important evidence and a lens through which to consider new evidence. In fact, the expertise that students had upon entering the Marine World exhibit during a field trip was what allowed students to problematize the classification of killer whales in the first place, a form of power that students exercised in that context. “In all of the cases, the students were positioned as stakeholders, although in different ways. . .the students’ stake in the orca issue was increased by the group’s identity as developing experts in their topic and by their agency (and responsibility) to design an accurate bulletin board exhibit for a school-wide audience to whom they were accountable” (p. 457). Reorganizing classroom participation structures is necessary to “encourage students to exercise more control over their learning environments and to significantly participate in the cognitive work of the classroom. . .[so that there is a] transfer of rights and responsibilities traditionally held by teachers to students” (Herrenkohl and Guerra 1998, p. 468). In their study with fourth graders at the school with about half of the population being students of color, Herrenkohl and Guerra showed that in small groups, assigning students specific roles as audience members, working with them to create questions to ask each other, and supporting their conversations and discourse in the classroom were pedagogical structures that allowed them to increase engagement and build a better understanding of the content at hand. They emphasized that “making the ‘rules’ of scientific discourse and inquiry explicit to students by establishing intellectual roles that focus on guiding students to differentiate and

310

M. Varelas et al.

subsequently coordinate theories and evidence” (p. 433) is essential for successful group discussion and development of student understanding. Cornelius and Herrenkohl (2004) identified power as existing in relationships, not people, and further argued for analytic and pedagogical tools to situate power in relationships, a framing that implicitly underlies the Engle and Conant (2002) study. “As we adopt this view of power as something that exists not within a person but within human relationships mediated by tools, we must develop new vocabulary for explicating the locations of power in interactions and for conceptualizing the dynamic ways in which persons and tools influence each other in sociocultural settings” (Cornelius and Herrenkohl 2004, p. 470). Examining existing literature, they identified three conceptualizations of power related to classrooms and education: (a) “ownership of ideas [that] implies a relation of power between the individual and a concept” (p. 470); (b) “partisanship [that] describes relationships of power among students that can develop through their interactions with concepts and with each other” (p. 470); and (c) “persuasive discourse [that] relates the idea that certain ways of communicating can in themselves affect the relationships of power among people” (p. 471). These three identified dimensions of power were used by Cornelius and Herrenkohl (2004) to describe the ways in which sixth graders, at a school where students of color represented about half of the population, engaged in discourse about science. Ownership of ideas shifted power from teacher to students. In a study of two students, “neither student mentioned their teacher as an authority on the ideas of sinking and floating but rather credited their own ideas and research” (p. 492) signaling their ownership. “Partisanship redefined the relationship of power between the two students as they became spokespersons for different theories throughout the unit, and it allowed them to voice their own opinions on the issue. Persuasive discourse created a new relationship of power among the students, as fellow classmates and the teacher became monitors of the ideas espoused by the focal students and served to balance their power” (p. 492). Shah and Lewis (2019) explored relational and participatory equity in collaborative learning settings and created descriptive constructs similar to Cornelius and Herrenkohl (2004). Their study expanded Boaler’s (2008) concept of relational equity introducing “participatory equity,” which was defined as a structure in which participation and opportunities are fairly distributed to all participants. As Shah and Lewis argued, power distribution, and its relation to equity, is dynamic, fluctuating over series of interactions. In a summer course for entering sixth graders, power was expressed by idea ownership, validation or rejection of ideas, and authority to influence discourse about what ideas were accepted or rejected. The authors argue that amplification and attenuation of inequity fluctuates within and between contexts. Contexts that attend explicitly to inequities and expressions of authority, therefore, “may provide opportunities for typically marginalized students to exercise agency in resisting or avoiding domination” (p. 429). Shah and Lewis posited that a content competent student with recognized knowledge can still be marginalized if the teacher and peers do not position the student as competent or encourage participation during any given task. They also suggested that teachers

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

311

have the duty to monitor collaborative work to assess for participatory equity as equitable and inequitable moments can both surface in any given task. Radinsky (2008), studying sixth graders’ construction of local purposes during geographic information system (GIS)-based tasks at a racially diverse urban school, identified three main roles that students agentically took up during small group problem solving – leader, competitive challenger, and quiet bystander. The leader was typically the student who drove the use of the practice, in this case a geographic information system, and the one who made claims about the data. When another student disagreed with the leader and offered a different opinion on the data, that student became the competitive challenger. While the leader and the competitive challenger engaged in a scientific argument, the quiet bystander played the role of mediator, holding the power of a swing vote in their quiet participation. Radinsky argued that through their own emergent role-making and discussion, students were able to consider science as a discipline to be argued rather than passed down from an arbitrator of knowledge. The lack of role assignment in group work as an instructional structure allowed for power to be regulated among a group’s participants and flowed from one student to the next based on disagreements within the group. The students in these groups engaged with scientific knowledge as something to be debated, discussed, and voted upon based on the merits of competing arguments. The study adds to others that call for the need to reframe scientific argumentation as a social practice with power imbalances and not solely as an epistemic practice. Such power imbalances also mattered in a study by Hogan et al. (1999) that highlighted the different sense-making opportunities in which eighth graders engaged depending on whether they were interacting with their teacher or their peers. “When working without a teacher. . .students’ discourse, and thus their roles, were more varied. They articulated not only conceptual statements when working together, but also a fair number of questions, queries, and metacognitive statements” (p. 424). Without the presence of the teacher, students positioned each other as knowledge producers. As students articulated their opinions and questions to each other, they were able to help each other make sense of the ideas. “The social structure of peer groups was more conducive to idea generation and elaboration as well as to justifications of ideas. Also, synthesis of ideas was attained more highly among peers than in teacher-guided groups. . .[however] explanations were more likely to emerge at higher levels during teacher-guided discussions” (p. 425). Thus, in small groups, students showed that they were capable of engaging in sophisticated discourse and making sense of ideas in complex ways despite being less efficient relative to teacher-guided discourse in reaching higher levels of reasoning. Teacher guidance was “more essential to progression in groups that had confusion or lack of synergy among their members” (p. 425). Supporting and nurturing students’ agentic ways of engaging with each other, respecting each other’s thinking, and building on each other’s ideas could indeed lead to a redistribution of authority from teacher to students who are able not only to rise to the occasion but also feel freer to play with and organize ideas. To contribute to equitable classroom structures, teachers need to be able to build space for contributions and responses in ways that allow for students to take

312

M. Varelas et al.

ownership of ideas. Colley and Windschitl (2016) explored whole-class discourse with fourth and fifth graders in two schools (one where students of color comprised a fourth of the student body and the other over a half of the student body) through the lens of explanatory rigor, recognizing that talk in classrooms is shaped by the availability of thinking tools, conversational norms, and interactional routines. For the authors, explanatory rigor means that a student is “being able to use it [an idea] to explain a phenomenon to others, being aware that any given explanation is one among many alternatives, and being able to assess the credibility of one’s ideas or explanations based on evidence” (p. 1010). They proposed two possible pathways, recognition/evaluation and responsive, through which discursive exchanges might unfold in whole-class discussion, which were associated with decreasing or increasing, respectively, the likelihood of engaging students in rigorous discussion. “Both pathways begin with an initiation which is typically a question or prompt posed by the teacher to which students respond. . .In the recognition/ evaluation pathway, the teacher poses a question or prompt that intends a discrete and easily evaluable response from students” (pp. 1014). Arguing for importance of sharing authority to enhance knowing, the authors highlight the responsive pathway in which “the teacher begins with an open-ended question” (p. 1015). They argued that their study “provided evidence that a collective attention to students’ thinking in the classroom can support rigorous kinds of intellectual work that persist and build over multiple lessons” (p. 1034). Recognizing that teachers may not be prepared to engage with students’ ideas on the fly, they identified three tensions that could be mitigated through careful design and structure: making decisions in real time about students’ ideas and experiences; developing ideas with students and dealing with their fear of being wrong; and too much and too little student participation. Another example of teaching that distributes authority for knowing is “improvisational” teaching that is purposeful, but not predetermined, and helps mitigate inequitable power relationships as they arise (Jurow and Creighton 2005). Improvisational discourse is characterized by both structure and flexibility, positioning students as scientists and expanding scientific repertoires. It enables students to “learn to think and act in ways that are creative and recognizably scientific” (p. 277). Jurow and Creighton (2005), focusing on K-1 classrooms in an ethnically and linguistically diverse school, highlighted the ways in which student contributions, and teachers’ responses, contributed to students’ understanding, in contrast to the traditional model in which the teacher is the sole contributor that models “how to think and act scientifically” (p. 278). Improvisational discourse is an inclusive practice that positions students as insightful scientists that can participate in science discourse and catalyzes scientific understanding of the individual and collective during classroom discussions. According to the authors, improvisational discourse is salient to science learning because “students can participate in and begin to view science as an inclusive, creative, and open-ended endeavor” (p. 293). Their yearlong study showed how teachers’ responses to students’ unexpected contributions, which positioned the students as scientists or expanded on their scientific repertoires, impacted their learning. Specific discourse practices included the use of native

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

313

language (Spanish, in this case), body movement, and incorporation of students’ contributions to class discussions. In elementary classrooms across the United States, teachers often focus extensively on creating routines, or norms, that help students learn how to be a member, or citizen, of the classroom. Such structures, which are reminded and reinforced before and during classroom discourse, are often considered prerequisites for engagement with science ideas. Solis et al. (2009) reported on a third grade white, SpanishEnglish bilingual teacher of a class of all students of color who noted: My students’ role in the classroom. . .is to give themselves and each other structure in terms of their behavior so that they can facilitate their learning, so that they know where to be and when to be and how to be and that way it makes it easier for them to relate to each other and for me to talk to them. (p. 279)

The teacher used the “Tribes” program, a state-mandated character education program, to promote respectful behavior by her students (half Latino, one fourth African-American, and one fourth Asian) by explicit socialization in behavioral norms that would ensure collaboration and equal participation by students in science discourse and thus democratizing science classrooms. However, the authors noted, “the socialization and the display of respect, as described here through an analysis of scripted behavioral curricula during classroom routines, are part of broader processes of disciplining and de/reculturation in which particular regimes of power are enacted and inculcated” (p. 288). Such socialization has the potential to indoctrinate students of minoritized groups into a mainstream system that has been defined by groups that have historically held power within the classroom and within social contexts. The result was a class that singled out students who were breaching behavioral norms (“breachers”), uplifted students who abided by these norms as role models (“rectifiers”), and afforded the classroom teacher the power to control how and when learning should take place in the classroom, “scripting words and scripting the body” (p. 274) as socialization into respect was deemed a prerequisite of learning. In this context, students may feel the pressure to reject their own ways of being in an effort to fit the sociocultural norms of dominant groups that have been put forth as natural, ignoring the social nature of their reconstruction of inequitable relationships to knowledge and authority. As Varelas et al. (2015) noted “understanding the structure-agency dialectic and how it is played out in science classrooms, especially with students like Carlos, who are members of historically marginalized communities and often misunderstood because they do not ‘align’ with mainstream expectations, must inform teaching and teacher education. When we put the weight of our analytic trust on Carlos as an active meaning maker, his actions can be seen as bids for successful participation rather than adversarial or off-task behavior (Warren et al. 2001)” (p. 527). In their study of a third grade classroom at a school that almost exclusively served Latinx students, Varelas and colleagues showed how Carlos’s agentic ways of being in the classroom discourse during read-alouds and hands-on explorations were different as he navigated the diverse activity genres and practices that

314

M. Varelas et al.

provided him and his peers opportunities for interconnectedness and heterogeneity of ways of thinking about scientific phenomena. As Carlos positioned himself in classroom discourse and narrations about himself differently at different times – as a knowledge broker, a (self-appointed) authority, an emergent author, and a selfidentified scientist – he was resilient in showing his peers and his teacher that he was a contributing member of his classroom community with abundant knowledge and academic skills. Kane (2015) reported on a study of a third grade classroom of all African American students and the role that what she called “contested spaces” played in the context of dialogic teaching. Kane focused on the discourse that unfolded in the classroom from the lens of the structure-agency dialectic to capture both the “dynamic, social aspects of spaces (and all the human and non-human elements involved) in which the contesting happens and the actors (along with their agency) who contest practices, ideas, meanings, and structures within these spaces” (pp. 462–463). As the third graders were debating what worms eat and were challenging the text they were reading, their peers’ ideas, and their teacher’s attempts to move forward that would possibly foreclose further discussion, they negotiated understandings, they posed questions, they took up each other’s ideas and embedded them with their meaning, they called out comments, they reasoned, they kept bringing up their points, and they turned to their familial knowledge (like one student’s experience with raising earthworms with her father to feed their pet turtle) to continue to counter their teacher’s way of thinking. Manifestations of individual and collective agency were enabled as dialogicality was allowed and nurtured in that classroom. “Because they saw each voice as having a valid perspective, no single voice could be allowed to dominate, not even the teacher’s. . .By engaging in dialogue together, these children were constructing a community of learners who powerfully shaped not only the classroom structures, but their selves as well and began (or continued to) see themselves as people with a word to speak and a meaning to convey” (p. 471). Power and authority are always operating in school science classrooms. The ways in which teachers set up classrooms can constrain or open possibilities for students’ agency and ownership of ideas. Furthermore, positioning students as knowledgeable or not contributes to students’ collective sensemaking in science classrooms. Making power structures explicit can help students and teachers attend to the ways in which those dimensions contribute to equitable or inequitable relations of power and the ways in which they lead to student agency. At the same time, teachers must be prepared to teach responsively, to consider students’ ideas and to be able to include them in classroom discussions. As teachers release more responsibility for knowing to students, either in whole group or small group discussions, they also need to understand the varied ways in which students make sense with each other and the ways in which they enter into relations of power with one another. While Solis et al. (2009) showed how normalized behavioral expectations mediate student sensemaking, so do the normalized expectations of what science is and who can know. Structuring classrooms in ways that embrace heterogeneous ways of being is one way to interrogate the latter normalization.

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

315

Epistemic Heterogeneity and Science Understandings and Discourses What counts as science is yet another facet of how authority and power are intertwined in science discourse. This theme, which has been emerging in the field, focuses on heterogeneity instead of hybridity. If we accept that multiple and varied discourses are part of science, then there is no divide between everyday ‘non-science’ ways of thinking, talking, and being and science discourses. Rethinking what is considered as science, “desettling expectations” (Bang et al. 2012) of what are considered repertoires of practice that are communicated and enacted in science discourses, and, thus, embracing cultural, discursive, and epistemic heterogeneity as the norm, lead to the emergence of science discourses where seemingly different forms of knowing are valued and considered complementary. The authority and power of a dominant science discourse that is mostly determined by western ways of knowing and doing science are challenged and resisted, making room for multiple and heterogeneous science discourses. Rosebery et al. (2010), drawing on Bakhtin’s (1981) construct of heteroglossia, asked an important question: “What if, as a field, we worked to construct a different narrative? One that conceptualizes the heterogeneity of human cultural practices as fundamental to learning, not as a problem to be solved but as foundational in conceptualizing learning and in designing learning environments?” (p. 323). The work of the Chèche Konnen Center (“Chèche Konnen” means “search for knowledge” in Haitian Creole) (e.g., Hudicourt-Barnes 2003; Warren et al. 2001) positioned “everyday” and “scientific” ways of knowing as continuous rather than dichotomous. It also questioned a prevalent assertion at that time that science discourse and the linguistic, social, and intellectual resources of minoritized groups were incompatible and that students’ everyday experiences and knowledges were sources of science misconceptions. Through discourse, the Chèche Konnen Center’s work documented how everyday ways of knowing could serve as resources for sense-making in science and argued that students’ discourse was reflective of the diversity of scientists’ sense-making resources. More specifically, Warren et al. (2001) showed how students in a multigrade, Haitian Creole bilingual classroom drew on multiple linguistic, social, and imaginative resources to explore differences between growth and development in insects and humans. They also showed how students in a fifth grade transitional Spanish bilingual classroom imagined themselves as ants in order to create a habitat for ants. They then linked these imaginings and ways of investigation to those of practicing scientists. These analyses disrupt dominant discourses and ideologies that position scientific experimentation as the default logic of science. Through their analysis of bilingual students’ talk and the practices of scientists as reported by scientists, Warren and colleagues expanded what it means to argue, make claims, explore, and experiment scientifically in schools, making space for a wider range of what counts as doing and talking science. Hudicourt-Barnes (2003), in her study of discourse in a multigrade junior high bilingual classroom, further showed how students who speak Haitian Creole and

316

M. Varelas et al.

English use Haitian cultural argumentation practices in ways that are similar to scientific argumentation. In particular, she highlighted the use of the discourse practice, bay odyans, as a way to include cultural resources that “can enrich the learning situation when the teacher moves away from a uniform ‘top-down’ view of content and incorporates students’ existing knowledge in science teaching” (p. 74). Furthermore, when “Haitian children are in culturally familiar environments in classrooms focused on practicing science, the type of behavior they exhibit toward the acquisition of knowledge and the search for scientific meaning is deeply congruent with the practice of authentic scientific research” (p. 76). Hudicourt-Barnes described the congruence of science discourse with the discourse practice of bay odyans, a public form of talking that “involves a certain focus on the words or the stories” (p. 79) and ascribes different roles and ways of interacting to the proposer and challenger of an argument. When teachers allow for free-flowing discussion in whatever language students choose, interjections of humor, and divergent talk, they support science discourse spaces that are more culturally congruent with Haitian students’ cultural discourse practices and are similar to many ways in which scientists argue, including supporting observations, theorizing, claim making, and offering evidence. Hudicourt-Barnes further concluded that by authentically centering students’ classroom talk, educators and researchers can understand students’ sensemaking resources in ways that highlight their considerable cognitive and linguistic abilities and can then be seen as constituent of scientists’ resources. In understanding diversity as a condition of all human beings, “fundamental to learning,” and not based on ideas of otherness, or “a problem to be solved,” Rosebery et al. (2010, p. 323) argued that educators should design for, and engage deeply with, the idea that the language of students’ lives is heterogeneous. Heterogeneity, in Bakhtin’s (1981) terms, means that any language is characterized by heteroglossia, which “encompasses varied ways of conceptualizing, representing, evaluating, and engaging the world in language” (p. 325). That is, everyone, including elementary students, lives in a world structured by “complex interrelations among the meanings, values, and points of view that ‘cross, converge, and diverge’ in the classroom” (p. 326). Rosebery and colleagues presented the case of a third/ fourth grade multiethnic class, in which about half of the children spoke a language other than English at home, that was learning about heat transfer. As the children discussed the second law of thermodynamics (heat flows from objects at higher temperatures to objects at lower temperatures), they talked about the question “Why do we wear coats in the winter?” after they had been outside for a fire drill during wintertime. The authors argued that the children’s use of verbs (getting hot) and adjectives (hot) and changing them to words like “the hotness” (e.g., of a body) were ways in which the children transformed language to express their developing understandings. They further argued that by creating space for “encounters between everyday and scientific meanings. . .with opportunities to think through relationships between possible meanings, the children were positioned to see their experience [s] and the ideas inherent in the Second Law in light of one another” (p. 340). As such, designing for heterogeneity recognizes and builds on the ways in which systems, created by the language used to refer to them, already come into contact

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

317

and interrelate with one another in classrooms. Rosebery and colleagues argued that these points of contact, along with children’s already heteroglossic language practices, should be considered as resources for learning and designed for to create expansive spaces for learning, sensemaking, and reimagining. Another type of reimagining in schools, which either educated almost exclusively Latinx or African American students or had diverse student bodies with majority students of color, was explored in the study by Varelas et al. (2010) who studied how dramatic enactments of scientific phenomena supported first through third grade students’ development of science meanings along material, social, and representational dimensions. As the “children’s whole bodies became central, explicit tools used to accomplish the goal of representing the imaginary scientific world. . .[they] operated on multiple mediated levels in these drama activities: as material objects that moved through space, as social objects that negotiated classroom relationships and rules, and as metaphorical objects that stood in for water molecules in the various states of matter or for entities in a food web” (p. 320). Via the dramatic representations, their bodies along with their minds became legitimate and acceptable vehicles of thinking, feeling, and interacting with each other in the science class, thus, not only expanding multimodal science discourse to include body movement but also expanding what counted as science. Their roles, as actors, guessers, directors, and viewers, allowed them to engage with science content from multiple perspectives. Although all the children in a class enacted the same script, each one acted out her or his role differently and made it her or his role. That is exactly the power of performing arts: each actor becomes the role in his or her own way, capturing the uniqueness of the ideas to be communicated to the audience. However, this is a challenge at the same time, too, as it leads to the serendipity of the scientific ideas that are explored, discussed, and developed as part of the drama activities. (p. 321).

Manz (2015) focused on “designing resistances that cue students into and arguing about questions of ‘what counts’” (p. 120). She studied a third grade classroom in an urban school, building on Pickering’s (1995) mangle of practice, and the way he “conceptualizes science as a dance of human and material agency comprising iterations of resistance and accommodation” (p. 90). In the context of student explorations in the “wild backyard,” an area behind their school building, Manz’s study shows that complexity and materiality of learning environments are not impediments to knowledge construction but rather enable ecological understandings that allow students to grapple with uncertainty and define their own versions of scientific practices. Science discourse embraced activity that the students themselves were constructing and where the phenomenon of growing plants and the students themselves were defining each other as they were both changing over time. There was no divide between the students’ everyday meaning making practices and language and the science practices they were engaged in. The students’ own “definition was a highly conceptual process that pitted plant maturation against death. Across the 32 defining episodes, students differentiated terms like dying, growing, and buds, increasingly related attributes to each other as parts of change processes, and contested the use of maturation, death, and reproduction to account

318

M. Varelas et al.

for observed features. . . ‘There’s this question I wanted to ask people [Steven asked], what if their seedpods are dead, does that count as a seedpod?’ In these episodes, students framed the seedpod as a changing entity that was part of the plant’s life cycle, complicating its definition, which they considered necessary for a shared understanding of which plants were more successful” (pp. 105–106). Allowing for multiplicity and heterogeneity of ideas and discourses was part of designing the learning environments with these young students. Multiplicity and heterogeneity are also enabled by the use of what Varelas et al. (2008) called “ambiguous objects” that children may engage with during hands-on activities. “Curricular and instructional approaches that do not lead children to one specific answer or a specific way of thinking become catalysts for the creation of such discursive spaces, where children and teacher engage in thinking and meaning making in the midst of ambiguity and confusion” (p. 92). In their study focusing on first to third grade classrooms in schools with almost exclusively one racial/ethnic group of students of color (African American or Latinx) or with the majority of student population being students of color, Varelas and colleagues showed that the material artifacts used – everyday objects with multiple parts that would allow children to make their own choices for what part to attend to in order to categorize them as solids, liquids, or gases – “were an essential part of how the discourse, thinking, and transactions among children were shaped” (p. 89). It was the ambiguity of what part of an object to categorize and at what point (e.g., a baggie of salt, shaving cream on a plate versus in a baggie, a helium balloon, a sponge, a drinking straw, a rubber band, etc.) that nurtured argumentation and participation in the classroom discourse in small groups and as a whole class. Embracing epistemic heterogeneity implies “creating learning spaces that are permeable, and where both in- and out-of-school experiences are recognized as valuable resources in the classroom” (Martínez-Álvarez 2017, p. 547). Working with fourth grade Latinx bilingual children with disabilities as teacher and researcher, Martínez-Álvarez showed how children, who are usually misrepresented and misunderstood both in terms of their abilities and their knowledge of multiple linguistic systems and their use of translanguaging “generated responses that were often unexpected if solely analyzed from those Western scientific perspectives traditionally valued in school contexts. However, these responses were also full of purposeful and rich understandings that revealed opportunities for expansive learning” (p. 521). Children like Jose and Sara in that study engaged in science discourse that valued their own cultural and linguistic assets and was valued as science. Jose’s focus on the Spanish meaning for “colorado,” meaning “colored red” or “reddish” in Spanish, rather than linking the name of the Colorado River to the Canyon, and Sara’s connection of the birth of the river to that of a baby’s represent school experiences students made authentic and provide evidence of the usefulness of embracing multiple and varied pathways to learning and of the value of cultural practices as fundamental to learning. Multiplicity and heterogeneity should also be conceptualized in terms of the types of reasoning children bring in the classroom and are allowed to use. In their study in a class of Latinx third graders, Varelas et al. (2014) showed that students’ discourse

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

319

around dialogically shared read-alouds of children’s literature science books on earthworms and hands-on explorations with worms revealed meaningful use of a variety of reasoning types (causal, teleological, comparative, analogical) in the form of questions, statements, or mini-stories. These types of reasoning, some of which are not usually celebrated in the science class as aligning with scientific thinking, allowed the students not only to make meaning but also to illuminate the differences in the affordances of texts vs. empirical inquiries and their synergistic relationship. Especially teleological reasoning, which the students used, is usually frowned upon in a science class fearing, as Ojalehto et al. (2013) noted, that it may “index a deeprooted belief that nature was designed for a purpose” (p. 166) although instead “teleological reasoning reflects a tendency to think through perspectival relationships within (socio-ecological) webs of interdependency” (p. 169) which are fundamental in Indigenous ways of scientific thinking. The teacher, and study co-author Keblawe-Shamah, “accepted, recognized, and revoiced the children’s contributions, thus, nurturing their thinking and sharing of reasoning. . .forms of caring that Latina/ o students are entitled to” (p. 1259). With the use of a variety of questions (confirmation, clarification, and ample referential questions) or just repeating a student’s answer or accepting it with a simple “alright,” her students extended their ideas about earthworms, imbued affect in their meaning making, exhibited sensitivity to suffering along with personal connections, and considered ethical treatment of animals. Epistemic heterogeneity is linked to expansive learning. The science discourse that centered around multimodal artifacts in the Martínez-Álvarez (2019) study focused on first and second grade children, all of whom except one were Latinx, in an after-school program for bilingual Spanish-English and biliterate children, merged science knowledge and performances between the realms of in- and outof-school science. In so doing, some of the experiences were contextualized by culturally relevant practices, such as making engrudo – a glue-like paste that is used to adhere pieces of paper together in the making of piñatas – in order to relate it to the activity where they would use clay and water to build a landscape that simulated the flow of water. As the children engaged in a variety of artifacts including the “engrudo-making video (after reading the Science Outside book), the clay activity, the geological photographs, and the stream table” (p. 833), the discourse provided evidence that it is “possible to expand upon what counts as science to include the voices of minoritized children” (p. 800). However, for this to happen, educators need to create spaces for the children themselves to engage with the variety of artifacts and with each other, making situated connections with their prior experiences and knowledge, so that they realize that their out-of-school familial experiences are as much science as the science they read about in books. Such expansion of what counts as science discourses and science understandings is also beginning to be situated within the emerging emphasis on justice-oriented science pedagogy (Morales-Doyle 2017). As part of a larger ethnographic study in a school with a place-based design in a predominately Black city, Davis and Schaeffer (2019) explored fourth graders’ meaning making during an interdisciplinary unit on water–an effort to “directly challenge epistemological hierarchies and make space for critical, diverse, and lived accounts of scientific phenomena” (p. 369). The

320

M. Varelas et al.

authors, who were the curriculum developer and teacher of that class, adopting Goodwin’s (2007) framework of participation as a stance and associating its dimensions of learning with justice-oriented science education approaches, considered science beyond the narrowly-bounded western forms to include “(a) scientific domain knowledge, (b) moral and affective understandings, (c) sociopolitical knowledge, and (d) cooperative civic participation (e.g., individual or collective forms of agency)” (p. 371). Exploring the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, as more than an environmental problem and one that had ethical and sociopolitical dimensions and necessitated a communal response, allowed the children to build on their own experiences in their city that was facing similar water struggles to those of Flint and use their experiences as legitimate dimensions of their meaning making. Both the classroom discourse and children’s multimodal posters, which included drawings and writings, revealed connections that the children were making between disciplinary understandings and empathy for the Flint residents’ pain, collective responsibility for their city and Flint, and “complex thinking about the fundamentality of water and the bodily consequences of water deprivation” (p. 384). Building on their experiential knowledge with water shutoffs in their city, classroom discourse underwent shifts from the children first being “surprised to learn about it as a systemic issue” (p. 381) to addressing “without teacher direction. . .collective forms of responsibility and agency. Rather than express concern for what the people of Flint might/should do for themselves, there is an indication that children were considering cooperative, multi-level solutions that might enable clean water access for all” (p. 383). Embracing epistemic heterogeneity morphed the science discourses and understandings so that “children voiced powerful ideas and questions not bound to traditional disciplinary frames” (p. 384). Their own “previously unvoiced, fraught histories with the water were validated” and became the foundation on which to expand science as a place to consider “larger (raced) struggles for dignity and rights” (p. 385). The work of Bang and Marin (Bang and Marin 2015; Marin and Bang 2015, 2018) expands ideas of learning beyond human-centric epistemologies. They argue that in some indigenous contexts, learning can be characterized as a relational storying with the environment, creating “more than human” life that operates as semiotic resources for learning (Marin and Bang 2018, p. 89). In three of their studies, the authors considered stories as sites of science knowing. Stories can be told in one place and as part of walking the land. Walking the land includes both reading and storying, or making meaning, of the environment in ways that are relational and re-center Indigenous ways of knowing. As such, storying and walking are pedagogical practices that become semiotic resources for expanding both learner agency and learners’ and educators’ ideas of the agency of nonhuman dimensions of natural environments. In a case study of one Native American family’s walk through an urban forest preserve, Marin and Bang (2018) characterized the process that includes “walking, reading, and storying land [as] important human and intergenerational cultural practices” (p. 89) as an Indigenous way of knowing and learning about the environment. They argued that “reading and storying land involves the coordination of attention and observation between humans and MTHs [More-Than-Humans] for the

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

321

purpose of identifying and naming living and natural kinds, finding evidence, and generating explanations to create a story about the perceptual field” (p. 90). In this way, they expanded science discourses and understandings to embrace conceptions of agency that include both human and nonhuman agency and centered relations between natural and cultural worlds. In presenting the work of one teacher’s use of both Miami (an Indigenous language) and English, Bang and Marin (2015) showed how the teacher’s work served to contribute both to language revitalization in relation to environmental studies and to how naming in both languages reappropriates land and disrupts settler meanings in such a way “that resists settler-colonial time-space relations that erase Indigenous present” (p. 537). In doing so, the teacher facilitated opportunities for sense-making for his Native American students in an urban summer camp focused on environmental studies. In a study of teachers designing science curricula through community-based stories, Marin and Bang (2015) showed how such spaces can become sites for reckoning with Indigenous epistemologies in learning environments that work to create reciprocal relationships between culture and identities and the natural world, and to support teachers’ professional development and learning for their students. In design sessions, the teachers used stories as sites of knowledge that made connections between science, explanations of how things come to be, and culturally sustaining pedagogies. By recentering Indigenous ways of knowing, storying, and learning about the environment, the Bang and Marin set of studies expands possible futures for Indigenous teachers and students and for teaching and learning science in general. However, they argue: Doing so requires relentless attention to the ways in which normative forms, or structural principles, create moments of interaction that reproduce or re-inscribe inequity. In addition, it requires the reorganization of talk-in-interaction so that memory traces, which support Indigenous futurities, may take shape. (Bang and Marin 2015, p. 542)

By focusing on out-of-school settings, Bang and Marin expand sites for learning science in culturally sustaining ways that contribute to identity and agency for learners and their teachers, and, thus, help appreciate epistemic heterogeneity in terms of science discourses and understandings. In two studies, the Chèche Konnen Center has also sought to understand how teachers and researchers can together understand, through close examination of discourse, teaching in science classrooms as ‘intercultural processes taking place at powered boundaries of race, culture, language, and subject matter’ (Warren and Rosebery 2011, p. 98). In doing so, they have created spaces for teachers to develop their interpretive power (Ball and Cohen 1999), or “teachers’ attunement to (a) students’ diverse sense-making repertoires as intellectually generative in science and (b) pedagogical practices that encourage, make visible, and intentionally build on students’ ideas, experiences, and perspectives on scientific phenomena” (Rosebery et al. 2016, p. 1571). Interculturality assumes that all people have their own diverse histories, points of view, sense-making practices, and ways of talking and that in any teaching and learning

322

M. Varelas et al.

moment these multifaceted people come in to contact with one another (Warren and Rosebery 2011). That contact creates complex conditions for sensemaking with students and for understanding what sense students are making. As such, understanding requires investigation by teachers in groups that highlight making sense as an ongoing process in which everyone in the classroom is engaged. In the Warren and Rosebery (2011) study, a small group of teachers and researchers from a school with a multiethnic student body investigated a seventh and eight grade classroom conversation on living and nonliving things that centered on one African American student’s interrogation of the sun as nonliving. The student asked, “If the sun is non-living, then how does it like produce the flowers, if it’s like not real? Cuz like if you think about it, if something’s dead, how does it help another thing out?” (p. 103). In their investigation of the classroom event, the small group of educators questioned words and meanings like “life cycle.” For instance, stars were discussed in the students’ science textbook as having life cycles, but were not considered to be “alive” according to textbook definitions of “life.” Through their discussion, the classroom teacher was able to “expand her perspective on Johnathan’s intellectual identity in relation to her own practice, the middle school science curriculum, and structural orders of inequality rooted in race, culture, and language” (p. 110). As such, the authors argued that when teachers are able to dig into classroom discourse, they can learn to interrogate and desettle their expectations for what counts as knowing and thinking scientifically. Teachers receive little in the way of time and support in understanding classroom discourse. Rosebery et al. (2016) reported on an effort to develop teachers’ interpretive power for understanding classroom discourse as intercultural, racialized, and imbued with relations of power between teachers and students, among students, and among students’ discourse forms and epistemologies and those valued by teachers as scientific. The Chèche Konnen Center had developed a 30-h seminar for practicing teachers in an urban school district that used inquiries into (a) science and scientific representations (plants), (b) case studies of classroom discussions that the designers had identified as potentially desettling expectations for science conversations, and (c) science discussions in the teachers’ own classrooms. Through these integrated activities that centered students’ sense-making as intellectually generative and scientifically meaningful, teachers’ own disciplinary learning, and diversity and equity, participating teachers came to recognize: students’ language use as in-process thinking rather than finalized products or displays of knowledge to be evaluated and/or corrected. They offered more elaboration of the function of specific practices students used in making sense of plant growth and development (e.g., analogy, integration of multimodal sources, linguistic marking of emergent thinking. (p. 1595)

The authors argued that an interpretive orientation, in contrast to a diagnostic one (e.g., did students have the right answer?) “reflects an engaged, relational way of thinking and being” (p. 1595) that shifts teachers’ attunement to being responsive to what students are actually trying to say and mean rather than what they expect them to say. In this way, how teachers take up talk in their classrooms can become more

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

323

dynamic, allowing for a greater range of possibility for learning, teaching, and being in classrooms that embrace heterogeneity of science understandings and discourses. An interpretive orientation embraces epistemic heterogeneity leading to supporting students’ productive science engagement. Such engagement can be further expanded by what Agarwal and Sengupta-Irving (2019) called “connective and productive disciplinary (e.g., science) engagement.” They argued that a “connective learning environment problematizes what counts as disciplinary and, by extension, who and whose ideas count” (p. 362) by emphasizing two themes about power: epistemic diversity and historicity and identity. When they re-analyzed the discourse that took place in the Haitian Creole classroom that Warren et al. (2001) reported on, and was presented earlier in this chapter, Agarwal and Sengupta-Irving identified constructs that were not pursued further in the classroom but seem to have the potential to further support students’ agency and learning. They noted the ecological stance that students in the Warren et al. study were taking, namely, the students’ ideology of both human supremacy and of the opposite of the naturehuman divide or, in other words, of a perspective embracing the unity of life. They argued that teachers and researchers need to grapple with the idea that students’ classroom discourse contributions not only reveal their sense-making but should become opportunities to engage with the epistemic assumptions behind their contributions along with science’s sociopolitical history. When this happens, “legitimate membership of children in classrooms vulnerable to the epistemic injustice” (p. 360) can be restored as such an approach “thickens the intellectual substrate in which disciplinary curiosities and uncertainties can find root” (p. 362).

Conclusion Over the past 20 years, multicultural science education research into classroom discourse and discourse in out-of-school learning environments of elementaryschool aged children from the African diaspora and Latinx, Native American, and emergent bilingual children with English as their second language has grown in various ways. It has increasingly focused on the goals of multicultural education, nurturing, celebrating, and developing the linguistic, cultural, social, and intellectual resources of students in support of their learning and on transforming teaching so that it nurtures students’ meaning making in science. Embracing asset-based perspectives, multicultural science education has put the spotlight both on students’ meaning making and the production of science understandings and knowledge, and on developing science identities that embrace who they are in the world inside and outside of schools and classrooms. At times their everyday and science discourses have been characterized as competing, but more often, the heterogeneity of discourses, epistemologies, identities, understandings, and communicative modes have been argued to enable opportunities for collective sense-making, engagement, positive affect, and productive interactions. Erickson (2006) underscored that social settings and relationships within them are always political, namely, “power-laden, preconstructed by history, and weighted by

324

M. Varelas et al.

social gravity” (p. 237). Research focused on science discourses has shown that this is the case in science education settings for elementary-school aged children who are members of minoritized communities in the United States, but it has also sought to develop approaches that transform existing centers of social gravity in terms of both pedagogical and research approaches. In this way, this research has made visible the shifts that are needed in science education settings and the new ways that can lead to the creation, collective co-creation, of such new possible worlds. As Bakhtin (1981) argued, heteroglossia, dialogism, and heterogeneity of voices come from and lead to the interplay of infinite worlds as possible presents and futures. In these new worlds, there are different relations of power – power is redistributed between learners and teachers, among learners themselves, between school learning and ways of knowing and being in the world, between humans and nature, and between the physical world and the social world. Science education settings, then, can become places where possible new worlds are co-created and not predetermined by those in power, where there is room for imagination, and where students of color thrive in a science education world under construction where they and their cultures, communities, and families are essential and indispensable dimensions of this co-construction – a core tenet of multicultural science education. We suggest that future directions for research include increased attention on the ways in which US classroom discourse is racialized, on the interplay between different epistemologies, and on the ways in which educators from African diaspora, Latinx, and Native American backgrounds, as well as those who learned English as a second language, enact culturally sustaining discourse practices in their teaching settings. Further research is also needed on discourse in informal learning environments such as museums, science centers, libraries, summer camps, making spaces, after school settings, and in families and communities. Researchers who study discourse might also contemplate expanding who is considered an educator. While a few studies included here are focused on discourse in families, understanding parents, grandparents, siblings, and older and younger members of learners’ communities as teachers is an important research area for expanding who can know in science. Additionally, high school aged young people are employed as interpreters in museums, as after school youth workers, and as camp counselors charged with facilitating the construction of academic knowledge. Researchers should include these expanded definitions of teachers as part of their foci for understanding how to weave asset-based pedagogies and multiple epistemologies into science teaching. Additionally, what we know in science is constantly changing. It is increasingly recognized that social issues are inextricably intertwined with both progress in science and the necessity of science learning. How do educators and learners talk about issues like climate change, the effects of environmental racism, and climate justice? How do they discuss sustainable agriculture and sustainable communities? In what ways do they discuss advances in technology and its effect on life on earth? Both process and content, how educators and learners communicate in multimodal ways to one another and what they talk about, are in need of more study. Finally, the field should consider who is doing discourse research and who the participants are in that research. Some of the work presented here was led by or includes scholars of

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

325

color and bilingual scholars. White researchers doing research with learners from historically and systemically minoritized and oppressed US communities need to continue to recognize their own positionalities and work towards developing meaningful and just partnerships with colleagues, communities, and learners to expand and transform research around science learning of Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and emergent bilingual English learners. As we put the finishing touches on this chapter, civil unrest and uprising in the United States are mounting in the face of state-sanctioned murders of Black people (a long list that includes the names of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Atatiana Jefferson, among many others) because of the ways in which white supremacy has shaped life in the United States, elevating the urgency of declaring and acting towards ensuring that Black Lives Matter. In the very fabric of the educational system in the United States reside racism and racial injustices that have been unquestionably allowed to dominate for centuries in less or more covert ways shaping the educational opportunities to which students of color have or do not have access. Identifying and dismantling structures in schools, classrooms, and educational settings in general that perpetuate inequitable practices across racial, ethnic, and linguistic lines is more imperative than ever. Given that multimodal discourse is an indispensable part of human interaction, understanding how it is used in science learning settings to maintain or disrupt supremacy of epistemologies, people, ideologies, values, and identities should be our collective priority in science education research.

References Agarwal P, Sengupta-Irving T (2019) Integrating power to advance the study of connective and productive disciplinary engagement in mathematics and science. Cogn Instr 37:349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624544 Ash D (2004) Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: the science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Sci Educ 88:855–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20002 Atwater MM (1996) Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. J Res Sci Teach 33(8):821–837 Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspectives, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77(6):661–668 Bakhtin MM (1981) The dialogic imagination: four essays (Holquist M, Ed.; Emerson C, Holquist M, Trans.). University of Texas Press Ball DL, Cohen D (1999) Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In: Darling-Hammond L, Sykes G (eds) Teaching as the learning profession: handbook of policy and practice. Jossey-Bass, pp 3–34 Bang M, Marin A (2015) Nature-culture constructs in science learning: human/non-human agency and intentionality. J Res Sci Teach 52(4):530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204 Bang M, Warren B, Rosebery AS, Medin D (2012) Desettling expectations in science education. Hum Dev 55:302–318. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345322 Bazerman C (1988) Shaping written knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press Boaler J (2008) Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. Br Educ Res J 34(2):167–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01411920701532145

326

M. Varelas et al.

Brown BA (2004) Discursive identity: assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. J Res Sci Teach 41:810–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20228 Brown BA (2006) ‘It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff’: language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. J Res Sci Teach 43:96–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea. 20096 Brown BA, Ryoo K (2008) Teaching science as a language: a “content-first” approach to science teaching. J Res Sci Teach 45:529–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20255 Brown BA, Spang E (2008) Double talk: synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Sci Educ 92:708–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20251 Brown BA, Reveles JM, Kelly GJ (2005) Scientific literacy and discursive identity: a theoretical framework for understanding science education. Sci Educ 89:779–802. https://doi.org/10.1002/ sce.20069 Calabrese Barton A, Tan E (2009) Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. J Res Sci Teach 46:50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269 Calabrese Barton A, Tan E (2020) Beyond equity as inclusion: a framework of “rightful presence” for guiding justice-oriented studies in teaching and learning. Educ Res. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X20927363 Colley C, Windschitl M (2016) Rigor in elementary science students’ discourse: the role of responsiveness and supportive conditions for talk. Sci Educ 100:1009–1038. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sce.21243 Cornelius LL, Herrenkohl LR (2004) Power in the classroom: how the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cogn Instr 22:467–498. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_4 Croce K (2015) Latino(a) and Burmese elementary school students reading scientific informational texts: the interrelationship of the language of the texts, students’ talk, and conceptual change theory. Linguist Educ 29:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.02.001 Davis NR, Schaeffer J (2019) Troubling troubled waters in elementary science education: politics, ethics & Black children’s conceptions of water [justice] in the era of Flint. Cogn Instr 37: 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624548 Engle RA, Conant FR (2002) Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cogn Instr 20: 399–483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1 Erickson F (2006) Studying side by side: collaborative action ethnography in educational research. In: Spindler G, Hammond L (eds) Innovations in educational ethnography: theory, methods and results. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 235–257 Ernst-Slavit G, Pratt KL (2017) Teacher questions: learning the discourse of science in a linguistically diverse elementary classroom. Linguist Educ 40:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged. 2017.05.005 Gamez R, Parker CA (2018) Becoming science learners: a study of newcomers’ identity work in elementary school science. Sci Educ 102:377–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21323 Gee JP (2015) Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315722511 Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press Gomez K (2007) Negotiating discourses: sixth-grade students’ use of multiple science discourses during a science fair presentation. Linguist Educ 18:41–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged. 2007.03.002 Goodwin C (2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse Soc 18(1):53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 Gutiérrez KD, Calabrese Barton A (2015) The possibilities and limits of the structure-agency dialectic in advancing science for all. J Res Sci Teach 52(4):574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.21229

12

Science Understandings and Discourses: Trajectories of Imaginaries in. . .

327

Gutiérrez KD, Baquedano-López P, Tejeda C (1999) Rethinking diversity: hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind Cult Act 6:286–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10749039909524733 Halliday MAK (1978) Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. University Park Press Herrenkohl LR, Guerra MR (1998) Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cogn Instr 16:431–473. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3 Hogan K, Nastasi BK, Pressley M (1999) Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cogn Instr 17:379–432. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S1532690XCI1704_2 Hudicourt-Barnes J (2003) The use of argumentation in Haitian creole science classrooms. Harv Educ Rev 73(1):73–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.73.1.hnq801u57400l877 Jaber LZ, Hammer D (2016) Learning to feel like a scientist. Sci Educ 100:189–220. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sce.21202 Jurow AS, Creighton L (2005) Improvisational science discourse: teaching science in two K-1 classrooms. Linguist Educ 16:275–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.02.002 Kamberelis G, Wehunt MD (2012) Hybrid discourse practice and science learning. Cult Stud Sci Educ 7:505–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9395-1 Kane JM (2015) Structure and agency in contested science spaces: “Do earthworms eat apples?”. J Res Sci Teach 52:461–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21206 Kelly GJ, Brown C (2003) Communicative demands of learning science through technological design: third grade students’ construction of solar energy devices. Linguist Educ 13:483–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(03)00005-6 Kress G, Van Leeuwen TJ (2001) Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communication. Bloomsbury Manz E (2015) Resistance and the development of scientific practice: designing the mangle into science instruction. Cogn Instr 33:89–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.1000490 Marin A, Bang M (2015) Designing pedagogies for indigenous science education: finding our way to storywork. J Am Ind Educ 54(2):29–51 Marin A, Bang M (2018) “Look it, this is how you know”: family forest walks as a context for knowledge-building about the natural world. Cogn Instr 36(2):89–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07370008.2018.1429443 Martínez-Álvarez P (2017) Special ways of knowing in science: expansive learning opportunities with bilingual children with learning disabilities. Cult Stud Sci Educ 12:521–553. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11422-016-9732-x Martínez-Álvarez P (2019) What counts as science? Expansive learning actions for teaching and learning science with bilingual children. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:799–837. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-019-09909-y Moje EB, Collazo T, Carrillo R, Marx RW (2001) “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. J Res Sci Teach 38:469–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.1014 Morales-Doyle D (2017) Justice-centered science pedagogy: a catalyst for academic achievement and social transformation. Sci Educ 101:1034–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21305 Ojalehto B, Waxman SR, Medin DL (2013) Teleological reasoning about nature: intentional design or relational perspectives? Trends Cogn Sci 17(4):165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013. 02.006 Pickering A (1995) The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. University of Chicago Press Radinsky J (2008) Students roles in group-work with visual data: a site of science learning. Cogn Instr 26:145–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000801980779 Reveles JM, Kelly GJ, Durán RP (2006) A sociocultural perspective on mediated activity in third grade science. Cult Stud Sci Educ 1:467–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0069019-8

328

M. Varelas et al.

Rodriguez AJ, Morrison D (2019) Expanding and enacting transformative meanings of equity, diversity and social justice in science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:265–281. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11422-019-09938-7 Rosebery AS, Ogonowski M, DiSchino M, Warren B (2010) “The coat traps all your body heat”: heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. J Learn Sci 19:322–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10508406.2010.491752 Rosebery AS, Warren B, Tucker-Raymond E (2016) Developing interpretive power in science teaching. J Res Sci Teach 53:1571–1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21267 Shah N, Lewis CM (2019) Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: toward an analytical framework. Cogn Instr 37:423–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019. 1631825 Soja EW (1989) Postmodern geographies: the reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso Solís J, Kattan S, Baquedano-López P (2009) Socializing respect and knowledge in a racially integrated science classroom. Linguist Educ 20:273–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009. 07.003 Varelas M (2018) Dialectical relationships and how they shape (in)equitable science learning spaces and places. In: Bryan L, Tobin K (eds) 13 questions: reframing education’s conversation: science. Peter Lang, pp 183–191 Varelas M, Becker J, Luster B, Wenzel S (2002) When genres meet: inquiry into a sixth-grade urban science class. J Res Sci Teach 39:579–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10037 Varelas M, Pappas CC, Tucker-Raymond E, Arsenault A, Kane J, Kokkino S, Siuda JE (2007) Identity in activities: young children and science. In: Roth W-M, Tobin K (eds) Science, learning, and identity: sociocultural and cultural-historical perspectives. Sense Publishers, pp 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901264_015 Varelas M, Pappas CC, Kane J, Arsenault A, Hankes J, Cowan BM (2008) Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Sci Educ 92:65–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20232 Varelas M, Pappas CC, Tucker-Raymond E, Kane J, Hankes J, Ortiz I, Keblawe-Shamah N (2010) Drama activities as ideational resources for primary-grade children in urban science classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 47:302–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20336 Varelas M, Kane JM, Wylie CD (2012a) Young Black children and science: chronotopes of narratives around their science journals. J Res Sci Teach 49(5):568–596. https://doi.org/10. 1002/tea.21013 Varelas M, Martin D, Kane JM (2012b) Content learning and identity construction (CLIC): a framework to strengthen African American students’ mathematics and science learning in urban elementary schools. Hum Dev 55:319–339. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345324 Varelas M, Pieper L, Arsenault A, Pappas CC, Keblawe-Shamah N (2014) How science texts and hands-on explorations facilitate meaning making: learning from Latina/o third graders. J Res Sci Teach 51:1246–1274. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21173 Varelas M, Tucker-Raymond E, Richards K (2015) A structure-agency perspective on young children’s engagement in school science: Carlos’s performance and narrative. J Res Sci Teach 52:516–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21211 Warren B, Rosebery AS (2011) Navigating interculturality: African American male students and the science classroom. J Afr Am Males Educ 2(1):98–115 Warren B, Ballenger C, Ogonowski M, Rosebery AS, Hudicourt-Barnes J (2001) Rethinking diversity in learning science: the logic of everyday sense-making. J Res Sci Teach 38: 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1017 Zimmerman HT, Reeve S, Bell P (2010) Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Sci Educ 94:478–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20374

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

13

Comparing Reform and Critical Design Studies Phillip A. Boda and Alison Riley Miller

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Importance of Multicultural and Critical Frameworks in Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Background Primer on Design Research: Premises and Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Has Driven Design Research in Science Education Leveraging Technology? . . . . . . . . . . Research in Science Leveraging Technology for Majority Black and Brown Youth Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 2000s: Strengthening Alliances to the Sociopolitical, Albeit Without Technology . . . . . . . The Early 2010s: Constructivism Without Multicultural Commitments – All Bark; No Bite . . . The Late 2010s: Moving Forward Toward Critical, Multicultural Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synergies to Bridge the Apolitical Past Toward Critical, Multicultural Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Directions: The Big “D” of Science Teaching and Learning Left Unexamined . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

330 333 335 337 340 342 345 348 354 354 356 358

Abstract

Research on technology-enhanced learning environments in science education has too often sampled participants from overrepresented populations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees and careers more broadly. Conversely, when design studies leveraging technology have sampled from underrepresented populations, research in science education has lacked focus on these students’ sociocultural and communal assets. Such critical design foci encourage historically marginalized students to engage with the sociopolitical nature of science. While there have been recent efforts to confront inequity in science curricula leveraging students’ communities, identities, and cultural assets, P. A. Boda (*) University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA A. R. Miller Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_3

329

330

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

these studies often neglect to leverage the technological affordances that many normatively centered populations have benefited from in the broader science education literature. This chapter presents thematic findings from 20 years of exploratory and empirical studies utilizing technology-enhanced learning environments in science education design research. In order to emphasize improvements to curricular innovations for science learning among historically marginalized youth over the past two decades, this chapter foregrounds design research approaches as productive spaces for moving toward more socially just science content learning goals. In the end, research serving majority Black and Brown youth suggest that purposeful design of technology-rich science instruction for students who diverge from the normative center of policy, schools, research, and curriculum is a field in its own right. To that end, we argue that researchers and technology developers should infuse the critical goals that are foundational to multicultural science education into research around innovative learning technologies for learners often relegated to the margins in science education research studies. Keywords

Science education · Multicultural · Educational technology · Design research · Critical

Introduction In 1993, Atwater and Riley offered a compelling argument that a more inclusive and critical vision of science education designed specifically to serve Black and Brown youth required a paradigm shift where educators approached classroom spaces with an understanding of and appreciation for historically marginalized students’ cultures. In this context, culture was defined as “an integrated pattern of shared values, beliefs, languages, worldviews, behaviors, artifacts, knowledge, and social and political relationships of a group of people in a particular place or time that the people use to understand or make meaning of their world” (Atwater et al. 2013). Atwater and Riley argued that centering historically marginalized students’ culture in classroom spaces was a foundational goal of multicultural science education and specifically one that embodied a critical eye taken toward what researchers mean when we say students’ success, particularly in the fields of science and mathematics. They emphasize that acknowledging cultural differences between teachers and the students they serve is as important in communities in the United States as it is when teachers serve students in nations far-removed from their own geographical origin. This vision of multicultural science education has endured, though the definition of what makes education “multicultural” is as dynamic and evolving as culture itself. Relatedly, the challenges of integrating technology within multicultural initiatives are well-documented in education research and become most prevalent when researchers seek to design novel learning experiences to meet specific goals such

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

331

as those we analyze here. These goals, we argue, can be defined as either focusing primarily on meeting the top-down reforms required by changing policies and standards (reform studies), or another category of studies that focus on designing learning experiences where students can think critically about how the content can be applied to their lived realities (critical studies) – see Table 1 below for explanations of how we differentiate between these two types of studies. Situated alongside complementary critical discussions around the affordances and limitations of technology, the affordances and challenges around utilizing technology to design for multicultural goals gained prominence during the late 1990s (Chisholm 1998). Integrating technology within Atwater and Riley’s vision of multicultural science education, thus, requires careful alignment to defined goals and the roles stakeholders play in such research inquiries (1993). Damarin (1998) corroborates our claim: “For multicultural educators to adopt technology without a corresponding adoption of multicultural education by technologists would continue the cultural oppression that necessitates today’s work toward equitable and multicultural education” (p. 18). This distinction made by Damarin and previous scholars between multicultural education researchers and their educational technology counterparts (“technologists”) is pertinent, and one we will return to later in the chapter when unpacking studies from our analysis.

Table 1 Definitions and comparisons of reform and critical approaches to design Curriculum “What is the purpose of the learning experience?”

Evaluation “How is success of the learning experience measured?”

Reform studies Design of programs are primarily focused on developing content knowledge and practices specific to meeting the benchmarks of top-down standards reform goals. The curriculum is positioned as apolitical by presenting socially just goals as a secondary, but not primary, focus (Ideland 2018). Applications of content are devoid of students’ lives Measures of success for a program focus on normative population samples (historically centered populations; majority Asian and White contexts) to explore validity and reliability among standardized quantitative metrics often applied homogeneously across contexts where student populations are majority Black and Brown (Martinková et al. 2017). If used, qualitative content analyses lack critical lenses of identity and power

Critical studies Design of programs are primarily focused on developing learners who are “engaged in a continuous transformation in which they become authentic subjects of the construction and reconstruction of what is being taught” (Freire 2000, p. 33). Goals of the curriculum focus on applying content to the sociopolitical realities students face every day Measures of success for a program explicitly focuses on unsettling and unpacking the purposes of quantitative metrics in ways that look specifically at how these metrics may not fully measure the learning in multicultural contexts (Sablan 2019) and developing critically informed scales. Equal value is placed on critical qualitative inquiries to emphasize the importance of identity and power (Mensah 2019)

332

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

In this chapter, we acknowledge that some science education researchers and curriculum designers have made strides toward more inclusive and critical approaches to innovations in learning that center experiences of historically marginalized youth; however, we assert that innovations involving novel technologies continue to lag behind more critical studies, often treating Black and Brown youth as demographic details without centering their identities and experiences in both the research and technology designs. Further, we will argue that design research (DR) approaches, which focus on iterative improvements to learning environments as well as theory-building, are fertile grounds for socially just multicultural science education goals if researchers begin to center the experiences of Black and Brown youth. When we say “socially just” research, we mean those inquiries in science education specific to what Melody Russell, Malcolm Butler, and Mary Atwater have emphasized are the most important questions for multicultural science education and the teachers that seek to serve youth from historically marginalized populations underrepresented in science degrees and careers more broadly: 1. How do we assess high-quality teacher education for multicultural science education, equity, and social justice? 2. What do we find and what should we find relative to culturally relevant teaching when we follow science teachers into their classrooms instructing students? 3. What programs and pathways are successful at educating culturally competent science teachers, and what distinguishes these successful programs and pathways? 4. What can we learn from global and transnational teacher education work on culture, equity, and social justice to assist us in preparing and working with science teachers? (Russell et al. 2014, p. 290). Framing these questions in relation to student learning designed for historically marginalized youth, our primary goal in this chapter is to provide a history of DR studies integrating technologies for reform-based learning, along with a parallel look at the development of more critical research frameworks. In doing this, we suggest both a critique of what has and has not been accomplished while also providing an optimistic picture of the future for research in multicultural science education integrating novel technologies for learning. We use the term “novel technology” not only to describe the ever-changing prevalence and application of technological innovations but to also encompass the purposes for which these tools are used in educational research to help students think critically about how content is relevant to the ways Black and Brown youth experience classroom learning and the oppressive world they navigate on a daily basis. Among the transformational pursuits that framed multicultural science education during the 1990s were many researchers’ efforts to define, design, integrate, and iteratively refine multicultural goals in science education for students who are underrepresented in science disciplines and careers more broadly and who have not been centered within curricular learning goals in science and science education. We argue that because the very fabric of curricular designs used in most science

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

333

education classrooms serving majority Black and Brown youth are wedded to reform-focused, standards-based content learning, there is a missing component where critical and multicultural approaches to science education leveraging technology can and should take hold. In this way, the integration of multicultural science education goals in design research is a powerful method to influence both curriculum and theory, as well to support historically marginalized students to learn science while also empowering them to see and challenge the sociopolitical realities that impact their lives.

The Importance of Multicultural and Critical Frameworks in Design Pivotal early studies provided the foundation from which purposeful designs toward socially just science education research could seed and flourish in later work (e.g., Atwater and Riley 1993; Parsons 2005; Rodriguez and Berryman 2002). This foundation of early studies in multicultural science education research served as guidance for conceptualizing studies involving populations later characterized as multiply marginalized within and outside of science education (i.e., students whose identities exist at the intersection of multiple forms of difference such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and disability in K-12 and post-secondary educational contexts; Annamma 2017; Vernon 1999). Moreover, these pivotal studies of multicultural science education research in the 1990s and 2000s contributed to an abundance of conceptualizations around socially just research that could be leveraged among future science education inquiries. These foundational studies in the field explicitly attended to the sociopolitical aspects of learning contexts. Subsequent studies in science education have built on these notions, with some seeking to disrupt standards-based learning goals by understanding power in relation to science content learning in classrooms serving majority Black and Brown youth (Adjapong 2019; Philip and Gupta 2020) and others placing an emphasis on understanding the role of identity in the development of both teacher and student agency (Dawson et al. 2020; Mensah 2019). The role that critical approaches to science learning plays within classrooms that serve majority Black and Brown youth has become an integral part of the most recent articulations and approaches to multicultural science education research leveraging technological designs. Broadly speaking, the most recent critical approaches to science education serving majority Black and Brown youth have focused on both cognitive and affective goals, although much of this work does not integrate technology in ways that could leverage the affordances of these tools to support sociopolitical science learning that could impact historically marginalized youths’ lived realities. Again, we emphasize the previous challenges that plagued technology designers’ pursuits to serve all students, specifically around how to infuse multicultural goals into educational technology designs (cf. Chisholm 1998; Damarin 1998). These challenges seem more relevant today than ever before in relation to citizens’ science literacy.

334

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

These socially just pursuits opened up possibilities for future research in science education and helped meet ongoing challenges to science teacher preparation that supports all students. Considering the potential of novel technology designs to support and empower historically marginalized learners toward deeper science learning within the context of their lived realities, we contend that a review comparing reform and critical approaches to DR is both necessary and overdue. By critical approaches, we are highlighting DR that pushes beyond the achievement gap rhetoric which centers standards-based reform without adequately, or systematically, engaging with historical forms of structural monoculturalism. This rhetoric, we argue, consistently devalues diverse bodies/minds and the cultures they bring into the classroom. In Table 1, we provide a comparison of reform studies and critical studies in relation to how we categorized these two types of approaches and detail the goals of these different types of studies specific to their curricular program designs and the ways in which researchers measure success of programs or curricula. In doing so, we emphasize that there are already designs often “hidden” in seemingly objective science education research studies that need interrogation and unpacking, noted explicitly by the multicultural science education field (Russell et al. 2014). In order to achieve these critical multicultural goals, science education researchers must attend to curricular and evaluative decisions in design and development – to specifically design with multicultural tenets in mind. These more socially just science learning experiences seek to move students beyond epistemic conditioning, content learning, and practice fluency and challenge previous work that has neglected these critical orientations to science education and technology. One way researchers can embody this more critical approach to designing curriculum using technology and evaluating the success of that curriculum is to help students apply what they learn in ways that can impact their consciousness of the sociopolitical contexts in which they live, and the communities of cultural practice to which they are affiliated. This approach embodies the fundamental tenets of multicultural science education in that it focuses less on how to “teacher-proof” a curriculum or how to have students merely learn science content in ways that meets the standards of the day. Instead, this critical turn afforded by multicultural science education explicitly supports that the cultures and identities students bring into classrooms should shape the ways in which they learn science content and also inform how they view themselves within the broader social contexts of the discipline. This chapter examines research since the proliferation of multicultural science education research in the 1990s, specifically 2000–2020. The focus is on the curriculum and evaluative decisions that have driven technology development and utilization in science education during these two decades, with specific attention to studies whose focus population consists of majority Black and Brown youth. Through our examination of DR conducted with historically marginalized populations, we attend to the ways in which critical goals have or have not been integrated across curricula and evaluative approaches to that research. A primary goal of this work is to draw attention to which approaches to curriculum and

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

335

evaluation are used, explicitly categorizing studies found in our queries as being reform studies or critical studies according to our framework in Table 1. The chapter is intended to help researchers, technologists, and curriculum designers illuminate ways in which socially just multicultural science education is taken up across curriculum and the evaluation of these projects. However, while we reviewed and present notable studies from design research across the past 30 years, our inclusion of studies is by no means exhaustive. We chose, instead, to highlight those DR studies that represented national (US) and international contexts, while also using the studies noted as exemplars of the type of strengths and barriers these group of DR studies showcase. To this end, we recognize that there are limitations to our selections for DR studies across this time and want to note that much of these limitations stem from the maximum number of references we were allotted based on the publishers’ guidelines for authors. However, we did review most DR studies during this time and believe our selections represent a general set of thematic patterns in this work. In sum, we argue that science education designed to center the lived realities of Black and Brown youth can and should leverage technology and use it in ways that promote sociopolitical awareness, self-determination, and agency (Freire 2000). The chapter ends by providing implications for designing and leveraging technology to support students in broader multicultural goals, focusing on both transformative means and ends.

A Background Primer on Design Research: Premises and Purposes Design research (see Kelly et al. 2014 for a handbook-size review of this approach to educational research) can be characterized as an inquiry into the design process itself, as well as a scholarly endeavor through which researchers can improve learning environments in education to meet specifically designed goals. Further, DR as a methodology can be leveraged to explore and ameliorate socially unjust conditions in ways that align with the fundamental tenets of multicultural science education (i.e., to design learning such that students’ cultures are an explicit feature of the learning context and program goals: Atwater and Riley 1993; Parsons 2005; Rodriguez and Berryman 2002). Through this approach, researchers can and, we argue, should harness the intentional and iterative nature of DR in ways that specifically support youth outside the normative center of policy, school, research, and curricular designs. They can do this by inviting historically marginalized populations to become critical participants in their own learning where positional identity development is nested in disciplinary foci in response to injustices that students and their communities face on a daily basis. In such novel research approaches, there is equal importance placed on methodological decisions, the intervention goals themselves, what is learned through the iterative design adaptations, and how we choose to evaluate success of a curricular program. Design research, therefore, holds promise as an approach for responding to inequities across learning environments because of both its iterative and pragmatic nature

336

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

(implementing interventions and evaluating the success of those studies), as well as the potential to generate new knowledge and expand on existing theories. DR in science education, however, is not without critique and is also not without a needed review of what has been done so far to serve majority Black and Brown youth among these past research programs. As science education scholars from around the world have reported, many research projects designed to serve historically marginalized student populations struggle to move beyond reform goals that focus primarily on standards-based learning toward scalable and lasting transformations for all students’ cultures being valued in these learning experiences (cf. Krajcik and Mun 2014; Li et al. 2010; Marx et al. 2004). Needless to say, these studies have become far too prevalent in the history of DR in science education, and frequently are devoid of any integrative goals that specifically value students’ cultures in design decisions to make science relevant to these students. This reality demands a need for infusions of multicultural tenets and the critical goals embodied in these approaches to challenge the ways that these past studies have fallen short. Moreover, wellintentioned researchers have sometimes engaged in DR to serve historically marginalized students but have been less likely to move beyond standards-focused science learning as the final measure of success for the project. Therefore, moving toward more critical learning goals that support multicultural science education for all (with and without technology) remains a prominent goal in science education research, curriculum, and evaluation of program success for the future. To be clear, there are many examples of science education DR studies focused on scaffolds for supporting Black and Brown youths’ science learning, yet these studies defer multicultural pursuits in their curriculum, instead prioritizing meeting policy standards (e.g., Kim 2016; Quintana et al. 2004). There are also many science education studies focused on behavioral measures of participation related to the nature of science and inquiry within urban contexts, showing powerful impacts on diverse students’ motivation to learn science (see Hasni et al. 2016 for a review of studies of this kind). Such exploratory and empirical studies should not be overlooked or discounted for their importance in advancing science education research. However, while they share historically marginalized students’ experiences in urban science classrooms, they do not design specific interventions focused on disrupting systemic inequities within the pedagogy, curriculum, and assessments used in these contexts. In addition, these studies struggle to challenge oppressive structural and ideological realities students face in relation to how science is used to subordinate their positionalities: They do little to pay into the education debt of racism embedded in schooling structures that has accumulated at the service of colorblind ideology and Whiteness as property in science education (Mensah 2019). In sum, this chapter argues that researchers should push the field further, designing toward critical and multicultural science education goals and moving away from primarily focusing on helping students meet standards-based content learning without incorporating students’ cultural assets within the design process, as well as the ways such programs are measured as successful implementations of curriculum. Additionally, study designs should shift beyond describing the critical elements that operate performatively to position students in negative ways. Instead, these designs

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

337

should position researchers and critical practitioners to take up more socially just stances within their inquiries and interventions. These parameters illuminate the persistent challenges within the design process for science education researchers to pursue multicultural ends. For example, Whiteness as property and other dynamics of privilege and normativity that remain problematic constructs in science are not fully unpacked with teachers and students (Mensah 2019). Therefore, research designs that would most benefit from de-homogenized science teaching and learning are an ongoing struggle in our work. Technology, then, has a role to play in these critical pursuits toward a multicultural science for all. But in order to harness the potential of these educational technologies as transformative tools to lead to more socially just means and ends in science learning, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers must move beyond issues of access and standards-focused reform goals.

What Has Driven Design Research in Science Education Leveraging Technology? In the 1980s, anxiety over US educational and economic standing in the world specifically tied to the release of the governmental report A Nation at Risk spurred heated rhetoric around a perceived “rising tide of mediocrity” (U.S. Department of Education 1983). While this work was, in hindsight, superficial to the lived experiences of historically marginalized groups in America, this reality subsequently spawned a national focus on educational reform efforts around standards and how to measure student learning across groups. Among these efforts were dual endeavors related to educational technology access and development, with a focus on technologies that could be “scaled up” to improve lagging student performance in science and mathematics. This discussion around access, and more specifically around student performance on both national and international standardized assessments, largely set the tone for research in science education for the next decade. The narratives surrounding assessment and achievement, indeed, were aimed at increasing student performance to close the racialized and socioeconomic-based “achievement gap” (Ladson-Billings 2006). Thus, DR during this time mirror some of these tensions that are still being taken up in the learning sciences field (cf. Mensah 2019; Morales-Doyle 2017; Philip and Gupta 2020). The use of DR to investigate educational technologies may be seen as a methodological response to long-standing critiques of the way new technologies are often pushed into classrooms by non-educator reformers. In Cuban’s (1986) overview of the history of what technological innovations brought to schools during that time, he referred to the “The exhilaration/scientific-credibility/disappointment/teacherbashing cycle in which reformers view teachers as inert, reluctant, obstacles to change” (1986, pp. 5–6). Cuban further leveled the critique that reformers historically devalued teachers’ unique expertise around children and schooling rather than privileging those voices in their research efforts and design innovations. The tendency to blame teachers when educational technologies fail to transform teaching

338

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

and learning was additionally well-documented in the 1980s and 1990s (Cuban 1986). Partially in response to growing critiques that teachers’ voices should be “bolstered rather than belittled” (Cuban 1986, p. 6) and that educational interventions should result in pragmatic improvements, the 1990s and 2000s saw the development and implementation of DR frameworks for educational research. In many design studies, teachers were often positioned as partners in both the research design and development rather than being positioned simply as implementation experts for curriculum and sequencing modifications; however, challenges still remained of how students’ cultures would or would not play a role in the design of science education curriculum. The period from 2000 through 2010 saw considerable momentum in the use of DR as a framework guiding research around learning environments (Anderson and Shattuck 2012). While policy researchers were studying technology integration in schools with a focus on access, educational technology researchers and learning scientists were increasingly using design frameworks to explore the impacts of novel computer technologies on student learning and motivation (Anderson and Shattuck 2012; Kelly et al. 2014). Because DR was developed in the context of the learning sciences and educational psychology, it is not surprising that researchers using DR have been more likely to ground their work in cognitive and learning theories (e.g., situated learning, distributed cognition, etc.) than in more critical frameworks used by multicultural researchers that sought to place value on the lived experiences of Black and Brown youth as a pivotal approach to socially just research. This oversight among learning scientists conducting DR created several missed opportunities because the power of critical and multicultural frameworks in unveiling and articulating inequities. DR studies developed to improve specific aspects of learning environments, but lacking this critical lens, have failed to empower researchers and teachers to address social justice within study design foci. It is also notable that while some design studies were situated in urban contexts (e.g., Squire and Jan 2007), most only accounted for student demographics as a contextual detail, if at all. In such cases, students themselves were neither engaged in the development process for the technological innovation nor in the study design. Rather, they merely served as test subjects. For example, Squire and Jan (2007) introduced Mad City Mystery, an augmented reality game intended to support students’ engagement in scientific argumentation in the context of placebased, locally relevant environmental issues. Set in Lake Mendota, near Madison, Wisconsin, the game intentionally explores environmental pollutants that impact local residents, with researchers even noting disparities in the potential exposures of lower-income residents who are more reliant on local fish as a food source. Despite these laudable design elements, researchers missed an opportunity to foreground the intersections between poverty, race, and environmental degradation in Mad City Mystery and to invite students into that conversation; instead, researchers focused more narrowly on students’ performance related to elements of scientific argumentation, which we categorize here as a reform study due to its heavy reliance on meeting science standards rather than infusing a participatory

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

339

model for research design and/or integrating more robust sociopolitical dimensions for learning (Table 1). Similar design studies of curricular technological innovations were often piloted through exploratory and empirical research to see if they produced results in the form of student learning or increased engagement across historically marginalized samples of study participants. These studies focused on investigating how computer technologies might increase motivation and learning. Those goals, referencing our above section, that aligned with the evaluation and assessment of programs focused on the reform efforts of No Child Left Behind. In most of these cases, the technological innovations themselves were simply not designed to disrupt the status quo of classroom culture or to amplify the voices of Black and Brown students consistent with critical and multicultural educational goals taken up more broadly. But this persistent focus on monocultural reform efforts begs the question: Research “for whom” and “to what ends”? While most design studies leveraging the affordances of educational technology during this period remained focused primarily on development and testing of the intervention itself, some researchers began shifting the conversation around design to include discourse centered around “social empowerment” (Barab et al. 2005). In their DR study around development of Quest Atlantis, a 3-D multi-user environment in which students engaged in disciplinary practices to investigate socially relevant queries, Barab and colleagues addressed the issue of discursive shift in the use of technology among such inquiries directly, stating: While these well-designed programs, software applications, and online communities have supported deep understandings and novel practices, less common in this design work is an agenda that has the goal of exposing and transforming inequities. It is in the service of an altruistic agenda that we have taken up socially responsive design, which has at its core the goal of designing sociotechnical structures that support users and those communities in which they are nested in their own transformation. (2005, p. 91)

This emphasis on constructing theory and improving understandings related to learning environments while also empowering study participants became more central in emerging dialogue around the parameters of DR as an approach in the learning sciences. By the mid-2000s, more educational technologies were intentionally centering student agency as a salient design feature where students’ opportunities to at least partially choose the direction of learning were put into focal arguments about success of the intervention. For instance, Barab et al. (2005), importantly, emphasized their efforts to get to know their participants and respond to their preferences, detailing their “triadic foundation for design” in which they integrated design goals related to building student understanding, engagement, and social commitment (p. 89). Significant strides were made during this time toward better understanding the affordances and challenges of educational technologies for student engagement and learning (Klopfer and Squire 2008; Wang and Reeves 2007), and that research should be applauded. Nonetheless, even studies paying careful attention to

340

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

multicultural education pursuits were not always well-aligned with critical goals set forth in more recent literature to emphasize socially just goals. This methodological blind spot was noted by Amiel and Reeves in 2008 who asserted: Many educational technology researchers adhere to a value-free discourse regarding the role of technology. There is a spotlight on the value of technology only to the extent that it has, or does not have an effect on learning-related variables . . . This positions educational technology researchers and practitioners at the end of the technological process, continuously testing new devices based on educational values that are not necessarily laudable. (p. 32)

The progression of research in science education during this time period saw parallel momentum in both research studies designed to increase learning and learner motivation through the use of technology and in studies emphasizing greater inclusion and attention to representation in science degrees and careers. Disappointingly, though, the purposeful integration of critical and multicultural goals within the research design itself, across the curriculum, and in the ways researchers evaluated success of these programs, were still largely missing from the conversation in science education serving Black and Brown youth when leveraging technology in these novel technological research investigations. In this way, the potential of DR had not been fully realized as a powerful and, we argue, even disruptive research approach to education that values culture (see, e.g., Koch et al. 2019; Kontokosta et al. 2016). With this broader outlook on DR in mind, the question remains: What was being done within (multicultural) science education that leveraged technology for K-12 populations underrepresented in science?

Research in Science Leveraging Technology for Majority Black and Brown Youth Contexts Science education research projects conducted in urban contexts are not all the same in intent or implementation. What is described in science education as “urban” has become synonymous with the term multicultural. This is not the case, and so there is a need for clarity. Milner (2012) provides an explanation based on his extensive research experience working in contexts researchers would label as urban in their personal and professional assessments: “. . .urban education typically has some connections to the people who live and attend school in the social context, the characteristics of those people, as well as surrounding community realities where the school is situated” (p. 558). This definition departs from the often used meaning of “urban” in science education research that is limited to contextual details like geographic location and population density in metropolitan areas, which (sometimes) are predominantly populated by Black and Brown youth. Yet, taking a closer look at studies that claim to be of the urban science education type, we have found that “urban,” indeed, gets codified as solely a geographic location but can invariably represent student populations that are highly affluent and consisting almost entirely of overrepresented students already prevalent in

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

341

science degrees and careers. This tension of reporting “urban” as a term and not addressing urban as a set of circumstances that describe how we can understand those multiply marginalized in these contexts across race, gender, sexuality, class, and disability depicts an inaccurate reality of Black and Brown youth. Instead, Milner’s characterization of urban is inclusive of community resources and cultural realities like the existence of social inequities, hegemony, and unjust school policies. Similarly, Castagno (2013) cautioned against the use of “multicultural” to characterize education taking place in urban contexts or as an acknowledgment of the presence of Black and Brown youth without explicit naming of racial hegemony, privilege, and the dynamics of power: . . .when multicultural education was engaged by real teachers . . . it became both everything and nothing. It was everything because multicultural education was used to describe the “good education” that most everyone seemed to be doing. But it was also nothing because it was void of any meaning related to greater equity and systemic social change. Rather than working to dismantle whiteness, multicultural education ended up protecting and thus perpetuating whiteness. (p. 122)

Without drawing these important distinctions around the use of urban and multicultural, normative power is reified and the need for more critical goals neglected. In other words, when describing urban contexts in a field like science education, the power of the research done serving historically marginalized students rests in a set of social circumstances that are defined head-on by the research goals, designs, and the ways researcher envision the leveraging of novel technology such that students’ generational heritages and localized communities of cultural practice are valued in the learning process (Annamma 2017; LadsonBillings 1995, 2006). This perspective challenges researchers to move beyond defining urban contexts using static characteristics related to geography and population toward more critical multicultural intents that seek to dismantle the persistence of positional marginalization among poor Black and Brown youth that are often not participants in research studies involving technology in science education because of the complex social milieu that makes it an arduous but, we contend, much more valuable research endeavor. Adopting this approach toward critical, urban science education also highlights the importance of power, agency, and differential capital bartered by stakeholders in these contexts, which illuminates the critical purpose of research with and through theories of positional identity (Mensah 2019), students’ agency for learning science (Philip and Gupta 2020), and the long lineage of work done in multicultural science education (cf. Atwater and Riley 1993; Atwater et al. 2013; Parsons 2005; Rodriguez and Berryman 2002; Russell et al. 2014) toward these goals. This layered and nuanced understanding provides a critical lens through which we analyzed the past 20 years of DR leveraging technology in service of Black and Brown youths’ cultures being crucial components to designing science learning experiences and to imagine more critical future research in multicultural science education.

342

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

The 2000s: Strengthening Alliances to the Sociopolitical, Albeit Without Technology In the last two decades, we have seen the lack of attention paid to how technology is often designed and leveraged in urban contexts for science education without broader multicultural aims. Studies using technology-enhanced science curriculum in urban-intensive contexts (see Milner 2012) from 2000 to 2010 illuminate the difference in goals between critical multicultural aims and reform commitments. The latter emphasizes science education for urban students as standards-focused content learning without interrogating meaningful sense-making by students to apply the content in sociopolitical ways, nor does it advance systemic change to the culture of schooling. Studies during this time highlight the continued emphasis of monocultural hegemony and Western modern science embedded in their research design goals around curriculum and evaluation, and thus we categorize them largely as reform studies. Such benchmarks were designed and aimed specifically to measure and meet standards-focused curricular goals, with evaluations of success of such programs lacking critical theoretical perspectives and instrumentation development beyond normatively centered populations. Most importantly, these reform studies lack the depth and thick descriptions of how Black and Brown students make sense of the science content in ways that are applied to their lived realities. The corpus of work around the early 2000s sheds light on the consistent pursuit of technology integration among historically marginalized populations in ways that emphasize standards-focused notions of success in science education research. The focus of this work capturing active learning tenets such as participation, inquirybased instruction, and the relevance of the science content learned for content acquisition rather than socially just applications relevant to students’ lived realities (Marx et al. 2004). For example, in their 2004 study, Marx and colleagues evaluated the success of their large-scale collaboration with Detroit Public Schools that integrated technology for diverse youth with respect to how these students performed on science content test scores aligned to the standards at the time. In turn, while they situated the technology-enhanced curriculum to have Black and Brown youth explore their local contexts as sites where science could be applied, there remained a positivist methodological quality in their methods that sought to measure the impact of this curriculum based on statistical tests’ significance levels being met and estimating effect sizes. More importantly, though, while the curriculum Marx et al. (2004) used was designed collaboratively with school personnel, there was no such inclusion of students’ voices and cultures in this design. This, we argue, is embodied by the type of driving questions that speak to using Western modern science tenets of investigative inquiry within students’ locales while including neither a sociopolitical element as the primary driver of that questions nor the students’ own questions: “How can I build big things?”; “What is the quality of air in my community?”; “What is the water like in my river”; “Why do I have to wear a helmet when I ride my bike?” (pp. 1066–1067). This is not to say that these researchers, and others, did not collaborate with district partners and teachers in an attempt to support historically marginalized

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

343

students toward learning science using technology. However, the curricular and evaluative decisions made in projects during this time focused on support for standardized, reform-based science learning. Missing was a focus on socially just, critical, and multicultural aims to disrupt the status quo of research and practice and in turn help students advocate for changes in their community to not just describe the science in their context but use it to affect sociopolitical change. In other words, while the researchers focused on meeting the state standards, they might have also focused on the ways in which those content standards represent specific social and political alignments. This shift presumes competence for Black and Brown youth and encourages rigorous science instruction while infusing multicultural goals. Recognition that standards and assessment-driven reforms shape and shade the quality of student outcomes is one step toward acknowledging and disrupting systemic injustices that presents barriers for underrepresented students in science classrooms, degrees, and careers. Without such intentional acknowledgment, we assert that many of these research studies lack the critical goals we have outlined in Table 1 across the curriculum itself and the ways they evaluated success that situate the power of multicultural science education attending to the lived sociopolitical realities students face and valuing their cultures. Collectively, work around this time primarily sought to ameliorate achievement gaps related to standardized metrics of disciplinary success. However, they did not actively and purposefully seek to address the “whiteness in the room,” the normative center from which all other positionalities and successes are measured in relation to what is deemed “successful.” More importantly, whiteness as a form of capital that directly feeds off of systemic injustices and positions hierarchies among races was not the primary goal for technology-based research in science education during this time. Without such explicit addressing of whiteness, power, and disciplinary hegemony, these studies succumbed to monocultural alignments across curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in ways that Castagno (2013) has articulated that many researchers and stakeholders do. Instead, much work that took place in urban contexts around this time focused on the importance of pedagogical factors without analyses of the sociocultural context students may be influenced or plausibly transformed by. For example, in their cross research analytic essay, Fishman and colleagues model this focus on reform-based science learning using technology. In their concluding remarks on technology and partnerships with school districts who serve Black and Brown youth, they discuss where power, agency, and the positionality of students are absent. They suggest that this is a function of both the curriculum itself and the contexts in which it is implemented, holding researchers accountable for their designs: Why have so few cognitively oriented learning technologies found a place in the everyday practice of teaching and learning in K–12 schools? We argue that a primary reason is that research to date has not focused on issues of how such innovations function at the level of school systems. This results, in part, from the fact that much design-based research focuses on a designed product or resultant theory and not the system variables that impact the scaling potential of the work beyond the sites where the research was carried out. We have argued for extending or conception of design-based research to include research on system-level issues

344

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

that impact the scalability, sustainability, and ultimately the usability of innovations. (Fishman et al. 2004, p. 69; italics added for emphasis)

This lineage of urban science education leveraging technology for standardsbased academic improvement among Black and Brown youth saw parallel critique from more sociopolitical perspectives around these aims in the broader field, though not specifically leveraging technology. For example, Rodriguez and Berryman’s 2002 article-within-an-article structure provides a set of sociopolitical commitments aligned against science education research inquiries being pursued at the time, which they suggest hold powerful promise for understanding multicultural classrooms as sites where critical understandings of content could take hold: Although we agree that social constructivism provides a broader orientation for the study of teaching and learning, we hold that both social and individual constructivism ignore the concept of agency as the bridge that connects new knowledge with transformative action. In our view, a school curriculum must present students with socially relevant and challenging new knowledge so that they – in collaboration with their teachers – can engage in meaningful dialogue and become more active members of their communities. . . . To this end, traditional teaching methods and views of curriculum need to be reconceptualized to recognize school curriculum as a site of struggle and to recognize teaching and learning as political acts. (p. 1020; italics in original)

The lack of concerted research at these technological intersections suggested a need for future inquiries around these topics in science education and served as a catalyst for change in the field. During this time, researchers also began to forge new paths in science education that were aligned with multicultural science education goals like challenging the normative center of schools (i.e., schooling practices and policies that disproportionately advantage white, affluent students). Although the use of technology in the vast majority of work during this period did not focus on critical goals, some work divested from this normative center within science education research. At the same time, critiques around the shortcomings of many urban science education studies (sans socially just and multicultural aims) were prominent outside research centering technology use (Shanahan 2009). This alluded to a need for change in the curricular designs and evaluative decisions for such studies serving youth typically underrepresented in science degrees and careers. Discouragingly, many of the studies infusing critical and multicultural science education goals into socially just learning experiences for all students did not include technology-enhanced science learning in ways that challenged the status quo. Researchers such as Barab et al. (2005) and Squire and Jan (2007) did as we suggest above. They encouragingly articulated “socially responsive design” commitments and “post-progressive” approaches in design studies leveraging the field of serious games to “learn and think like scientists.” Unfortunately, the design features for such commitments fell under categorizations such as “diversity units” or “diversity play” (Barab et al. 2005) or engaging students in thinking that would be “socially valuable.” Researchers asked students to develop scientifically aligned

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

345

argumentative discourse and “authentic inquiry” rather than purposefully attempting to expose and disrupt socially unjust circumstances that such discourse may have uncovered (e.g., Squire and Jan 2007). This separation of particular units to meet “multicultural aims” might be characterized as multicultural goals “lite.” Such additions to research in DR framed, very explicitly, the struggle for many researchers to meet more radical sociopolitical goals related to multicultural science education with and without technology. In some of these early efforts toward infusing multicultural goals, researchers developed “pieces” of projects intended to address forms of inequity. However, without centering critical and multicultural goals throughout the design process, researchers fell short of designing and iterating socially just science education research that leveraged the affordances of technology. The first decade of the new millennium, therefore, can be described as a strengthening of sociopolitical alignments within broader purposes of science education without technology. However, the studies completed up to this point still lacked an explicit, centralized goal on criticality to inform their curricular designs and evaluative decisions. Such integrations were also not present in much of the work during this time infusing technology in science serving historically marginalized youth in urban education contexts. This lack of explicit and purposeful design across all elements of curriculum design and evaluation was, unfortunately, a persistent challenge moving forward in the next decade of research around science education leveraging technology and, we argue, remains a critical goal for multicultural science education.

The Early 2010s: Constructivism Without Multicultural Commitments – All Bark; No Bite Outside of science education during the 2000s, multicultural scholars continued to reiterate the importance of not utilizing technology to replace “good teaching” (i.e., Ladson-Billings 1995). They cautioned against assigning technology as a substitute for the pedagogical, dialogic, and political roles teachers play in classroom teaching and learning. At the onset of the 2010s, there remained a sustained use of technology that would be rightfully characterized as “purposeful apolitical design,” or, in our categorization, reform studies. For example, Li et al. (2010) conducted research on developing scientific disciplinary knowledge and the impact of technology for eMentors across rural and urban contexts. Their concluding remarks echoed similar past work: Without diversity of topics and population-sensitive guidance, the novelty of technology is not leveraged well to improve students’ collaborative learning processes. This work was significant in pushing technology integration forward, especially given the previous lack of multicultural tenets and principles explored in science teaching and learning. Notably, it pointed to the integral role that youth as participant-designers can play in the iterative development of curricular innovations aimed at supporting sense-making among Black and Brown youth, a step that we could characterize as crucial to critical studies.

346

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

Here, we discuss the work that illustrates multicultural science education research in this era to showcase that technological integrations toward critical aims around this time were marginal, at best. We include studies that did leverage technology along with studies that did not leverage technology to highlight the prevalence of reform studies across the broader multicultural science education literature in relation to the dearth of studies utilizing technology for historically marginalized youth. We suggest that Chisholm (1998) and Damarin (1998) both would argue that scholars on both sides of the technology/multiculturalism divide need to be held accountable for these missed opportunities for critical inquiry. While there were noteworthy gains, this corpus of work leveraging technology in science education still largely lacked socially just designs that could be characterized as critical and multicultural vis-à-vis how we have characterized this typology of research. Duran and Sendag’s (2012) work is one example of the continuation of the heavy reliance on standardized quantitative measures around technology use in science education for Black and Brown students without corroborated qualitative measures to deepen the qualitative nuances that could be measured if such findings aligned to students’ voice being valued as part of the learning about the content. In their Fostering Interest in Information Technology (Fi3T) program, Duran and Sendag (2012) utilized an experimental quantitative design as their methodology. Their project-based curriculum for students sought to measure and model geographic information system (GIS) data and evaluate the success of the project based on assessment measures of reasoning and inference skills (Duran and Sendag 2012). This work was done through a collaboration between high school students, K-12 STEM teachers, undergraduate and graduate student assistants, and content experts across university and private sectors. In this study, students focused on measurement, modeling, and mapping as part of their science learning; yet, across the curricular goals, all activities were decontextualized from any type of application that would relate to students’ lived realities and cultures. This attention to relevant application, we would argue, is crucial to embody a multicultural approach to such work. Unfortunately, studies such as this upheld the status quo of constructivist traditions in relation to technology integrations for youth learning but refrained from engaging with the political dimensions of the work itself. Further, it did not engage students in sense-making around how to apply the content they learned in ways that might disrupt socially unjust circumstances in their communities. Meanwhile, scholars drawing from socially just and critical traditions leveled direct critiques of the role of science teachers in the process of creating generative curriculum to meet the needs of students who are underrepresented in science degrees and careers. These scholars sought to move beyond standards-focused goals that drew on monocultural assumptions embedded in much of the work in science education around this time. One such project we found exemplifies an attempt to bridge some tenets in multicultural science education using technology, however subtle. The CincySTEM iTEST projects (Beckett et al. 2016) dove deeply into how to design project-based science in ways that would increase “engagement,” “participation,” and “college readiness” among urban high school students. This work also produced a curriculum which aimed to move students beyond abstract

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

347

science concepts toward relevant understandings and action steps. In the end, this work examined how to support diverse students in ways that had not been researched thoroughly in the past, effectively integrating goals that we define here as critical with the more prevalent reform design goals of the period. It should be no surprise that literature reviews around that time exploring technology use in science (such as mobile devices; Crompton et al. 2016) further support the claims we make here about the focus of such work on designing the technology and studying its effects on populations of students related to disciplinary reforms without explicit focus on critical and socially just science aligned to multicultural goals. These works, then, told a story of upholding the purpose of science education to merely meeting standards without leveraging students’ cultures as sites of rich knowledge to inform curriculum and to challenge unjust sociopolitical realities they endure. Corroborating these findings around the dearth of critical and multicultural technology use in science education contexts for historically marginalized youth, Davis et al. (2016) provided a systematic review of the state of the field by researching science teachers’ taking up of the process of designing curriculum materials. This analysis is noted here because it speaks to the state of science education curricula up to this time, as well as the lack of sociopolitical lenses utilized in such work. In their review, Davis et al. (2016) illuminate how much work being done was focused on sociocultural elements related to interaction between teacher, student, and the implemented curriculum. However, this research lacked (a) specific inclusion of how technology mediates relationships between teacher, students, and curriculum and (b) attention to power and agency among stakeholders. Both of these remain crucial to a more thorough understanding of how learning sciences research can explore ideology, interaction, and identity. Like that of Rodriguez and Berryman (2002), Philip and Gupta’s (2020) recent review echoes the state of the learning sciences around power, agency, and the positionality we take up as definitively aligned with the goals of multicultural science education and critical studies: These studies show local constructions of science and their alignments with dominant representations of race and gender in science rather than assuming the inevitability of gendered and racialized exclusion in science. While the resonance between the local construction of science and its hegemonic representation is disheartening in both studies, they problematize assumptions of top-down determinism and suggest the possibilities of localized constructions that are robust enough to mitigate or resist the effects of dominant ideologies . . . Taken together, the articles give added meaning to the claim that all teaching and learning are political, ethical, and ideological, accentuating that each moment of teaching and learning is consequential as teachers and students continually and jointly renegotiate power and possibility in every interaction. (p. 203, 213)

Davis et al.’s (2016), as well as Philip and Gupta’s (2020), work highlights the ways in which science teaching and learning were being designed with teachers to reduce inequity for students underrepresented in science degrees and careers. Monocultural scholarship in science education serving Black and Brown youth leveraging technology, however, was not alone in its silence or lack of interdisciplinary crosspollinations that would align with critical and multicultural goals.

348

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

Hasni et al. (2016) analyzed project-based science leveraging technology and found similar reform study commitments nested in constructivist and socialconstructivist designs. Specifically, these monocultural commitments were embedded in the descriptions of guiding principles used to design curriculum among these studies and their iterative improvement. The interactive design process leveraged from one study in this review of the literature exemplified the fundamental monocultural and apolitical alignments held stringently by researchers across the studies reviewed related to project-based science utilizing technology during this time: Challenges were identified after analyzing the preceding data, and adjustments were targeted. For example, better alignment of learning performances with standards, information on inquiry practices and coherence of evaluations with the learning goals. The adjustments identified were used to produce a second version of the curriculum materials. (Hasni et al. 2016, p.214)

This is unsurprising when the central feature highlighted by such studies collected in their review maintained a commitment to “authentic” and “realworld” problems that produced analyzable artifacts concurrent with standardsfocused conceptual growth among students but did little to include the voices, cultures, and lived experiences of Black and Brown students living in urban contexts. In turn, the studies reviewed for this piece (Hasni et al. 2016) were relatively devoid of any critical commitments central to constructivism as a larger philosophical orientation. Instead, such studies and reviews lacked any considerable attention and/or purposeful design decisions made toward critical constructivist traditions that have different aims in science education than their social-constructivist counterparts (e.g., Morales-Doyle 2017; Rodriguez and Berryman 2002). While some critical constructivists in science education avoid technology use and interrogation of how these tools could challenge the status quo, they do showcase opportunities for new areas of inquiry focused on harnessing more critical methods of design when leveraging technology. The research conducted in the field of science education for historically marginalized populations in the early 2010s leveraging technology shows a constructivism that was “all bark, no bite” when related to critical goals. However, there were shifts in the late 2010s, giving rise to works that framed new visions for leveraging technology in science education designed to serve Black and Brown youth in ways that both sought to focus on the tenets of multicultural science education and the critical study components we analyzed.

The Late 2010s: Moving Forward Toward Critical, Multicultural Possibilities Up until this time period, DR in science education leveraging technology was lackluster in critical approaches that emerged and developed from the foundations of multicultural science education throughout the late twentieth century. What is

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

349

showcased over the last 5 years is a more concerted effort toward these goals, though some studies still align strongly with standards-focused research. Kim (2016) provides one such study of the latter kind – again, with the goal of meeting and reaching girls in an “urban-intensive” context. And while Kim’s goals did improve overall attitudes and career aspirations in science, the methods used, the curriculum designed, and the evaluative decisions made were still aligned with previous research around this same topic: “How can we get more students who are underrepresented in science degrees and careers interested in science?”. What should be emphasized here is that these standards-focused goals are not to the detriment of historically marginalized students. In fact, they give credence to exploring multicultural goals in science education using technology because they built the foundation from which critical inquiries can draw and provide suggestions for iterative design. What we are pointing out, though, is that students in programs such as Kim (2016) echo study goals 20 years in the making. This begs the questions: What has changed? And what will need to happen to affect change in science education for Black and Brown youth such that their voices, cultures, and identities are not seen as secondary but as primary sources from which designs for their science learning experiences should draw? And what can we learn from work that has changed? Science education scholarship leveraging technology and seeking to serve Black and Brown youth like Kontokosta et al. (2016) with their “Quantified Community Citizen Science” program, Daubenmire et al. (2017) with their “Families, Organizations, and Communities Understanding Science, Sustainability, and Service” (FOCUSSS) program, and Cristie and Berger (2017) with their “Game Engines for Urban Exploration” program exemplify notable progress toward multicultural goals. These works seek to leverage critical sense-making, moving beyond simply integrating students who are underrepresented in science disciplines and careers within reform study approaches, toward science teaching and learning that engages students, their families, and their communities in critical study approaches. These are, however, not the only studies to foreground multicultural goals in their designs in science education and technology beyond normatively centered students. Further studies sought to help diverse students learn science in ways that go beyond top-down reform and meeting science content standards as the primary focus. It is these studies that we suggest are ripe examples of how critical, multicultural science education should be implemented with students’ culture in mind. As Bevan (2017) pointed out in their review of Making, the infusion of technology in science education for underrepresented populations demands critical design and development: An overreliance on makerspaces and maker tools, rather than on pedagogy and relationships, reflects the contemporary technocratic currents transforming much of social life around the globe and leaving many behind. As this promising and exciting way of engaging with STEM is further developed and researched in educational settings, it is paramount that its fundamental purpose – liberatory learning and creative self-expression in ways that reflect the traditions of Dewey, Vygotsky and Freire – remains a key focus and area of inquiry. (p. 99)

350

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

In science education research focused on leveraging technology for learning, this statement showcased a bold proclamation on the importance of critical and multicultural designs being primary, rather than secondary, to research efforts when designing learning experiences for Black and Brown youth. Further, it underscored the importance of socially just research in science education, no matter students’ background, culture, or identity. Bevan’s (2017) statement explicitly framed a prominent goal of science learning, which is to engage with students beyond the normative center historically privileged by science education policy, research, pedagogy, and curriculum. This critical reflection illuminated a shift in the use of technology in science education such that future inquiries designed to serve Black and Brown youth might serve multiple goals. Beven called for researchers to move beyond the standards-focused and monocultural commitments in the field (many we have presented here) by prioritizing a commitment to disrupt that status quo and afford students a multicultural science learning experience that centers their voices, cultures, and identities as a primary design focus. This call from within science education, we assert, was a disruptive breakthrough moment regarding learning technology and, specifically, one that challenged the status quo in research. These studies and reviews up to 2019 provided a glimpse at the ways in which researchers leveraging technology in science education could think about the relationship between space, place, and method to infuse more critical theorizations and operationalizations of multicultural science education in pursuit of socially just research goals. The work up until this point also positioned the field to embark on a clustered period of innovation that would sweep into reality a set of studies redefining the field altogether. In turn, the past 2 years of research published in science education leveraging technology toward critical and multicultural approaches hold promise for this field’s importance. One commendable and prominent push toward such goals was the development of the Science Genius (BATTLES) program by Edmund Adjapong, Christopher Emdin, and GZA from the Wu-Tang Clan (Adjapong 2019). This cross-disciplinary collaboration conceptualized, designed, built infrastructure for, and scaled up Science Genius in New York City. Science Genius leverages a variety of novel technology infusions; students use technology to create, refine, disseminate, and critique science rap lyrics across contexts and topics. The program also explicitly values students’ voices, cultures, and identities, engaging Black and Brown youth in New York City on their own terms by centering the five tenets of hip-hop to motivate science learning. As Adjapong (2019) explains: Through participating in the Science Genius Program students were exposed to alternative approaches to learning anchored in their culture, which they believed could benefit and promote future learning. While students highlighted empowering experiences while participating in the Science Genius Program, they also described having positive connections with their teachers and Science Genius Hip-Hop ambassadors . . . researchers realized that through using Hip-Hop culture, the Science Genius Program provides opportunities and encourages urban youth to engage in and explore science in the program and possibly during college. Through using Hip-Hop as a culturally relevant tool, we argue that urban students gain cultural capital as it relates to science and may find themselves self-electing to take

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

351

science courses or engage in science experiences. Through the Science Genius Program, students experienced empowering moments and developed positive relationships with teachers and community members, which support students’ comfortability and affinity for science as a content. (pp. 23–24)

This technology-enhanced research in science education for historically marginalized students provides a guiding set of principles toward critical futures for multicultural science education in the past 7 years. Namely, leveraging students’ cultures in ways that not only address the standards of the day but also explicitly seek to value students’ ways of knowing, interacting, and constructing knowledge, they trust to encourage them to engage with science as a method to explain the unjust, sociopolitical realities they experience and endure. Adjapong and Emdin’s work represents the power of purposefully designed research with Black and Brown youth positioned as participant-designers and iteration experts. The primary goal of the research aligns with critical and multicultural approaches and explicitly departs from the cultures of neglect which have persisted for diverse youth in science education for more than 20 years (Adjapong 2019). Indeed, we do agree that the science education field is shifting. There is new importance being placed on culture, relationality, and affect. Within this context, the use of technology is being reimagined in ways that, arguably, would have never been possible before. In one such example, scholars such as Dawson et al. (2020) have explored mobile devices as forms of technology to develop students’ science identity in informal contexts; Koch et al. (2019) in their Girls Innovating With Technology as Entrepreneurial Environmental Engineers (InnovaTE3) sustained critical constructivist collaborations in DR to learn about and develop ecologically sustainable innovations; and Morales-Doyle (2017) has emphasized the role that technology played in justicecentered science pedagogy (JCSP) among collaborative curriculum development with students and teachers beyond the normative center to explore sociopolitical applications of science content beyond the scope of the ascribed standards. Similarly, Kahn (2020) has leveraged data visualization, technology, and dynamic modeling tools to develop students’ family geobiographies, emphasizing the power of critical technology use through storytelling in (data) science education. In sum, these design initiatives are reflexive. They embody the fundamental tenets of critical approaches in multicultural science education and infuse explicit and purposeful challenges to reform aims in science education research. These goals are not just infused into the curriculum; they are among the methodological shifts that move beyond post-positivist/social-constructivist traditions toward more critical and pragmatic approaches embodying the importance of technology and multiculturalism in science education. The evaluation of their research designs also showcases commitments to disrupting the normative centers for measuring success beyond those prescribed in standards-based reform. Here the outcome for such a research study centers sociopolitical consciousness-raising and building sociopolitical critiques of unjust social circumstances, which is an integral component for any asset-based research agenda more broadly (Annamma 2017; LadsonBillings 1995, 2006). In (Table 2) we provide as a comparison of select studies that

352

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

Table 2 Comparing reform and critical design studies: two cases as exemplars Reform example (Beckett et al. 2016, p. 998) Curriculum “What is the purpose of the learning experience?”

Evaluation “How is success of the learning experience measured?”

Students “calculate energy costs, energy consumption, and costsaving measures . . . learn about issues surrounding the availability of potable water through explorations of local water . . . learn the science of genetics . . . [and] measure, calculate, and present results related to the motion and speed of objects” “. . . data were analyzed to discern levels of affective participation, the extent to which students liked, took an interest in, and felt positive about the . . . projects, and behavioral participation, whether students actually behaved as engaged or disengaged participants”

Critical example (Morales-Doyle 2017, pp. 1035–1049) “How can curriculum in an advanced high school chemistry course support marginalized urban students to succeed academically while taking up urgent issues of social justice identified by their communities? [and] whether and how a community identifies a particular problem as an urgent issue of social justice” “. . . data from interviews, student lab reports from the soil project, and family science night shows students positioning themselves as transformative intellectuals whose academic achievement was interwoven with the development of critical consciousness”

exemplify the differences between reform and critical types for clarity of our argument and its power. As illuminated in Table 2 above, there is a stark difference between what we have categorized as reform and critical studies in relation to the design of the curriculum for historically marginalized youth in science education and the ways in which these researchers evaluated success for these learning experiences. Comparing Beckett et al. (2016) and Morales-Doyle (2017) in terms of their curricular goals notes this divide in purposing the work. Beckett et al.’s study sought to use technology (i.e., sensors) to aid in students measuring specific forms of data and asking research questions that had no specific infusion of students’ cultures or their communities in relation to how to design these curricular goals (2016). While one might view learning about “local water issues” as moving beyond reform, the goals of this work were merely to collect data to analyze and ask research questions. Through this project, there was no explicit design goal to include students’ own explorations of their communities, nor was there a sociopolitical dimension to learning science that sought to trouble the status quo. They did include teachers as a collaborative DR project, and we commend them for this inclusion; however, the goals were specifically aligned with a top-down “meeting the standards” focus that neglected any relevancy and relationality to students’ lives and the realities of their community. Conversely, Morales-Doyle actively engaged students by understanding the science situated in their local community contexts and supporting a multicultural approach to teaching and learning science that was intimately tied to addressing “an urgent issue of social justice” (2017, p. 1036). Through this project, Morales-Doyle

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

353

used spectroscopic technology to help students “compare the concentrations of lead and mercury in [their community collected] soil samples with state regulations” (2017, p. 1043). These students, along with various school and community stakeholders and officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, then organized a family science night to inform local families on the plausible connection between “the residual impact of decades of coal power plant pollution” (Morales-Doyle 2017, p. 1043) and the soil composition where these families reside. Indeed, it should be evident by this radical comparison between the goals of merely meeting standards to help students develop their research skills devoid of any localized applications with little sociopolitical dimensions for learning (i.e., Beckett et al. 2016) and the powerful learning experiences leveraging technology in Morales-Doyle’s study where students, community members, and government agency officials worked together to describe the ways in which science not only exists in the lived realities of these stakeholders but also exhibits how this science can affect their daily lives (e.g., lead and mercury poisoning that could happen if children ingested/were exposed to this soil over time). In relation to how these scholars evaluated “success” of these projects, their approaches also mirror this bifurcation of purpose between reform and critical studies in our categorization schema: Beckett et al. (2016) sought to evaluate affective and behavioral participation in the projects, rather than the critical and sociopolitical sense-making that is apparent in Morales-Doyle’s (2017) approach to see students as “transformative intellectuals whose academic achievement was interwoven with the development of critical consciousness” (p. 1049). It is evident that these two studies sought to tell two very different tales about what science teaching and learning can be while leveraging technology within schools populated by historically marginalized youth. Notable as well are the explicit design decisions made in both curriculum and evaluation processes that illustrate differences between critical studies where students are positioned as “authentic subjects of the construction and reconstruction of what is being taught” (Freire 2000, p.33) and reform studies, where students are positioned as recipients of designed curriculum that seeks to meet standards with little regard to students’ agency or critical consciousnessraising. This is the power and differentiated curriculum and evaluation goals that we impress here are integral for any multicultural science education pursuit. In this way, the end of this decade (2010–2020) marked a tangible line in the sand, providing a preview of what might be possible in science education with technology designed to explicitly serve the learning needs and sociopolitical realities Black and Brown youth face daily. We have seen that the integration of critical and reform goals can be made a reality if researchers and technology developers decide to actively and explicitly commit to these approaches. And while these works by the aforementioned scholars are notable for their novel shifts toward critical goals, this scholarship was (and often continues to be) the exception to the rule. In other words, science education research integrating technology is often defined by its central commitments to standards-based reform with little attention to sociopolitical issues. What is still needed in the field of science education for historically marginalized students when leveraging technology is a reality that has not yet come to fruition:

354

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

The critical study tenets we propose and apply as our analytic lens here (Table 1) still need greater integration across all science teaching and learning. We unpack these limitations in our concluding section. This is done with a respectful nod to these previous pioneers in both the learning sciences and multicultural science education research, without whom the field could not have advanced. As others have done, this chapter seeks to push the envelope of what has been investigated and the methods by which those investigations have been undertaken in order to improve socially just research within science education and in particular for those students who are most vulnerable due to multiple marginalization. It is these students who have largely been left behind in efforts to infuse multicultural goals in science education leveraging technology, and it is these students who, by contributing to novel and transformative purposes of educational technology designs use, could impact multicultural science education in the future. With these tensions in mind, we envision new, critical futures for research inquiries that wish to embody multiculturalism.

Concluding Remarks This chapter described and elaborated how design foci, research goals, and evaluative procedures established for educational technology research in science education can serve to either disempower historically marginalized students (as with monocultural, standards-based, reform-driven studies) or empower those students toward greater agency and consciousness in more critical learning environments, curriculum, and methodological designs. In order to lay the groundwork for this argument, an overview of educational technology research in science education highlighting studies that foregrounded critical and multicultural perspectives in their design was presented. Further, the chapter explored design research (DR) and design-related inquiries as potentially fertile, although under-realized, methodological approaches for studies of this kind. Our argument therefore pushes socially just research in multicultural science education to consider the impact technology use can have when designed specifically to serve Black and Brown youth in ways that move beyond monoculturalism and the apolitical hegemony of much of the work done in the past. In this vein, our primary contention in this work is that while some progress has been made, the vast majority of commitments to integrating technology for historically marginalized youth in science fails to meet multicultural goals.

Synergies to Bridge the Apolitical Past Toward Critical, Multicultural Futures Since its inception, DR has focused largely on learning theories established within the context of educational psychology and the learning sciences. However, critical and multicultural theorists have much to offer in the field by way of integrating and engaging critical dialogues within the fabric of educational technologies and studies

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

355

designed to implement and improve them. In their 2014 chapter, Krajcik and Mun argue that the goal of learning technologies is to support learners toward developing integrated understandings. They define this as the process by which students connect the ideas they bring to the classroom with the more normative ideas constructed by scientists, in turn developing sophisticated sense-making capacities. Is this an ambitious goal? Yes, absolutely. Does it challenge the hegemony wedded in science disciplines that historically valued one specific voice, culture, identity, and way of viewing the world? No. Indeed, researchers in the field of educational technology have made great strides in establishing guidelines for scaffolding learners toward this goal of complex scientific sense-making (see, e.g., Quintana et al. 2004). However, this singular focus, consciously or not, privileges situated and cognitive theories of learning at the expense of more critical and multicultural goals related to identity representation, content relevancy, and disruption of the normative center of schooling which is deeply embedded in the designs of science education policy, research, and curriculum. Krajcik and Mun (2014) do point to a lack of relevancy in some “driving” or “key” scientific questions being investigated as a factor impacting participation of women and underrepresented youth in science degrees and careers (e.g., “How do viruses spread?” versus “Why do some viruses disproportionately impact black and brown communities?”), but that is where the discussion of this “challenge” ends. Multicultural science education researchers and learning scientists may ground their work in divergent paradigms and methodologies, but there is an opportunity for a rich interplay between these groups of researchers within the context of DR, which we argue here is burgeoning with fruit ripe for cultivation and harvest. This is a critical inflection point in the learning sciences and multicultural research where educational technology may achieve greater impact within design studies constructed and implemented in conversation with critical researchers who can, as Damarin (1998) argued, educate technologists about the imperative need for critical, multicultural goals within their designs. Prior research has established the complex and nuanced factors that impact student achievement and disciplinary treatment in ways which can exacerbate or ameliorate educational inequities related to race, class, gender, and privilege (Philip and Gupta 2020). Why, then, does the development of educational technologies not explicitly involve embedding critical goals into the design process itself? Echoing Damarin (1998), the implementation of educational technology by multicultural educators to support historically marginalized learners will not achieve its full potential unless educational technologists, likewise, take up multicultural goals in the development of those technologies. Amiel and Reeves (2008) leveled a similar critique, offering two declarations specific to technology as inherently political and tied to systems of oppression that should be taken up by all stakeholders in the research process: First, researchers must begin to question their research methods due to the complexity of the environment under study. Investigations of how a "tool" does or does not affect educational outcomes are too simplistic. Second, researchers must question the values that are guiding

356

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

research agendas, actively engaging with practitioners in constructing what constitutes valuable research in order to help direct technological development rather than react to it. (p. 32; emphasis added)

Only when both technology designers and science education researchers address critical and multicultural goals as salient and intentional design features, and align implementation study methodologies accordingly, will the potential of these novel technologies for both learning and disrupting the status quo in favor of more socially just educational outcomes in science be fully realized. However, pushing the field forward from more “armchair” epistemological conversations will necessitate a shift toward the pragmatic. Toward this end, we call on our colleagues to enact and infuse critical and multicultural science education research goals into both the fabric of research design and the evaluation of its success. Only then can educational technology design and research move beyond a monocultural hegemony and standardsfocused reform paradigms toward a new critical, multicultural, and socially just orientation for equitable science education in the twenty-first century. This request follows that researchers then design ways that explicitly infuse students’ cultures and lived realities into DR in ways that value their ways of knowing and sociopolitical dimensions of the content in science and beyond. Finally, while the goal of DR is to be iterative, allowing for both the construction and refinement of design principles and revision of the artifacts, many studies that do continue past the first iteration focus only on monocultural and standards-based effects (Anderson and Shattuck 2012). In order to advance multicultural goals in science education, it seems that researchers, practitioners, and students will benefit from a commitment to multiple iterations of the work specific to critical approaches alongside measuring monocultural benchmarks of success. Maintaining these dual foci within iterative cycles may allow deeper questions and critiques to germinate within the study design and redesign process. DR is often characterized as a “humble” methodology (Amiel and Reeves 2008), acknowledging the complexities of real-world learning environments and the limitations of proposed design interventions. DR, design-related studies, and design experiments focused on serving Black and Brown youth in urban contexts, therefore, must add another dimension to this framework. It must weave purposeful and intentional focus on more critical goals into the development of artifacts and processes and throughout the iterative revision of these learning experiences such that students’ voices, cultures, and identities are integral across all parts of the design process. In this vein, we provide suggestions for areas of exploration not taken up by DR and multicultural science education.

Future Directions: The Big “D” of Science Teaching and Learning Left Unexamined Multicultural science education research is not without its own limitations in the ways the field conceptualizes complex sociocultural identities. One demographic that is consistently marginalized even within the multicultural science education

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

357

community are students labeled with disabilities (Boda 2019) and those students multiply marginalized at the intersections of disability and race (Annamma 2017; Vernon 1999). This conceptual and disciplinary segregation of disability as separate-but-equal from diverse markers of difference such as race, class, and gender in terms of its impact on classroom learning experiences calls upon us all to take pause. Disability, among most science education research, is treated as an individual impairment rather than a generative identity category with its own history and epistemological power. For far too long, multicultural inquiries in science education have relied on their special education counterparts to define and analyze the place for disability in relation to equity. In turn, there is a need to radically re-center the purpose and promise of multicultural science education to support those most vulnerable to the negative effects related to the imposition of monocultural and standards-focused aims such as those students at the nexus of more formally represented identities like race, class, and gender, as well as those students whose disability label positions them as “unable” to participate in science. Recent reviews of research for students with disabilities in science education mirrors this technocratic commitment with little attention paid to more critical and multicultural approaches (cf. Knight et al. 2020; Villanueva et al. 2012). The maintenance of standards-focused goals in science education for these students is not without contending rhetoric. Sullivan and Thorius (2010) have pushed multicultural education theorists across disciplinary foci to conceptualize what culturally and linguistically diverse students labeled with disabilities means for the larger field of multicultural education. Moreover, Boda (2019) embraced such interrogations within multicultural science education specifically. What is needed given such invisibility is a re-engagement with this population to explore the ways in which technology can be designed specifically to move beyond monocultural commitments that exclude these students by design. In turn, what we are asking here as a final tension in the field of multicultural science education is similar to what has been asked above: How can criticality be infused into the goals we have for all students learning science? And do we dare take up this constantly evolving, tireless, and nuanced task? The importance of interrogating race in education is a highlight for multicultural research; however, if we are to integrate Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz’s (2019) argument as a central tenet toward critical and multicultural designs, then socially just orientations in science education and education research more broadly could not be accurately described as “magic”: They are purposeful; they emphasize that students “deserve to be acknowledged, included, and seen for all of their complexity of being humans. Not magical. Just Human.” (p. 48). To disregard any student’s identity and relationalities in this body of work toward transformation is unacceptable, and we as critical and multicultural science education researchers would do well to pay more attention to the manifestation of disability in our classrooms and our persistent lack of focus in the design of learning environments leveraging technology for these socially just means and ends. In the end, as many critical and multicultural science education theorists have emphasized before us, we demand that all students

358

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

be seen for their valuable perspectives in the design of the learning environments they experience and, specifically, in ways that infuse their voices, cultures, and identities in the curriculum by design.

References Adjapong E (2019) Towards a practice of emancipation in urban schools: a look at student experiences through the science genius battles program. J Ethnic Cultural Stud 6(1):15–27. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/136 Amiel T, Reeves TC (2008) Design-based research and educational technology: rethinking technology and the research agenda. J Educ Technol Soc 11(4):29–40 Anderson T, Shattuck J (2012) Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educ Res 41(1):16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813 Annamma SA (2017) The pedagogy of pathologization: dis/abled girls of color in the school-prison nexus. Routledge, New York Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspective, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77(6):661–668 Atwater MM, Woodward U, Hillsman N (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful forecasters of science learning and performance. [Special issue]. Theory Pract 52(1):6–13 Barab S, Thomas M, Dodge T, Carteaux R, Tuzun H (2005) Making learning fun: quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educ Technol Res Dev 53:86–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504859 Beckett GH, Hemmings A, Maltbie C, Wright K, Sherman M, Sersion B (2016) Urban high school student engagement through CincySTEM iTEST projects. J Sci Educ Technol 25:995–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9640-6 Bevan B (2017) The promise and the promises of making in science education. Stud Sci Educ 53: 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380 Boda PA (2019) Conceptualizing the margins in science education: the limits of multicultural analyses. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:493–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09926-x Castagno AE (2013) Multicultural education and the protection of whiteness. Am J Educ 120: 101–128. https://doi.org/10.1086/673121 Chisholm IM (1998) Six elements for technology integration in multicultural classrooms. J Inf Technol Teach Educ 7:247–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759399800200033 Cristie V, Berger M (2017) Game engines for urban exploration: bridging science narrative for broader participants. In: Nijholt A (ed) Playable cities. Springer, Singapore, pp 87–107 Crompton H, Burke D, Gregory KH, Gräbe C (2016) The use of mobile learning in science: a systematic review. J Sci Educ Technol 25:149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x Cuban L (1986) Teachers and machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. Teachers College Press, New York Damarin SK (1998) Technology and multicultural education: the question of convergence. Theory Pract 37(1):11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849809543781 Daubenmire PL, van Opstal MT, Hall NJ, Wunar B, Kowrach N (2017) Using the chemistry classroom as the starting point for engaging urban high school students and their families in pro-environmental behaviors. Int J Sci Educ Part B 7(1):60–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21548455.2016.1173740 Davis EA, Janssen FJ, Van Driel JH (2016) Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in science education 52(2):127–160. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03057267.2016.1161701 Dawson E, Archer L, Seakins A, Godec S, DeWitt J, King H et al (2020) Selfies at the science museum: exploring girls’ identity performances in a science learning space. Gend Educ 32: 664–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1557322

13

Educational Technologies for Multicultural Science Learning

359

Duran M, Sendag S (2012) A preliminary investigation into critical thinking skills of urban high school students: role of an IT/STEM program. Creat Educ 3:241–250. https://doi.org/10.4236/ ce.2012.3203 Fishman B, Marx RW, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J, Soloway E (2004) Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. J Learn Sci 13(1):43–76 Freire P (2000) Pedagogy of freedom: ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Oxford Hasni A, Bousadra F, Belletête V, Benabdallah A, Nicole MC, Dumais N (2016) Trends in research on project-based science and technology teaching and learning at K–12 levels: a systematic review. Stud Sci Educ 52:199–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1226573 Ideland M (2018) Science, coloniality, and “the great rationality divide”. Sci & Educ 27:783–803 Kahn J (2020) Learning at the intersection of self and society: the family geobiography as a context for data science education. J Learn Sci 29:57–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019. 1693377 Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of design research methods in education: innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York Routledge Kim H (2016) Inquiry-based science and technology enrichment program for middle school-aged female students. J Sci Educ Technol 25:174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9584-2 Klopfer E, Squire K (2008) Environmental Detectives–the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development 56:203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6 Knight VF, Wood L, McKissick BR, Kuntz EM (2020) Teaching science content and practices to students with intellectual disability and autism. Remedial Spec Educ 41:327–340. https://doi. org/10.1177/0741932519843998 Koch M, Lundh P, Harris CJ (2019) Investigating STEM support and persistence among urban teenage African American and Latina girls across settings. Urban Educ 54:243–273. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042085915618708 Kontokosta CE, Johnson N, Schloss A (2016) The quantified community at red hook: urban sensing and citizen science in low-income neighborhoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08780 Krajcik JS, Mun K (2014) Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In: Lederman NG, Abell SK (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, New York, pp 337–361 Ladson-Billings G (1995) But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Pract 34:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675 Ladson-Billings G (2006) From the achievement gap to the education debt: understanding achievement in US schools. Educ Res 35(7):3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003 Li Q, Dyjur P, Nicholson N, Moorman L (2010) Using videoconferencing to provide mentorship in inquiry-based urban and rural secondary classrooms. Can J Learn Technol 35(3) Martinková P, Drabinová A, Liaw YL, Sanders EA, McFarland JL, Price RM (2017) Checking equity: why differential item functioning analysis should be a routine part of developing conceptual assessments. CBE—Life Sci Educ 16(2):rm2 Marx RW, Blumenfeld PC, Krajcik JS, Fishman B, Soloway E, Geier R, Tal RT (2004) Inquirybased science in the middle grades: assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. J Res Sci Teach 41:1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20039 Mensah FM (2019) Finding voice and passion: critical race theory methodology in science teacher education. Am Educ Res J 56:1412–1456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218818093 Milner HR (2012) But what is urban education? Urban Educ 47:556–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042085912447516 Morales-Doyle D (2017) Justice-centered science pedagogy: a catalyst for academic achievement and social transformation. Sci Educ 101:1034–1060 Parsons EC (2005) From caring as a relation to culturally relevant caring: a white teacher’s bridge to black students. Equity Excell Educ 38(1):25–34

360

P. A. Boda and A. R. Miller

Philip TM, Gupta A (2020) Emerging perspectives on the co-construction of power and learning in the learning sciences, mathematics education, and science education. Rev Res Educ 44: 195–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903309 Quintana C, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Krajcik J, Fretz E, Duncan RG et al (2004) A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J Learn Sci 13:337–386. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s15327809jls1303_4 Rodriguez AJ, Berryman C (2002) Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for understanding in diverse classrooms: a beginning teacher’s journey. Am Educ Res J 39:1017–1045 Russell ML, Butler MB, Atwater MM (2014) Conclusion and next steps for science teacher educators. In: Atwater MM, Russell ML, Butler MB (eds) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Routledge, New York, pp 285–291. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-007-7651-7_7 Sablan JR (2019) Can you really measure that? Combining critical race theory and quantitative methods. Am Educ Res J 56:178–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218798325 Sealey-Ruiz Y (2019) Excluded from the beginning: black, female, and born in the Bronx. In: Boda PA (ed) Essays on exclusion: our critical, collective journey toward equity in education. DOI Publishers, New York, pp 39–51 Shanahan MC (2009) Identity in science learning: exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Stud Sci Educ 45:43–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057260802681847 Squire KD, Jan M (2007) Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a placebased augmented reality game on handheld computers. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):5–29. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z Sullivan AL, Thorius KAK (2010) Considering intersections of difference among students identified as disabled and expanding conceptualizations of multicultural education. Race Gender Class 17:93–109 United States Department of Education (1983) A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. National Commission on Excellence in Education, Washington, DC Vernon A (1999). The dialectics of multiple identities and the disabled people’s movement. Disability & Society, 14:385–398. Villanueva MG, Taylor J, Therrien W, Hand B (2012) Science education for students with special needs. Stud Sci Educ 48:187–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117 Wang SK, Reeves TC (2007) The effects of a web-based learning environment on student motivation in a high school earth science course. Educational Technology Research and Development 55:69–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9016-3

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

14

Tzu-Hua Huang and Yi-Jiun Li

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Reading Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indigenous Students’ Access to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indigenous Students’ Reading Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culturally Responsive Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digital Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Picture Books and E-Books That Incorporate Indigenous Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Popular Science Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

362 363 366 367 368 370 373 374 375 376 378 381 382

Abstract

Students’ learning is closely related to teaching materials. However, teaching materials reflecting cultural backgrounds, social environment, mode of thinking, and learning in Taiwan are typically associated with the Han people’s learning styles, which is entirely different from that of indigenous students. Lacking such cultural background connections makes it difficult for indigenous students to understand the teaching materials that reflect the Han students’ learning method. This results in their reduced comprehension of language-based subjects, such as the comprehension of scientific concepts, and overall decreases their interest in learning. However, research indicates that culturally responsive teaching allows indigenous students to learn Han culture. This approach to teaching combines emerging technologies and is in line with indigenous students’ learning styles, T.-H. Huang (*) · Y.-J. Li Department of Education, University of Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_15

361

362

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

overall significantly improving their learning interests and success in science. The chapter explores how culturally responsive teaching and designs of a popular science e-book can serve as teaching materials to understand the reading and comprehensive ability and learning performance for science content knowledge of indigenous students. The popular science teaching materials are written both in indigenous’ mother languages and Chinese, with accompanying audiobook. These materials integrate indigenous culture with science and math and model culturally responsive learning approaches for indigenous students to improve popular science knowledge. It is hoped that culturally responsive teaching would improve indigenous students’ learning interests and effects and strengthen their confidence within the dominant culture of schooling in Taiwan. Keywords

Multicultural · E-reading · Taiwanese indigenous students · Popular science · Reading comprehension

Introduction Taiwan is a country located in the Asia Pacific with many ethnic groups. The indigenous population is approximately 567,000, or 2% of Taiwan’s total population. There are 16 indigenous tribes on Taiwan’s island, each with its own culture, language, customs, and social structure. Indigenous tribes are an essential part of Taiwan’s history and culture (Council of Indigenous Peoples 2019), and each tribe passes down the history and culture of their ancestors. Studies have pointed out that non-indigenous students in Taiwan have significantly better reading performance than indigenous students in the national standardized exam (Lin 2000). At the same time, there is a greater variance in indigenous students’ reading performance compared to non-indigenous students (Lin 2000). Indigenous peoples mainly passed down their culture and traditions orally and not through text. Moreover, the words, terms, and grammar of their native language are different from standardized Mandarin used in school instruction. This makes it difficult for many indigenous people to comprehend or translate instructional material that uses Chinese text. This, in turn, affects their comprehension of language-based subjects, such as the comprehension of scientific concepts (Wang and Chang 2009; Liao et al. 2010). Popular science is all scientific information that is not aimed at specialists in the field in question. The term is often used to refer to types of knowledge made easy to understand using a less standardized scientific style of communicating and increasing public scientific literacy (Lin et al. 2015). Popular science education uses easyto-understand ways for the general public to understand science (Lu 2009). The goal of science curriculum development from elementary school to middle school in Taiwan has gradually turned from elite specialty-driven education to public scientific literacy (Liu and Chiu 2012). The development of popular science text and digital readers cannot be overlooked to make science education more accessible and meet

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

363

learners’ needs. For example, technological developments in the area of digital readers changed the way we read. In the field of digital reading, “electronic reading” presents contents by digital media. Readers can read digital content, either online or offline. This model removes many instructional delivery restrictions on place, time, and other physical environmental factors for indigenous students and allows disseminating knowledge to be more flexible. Digital reading methods include e-books, e-newsletter, and webpages. Sutherland (2004) believes that the interactive functions of e-books encourage teachers and students to explore issues jointly and develop students’ habit of actively participating in class, forming a collaborative community of inquiry that guides students to think actively. Korat and Shamir (2012) pointed out that e-books, combined with interactive multimedia functions, effectively improved students’ reading comprehension. Similarly, studies in Taiwan also found that indigenous students felt that audiobooks are essential to their learning (Lin 2009a, b). The teaching cycle using audiobooks involves repeatedly listening, viewing images, and reading text. Reading with audiobooks is more intuitive (Wu 2006) and might be a better approach to meeting indigenous students’ general learning styles.

Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples It is estimated that there are over 5000 indigenous tribes worldwide with a total population of 300 million people or more. According to a report issued by the Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues (1987), groups that are defined as indigenous tribes have the following four elements: (a) Their ancestors lived on the land before foreign settlers arrived; (b) they are not dominant in the current society; (c) their culture is different from other groups that represent the majority of the population in the country; (d) they decide for themselves whether their members belong. The cultural differences and not being dominant are the same as the definition of minorities by the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights (Lee and Xu 2000). The UN and its subordinate organizations have varying definitions: (a) Burger (1987), At the core of the meaning of being identified as an indigenous people is their cultural difference, i.e., having a different language, religion, social and political structure, moral values, scientific and philosophical knowledge, beliefs, legends, laws, economic system, technology and art, clothing, music, dance, architecture, etc. (b) Cobo (1986): Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that have a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or are parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society. They are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity based on their continued existence as peoples by their cultural patterns, social institutions, and legal systems. (c) Anaya (2004): Indigenous people are ethnic groups that inhabited the land before the dominant sector of society and strived to

364

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

maintain their distinct culture. (d) Colchester (1984): Differentiates between tribal people and indigenous people and believes that tribal people are the meaningful category. (e) International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1986): Indigenous people are the descendants of the land’s inhabitants before the country was formed. Indigenous people are a specific group of people living in a particular region and have a distinct culture different from other groups that they identify with. Considering the aforementioned definitions peoples and according to Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law (Council of Indigenous Peoples 2015), Taiwan defines indigenous peoples as: “The traditional peoples who have inhabited in Taiwan and are subject to the state’s jurisdiction, who regard themselves as indigenous peoples and obtain the approval of the central indigenous authority upon application.” Taiwan was long inhabited by Austronesian peoples before the large-scale migration of Han people to Taiwan. It is at the northern end of Taiwan that Austronesian peoples are distributed. Austronesian peoples in Taiwan can be divided into indigenous tribes and Pingpu tribes, in which indigenous peoples can be divided into 16 tribes, most of which have retained their language customs and tribal structure. Still, they are facing the issue of rapid modernization. Most Pingpu tribes have lost their original language and customs and urgently need to increase their efforts to restore their language and culture. Most indigenous people in Taiwan live in mountain areas and rural townships, where there are relatively insufficient educational resources. Hence 567,000 people, or about 2% of Taiwan’s total population, are indigenous people. At present, indigenous peoples that are recognized include Amis, Atayal, Paiwan, Bunun, Tsou, Rukai, Puyuma, Saisiyat, Yami, Thao, Kavalan, Truku, Sakizaya, Sediq, Hla’alua, and Kanakanavu. As of the end of 2019, the population of Taiwan’s indigenous people was 571,427 (267,721 flatland indigenous and 303,706 mountain indigenous). Among them, the Amis has the largest population, followed by the Paiwan and the Atayal. And tribal demographics are as follows: Amis (213,368), Paiwan (102,625), Atayal (92,014), Bunun (59,497), Truku (32,292), Puyuma (14,512), Rukai (13,462), Sediq (10,436), Saisiyat (6735), Tsou (6698), Yami (4680), Kavalan (1494), Sakizaya (984), Thao (816), Hla’alua (413), and Kanakanavu (355). Indigenous peoples in Taiwan each have their own unique culture, and each inherits the long history and culture of their ancestors (Council of Indigenous Peoples 2019). Figure 1 is a map that shows the location of indigenous tribes (Data sources: Taiwan Indigenous People’s knowledge Economic Development Association 2012). Almost a decade ago, Damm (2012) indicated that Taiwan is gradually developing and being perceived as a multicultural society, a phenomenon emerging alongside its democratization and pluralization since the 1980s. Today, the Taiwanese discourse on multiculturalism focuses mainly on the four ethnic groups mentioned in the official discourse: the Hoklo (fulao), the Hakka (kejia), the Mainlanders (waishengren), and the indigenous population, usually referred to as the Indigenous (yuanzhumin). After implementing the grade 1–9 curriculum in 2001 in Taiwan, the emphasis on school curriculum autonomy, the establishment of a school-based curriculum, and the integration of community culture into the local school curriculum have become

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

365

Fig. 1 The map of location indigenous tribes in Taiwan

the characteristics of each school’s development. Among the basic dispositions addressed in the grade 1–9 curriculum are “humanistic feelings” and “local and international awareness” that respectively reveal the spirit of understanding oneself, respecting and appreciating others, different cultures, local feelings, patriotism, and world outlook. Complementary to the basic dispositions are the ten basic knowledge practices of grade 1–9 curriculum that include “cultural learning and international viewing” and advocates for learning different ethnic cultures, understanding and appreciating the history and culture of the country and the world, understanding the global village of the world as a whole, and cultivating a world view of mutual dependence, trust, and assistance. Inspired by the concepts of “multiculturalism” and “school curriculum autonomy,” indigenous schools have developed ethnic culture into school-based courses with indigenous cultural characteristics. In addition to the “ethnic education activities” offered in the ethnic education resource classroom and the “developing ethnic education and cultural features” planned by the education priority area, the indigenous school also designs themed courses that integrate indigenous cultural characteristics. The integrated activities account for most of the course content, forming a relevant school-based curriculum with indigenous cultural characteristics (Chou 2008). For example, Lin (2020) indicated that Taiwan’s indigenous people have

366

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

lived on this land for a long time and established a long-term space use method in Taiwan, which can be called “traditional ecological knowledge.” However, in the course of historical development, the impact of multiple foreign powers brought governmental rule to Taiwan, and the indigenous peoples of Taiwan faced various impacts on language, religion, economy, land, and education. In order to recover the educational subjectivity of indigenous peoples, under the framework of ethnic education, the education content must be based on the indigenous knowledge and education that belongs to indigenous peoples. In Taiwan, indigenous culture is very different from the Han culture, and the various ethnic groups have very different lifestyles and customs. However, the traditions and culture of any ethnic group deserve to be respected and appreciated. Conflict and exclusion can only be reduced through understanding and learning. The chapter discusses indigenous culture and explores ways in which to improve indigenous learning experiences.

Importance of Reading Comprehension In terms of the definition of reading, many people might think that “seeing” text means they are reading. In actuality, this is not true. Wang (2010) regards it as “not just ‘seeing’ text, but also ‘comprehending’ the text that counts as reading.” Vacca et al. (1991) believed that reading is the acquisition of information from written text and the process and behavior of constructing meaning on this basis. Reading is an activity that requires a considerable amount of effort, and the main factor that often determines whether students read or not is motivation (Baker and Wigfield 1999). The presentation and design of text also play key roles in motivating students to learn. Furthermore, reading is a complex skill that involves many abilities and techniques. Gagné et al. (1997) divided the reading process into four parts: decoding, literal comprehension, inferential comprehension, and comprehension monitoring (Wang 2010). Moreover, if teachers can remind and provide assistance to students in different reading processes, it will help students better understand the text. Reading ability is the foundation of learning different disciplines. Students need to learn reading techniques and learn how to read to be able to learn independently. Hence, reading is viewed as a basic skill in life (Castles and Coltheart 2004) and a foundational part of literacy skills. In Taiwan, Zeng (2001) explored the language ability of Atayal students and found that not only did Atayal students generally have a lower level of literacy, their reading comprehension skills were also weaker in “sentence comprehension,” “reading comprehension,” and “proposition combinations.” Kung et al. (2012) found that not only the Atayal students’ literacy and auditory comprehension performance lagged behind Han students, but these two factors can predict the reading comprehension ability and indicate reading comprehension ability of the indigenous students to be also poor.

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

367

Chen et al. (2006) pointed out that Taitung’s indigenous students have increased their literacy skills in the second grade through subsidized teaching. Not only the third grade dictation and high-level reading comprehension stronger, but there were also significant differences in high-level writing skills. After remedial teaching, only 23.4% of the students in the experimental group returned to the level of their peers (including children with disabilities), while 40% of the students in the general group returned to the level of peers. There are also other noteworthy studies. He (2007) used cultural responsive teaching to significantly improve students’ performance in reading, writing, and oral expression in Mandarin; Guan (2017) used story structure teaching and found that it not only helps indigenous students grasp the causes and consequences of stories, it also enhanced their reading comprehension skills. The widespread issue of reading comprehension has limited students’ learning in science, social sciences, and other areas and even severely impacted their preparation for college or careers. In coordination with society’s actual needs, reading content is no longer limited to reading literature and includes other content-area reading abilities, such as math reading and technology reading (Ching and Chiu 2004).

Indigenous Students’ Access to Education In Taiwan’s multicultural education, indigenous education is an extremely important part of current education work. The government was greatly improving education in remote areas. Despite investments in hardware and technology infrastructure (such as computers and the Internet) reaching the general level nationwide, indigenous education still faces many difficulties (Mou and Chen 1996). About education for indigenous peoples, Barnhardt and Kawagley (2005) pointed out that the issue of indigenous students adapting to school originates from the struggle between indigenous and Han cultures. Tang and Tseng (2009) also pointed out that in Taiwan, schools’ educational purpose, course instruction, and teacher training and appointment are determined by mainstream culture. Indigenous peoples are usually not widely included in national or local policy discourses related to educational and instructional goal setting and instruction. As such, indigenous students face frustration by the cultural discontinuity they encountered during courses and could not continue to practice their indigenous culture or indigenous ways of learning in the course. The language, life experience, and thinking patterns of indigenous students at home are often different from the mainstream. The courses, teaching methods, and assessment strategies used by mainstream schools in the past all neglected the opinions, cognitive styles, and life experiences of indigenous students (Barnhardt and Kawagley 2005). This disregard for indigenous people’s cultural background may be one reason indigenous students have trouble learning popular science or math concepts. Current course and teaching materials mostly present the life experience, thinking patterns, social culture, and topics of concern to people living in mainstream plains and urban areas. This is vastly different from indigenous students’ life experiences,

368

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

so they cannot link what they are learning in the mainstream classroom to their indigenous experiences. In addition, the contents of scientific education are based on scientific knowledge of the Western world or Han people and rarely mention that of indigenous peoples. As a result, it is easy to form the opinion that indigenous peoples only engage in rudimentary scientific knowledge (Chen 2008). Fu (2004) pointed out that we must create a living environment for learning science under indigenous children’s cultural background to increase opportunities to learn science and achieve the true meaning of multicultural education. Hence, popular science and mathematics teaching materials need to conform to cultural backgrounds. Taiwan’s indigenous students generally have insufficient access to books and other reading materials. There are mainly three ways of providing book resources: (a) Township office libraries, while every township should have a library, many townships lack an independent space, robust administrative organization, and a complete borrowing system to support library services. Libraries in many rural areas are often barely used, which is mainly due to the remote geographic location or insufficient funding. (b) School libraries: Rural areas have insufficient education resources and do not have enough funding to purchase books, making it challenging to obtain reading materials. Taiwan’s government began implementing readingrelated projects in 2001, hoping to inject more reading resources in rural areas. (c) Books held in churches and tribes: Churches are located inside indigenous tribes, and clergy provide reading space in church when possible. Even with this land effort from churches, reading materials are still generally insufficient (Huang 2008). Compared with Han students who live on the plains, parents of indigenous students spend most of their time at work, making it difficult for them to accompany their children when reading extracurricular materials. This makes it difficult for parents to help their children develop consistently good reading habits. Furthermore, most indigenous tribes do not have access to bookstores. Even with public libraries, it might take driving at least 20 minutes for indigenous people to travel to the library from their tribes due to geographic limitations. Taiwan’s indigenous people are highly dependent on schools when it comes to reading. Still, schools in rural areas have high teacher turnover, and it takes a longer time to realize the efforts of promoting reading (Huang 2008). When it is hard for indigenous students to understand course content, it is harder to increase their learning intention (Fu 2004). For many years, policies regarding Taiwan’s indigenous education have lacked input from indigenous people. Coupled with the complex politics, economics, culture, and school factors, the confidence, adaption, access, and educational achievement of indigenous students have been historically far lower than non-indigenous students over the years (Zhao 2009).

Indigenous Students’ Reading Comprehension It is a common refrain in Taiwan that “indigenous people don’t like to study” and “indigenous people have poor learning ability.” These refrains have helped create the

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

369

stereotype that indigenous people are only talented in the area of performing arts (e.g., singing, dancing, etc.) and athletics. Some indigenous people have even fueled this stereotype by indicating that they are “afraid of books” and “get headaches” whenever they see one. This highlights having insufficient access to books and other educational resources; being afraid of books and not knowing how to read (Huang 2008) have created a complex and compounded issue for indigenous learning. Lo (1995) divided reading comprehension into four concepts: prior knowledge of reading, reading method or strategy, state of mind when reading, and attitude toward reading. Many scholars and graduate students in Taiwan have designed experiments to better understand indigenous students’ reading comprehension. For example, Ke (2000) found that children in the Atayal tribe did not understand specific terms and concepts in geometry and had trouble reading math problems. The study also pointed out that once indigenous children encounter difficulties in translation and encounter obstacles in reading comprehension, their attitude is to either guess or directly give up without even reading at the question (Chen 2013). Tan (2002) studied the learning styles of Atayal students and their relationship with their community culture and found that Atayal students’ cultural backgrounds, which are different from mainstream culture, caused learning difficulties. Atayal students’ learning styles include a preference to study cooperatively and a preference for dynamic learning, lively and informal learning situations, and visualized learning. Lin (2009a, b) also found that audio textbooks were considered the most critical e-learning function by indigenous students in junior high school and high school. Audiobook reading is a teaching cycle that involves repeatedly listening to the audio, visualized illustrations, and text reading. Reading audiobooks is more intuitive (Wu 2006), which better fits indigenous students’ learning styles. Furthermore, the Center for Indigenous Languages Cultures and Education in Taiwan provides online audio reading materials in indigenous language to teach and assist indigenous students’ to learn in their language. Studies have found that using current online teaching materials with teaching strategies such as “immersive learning” can increase students’ interest in learning the indigenous language (Chen 2016a, b). Collectively, the above shows that, in general, indigenous students use different learning styles and have developed discouraging attitudes toward reading compared to Han students. Thus, enhanced teaching methods should respond to indigenous students’ learning styles instead of using teaching methods that are more closely associated with the learning style of Han students. This will be further described in the next section on culturally responsive teaching. After reviewing relevant literature, studies on the linguistic ability of Taiwan’s indigenous people have mainly focused on elementary school students (Kung et al. 2011; Wu 1999; Wu 2007; Lin 2000; Chen et al. 2006; Chang et al. 1997; He 2007; Tseng 2001; Kuan 2017). Wu (1999) used a standard achievement test to compare Han students’ academic achievement and indigenous students and found that indigenous students scored a significant 15 points lower than Han students. Lin (2000) proposed a significant difference in indigenous and non-indigenous students’ performance in terms of the total score, phonetic symbols, Chinese characters, lexical

370

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

meaning, reading, and writing. Non-indigenous students performed better than indigenous students, and there was greater variance among indigenous students than non-indigenous students. Tseng (2001) explored Atayal students’ linguistic ability and found that their literacy was generally lagging by 1 year in school. Atayal students’ reading comprehension performance was also relatively weak in sentence comprehension, reading questions, and proposition combinations. Additionally, studies on indigenous people learning mathematics have gradually drawn attention. Liao et al. (2010) pointed out that indigenous students have difficulty reading science texts in Mandarin and recommended appropriate reorganization of science texts. Science teachers can also help students overcome challenges in understanding science texts from a linguistic perspective. Under the education concept of accommodating different cultures, designing and implementing teaching materials and courses for indigenous students is an inevitable necessity in improving students’ perception of their traditional culture that is often disregarded. In contrast, teachers who teach in indigenous schools need to integrate reflect on indigenous culture so that the next generation of indigenous students will have a broader cultural perspective (Zhou and Ye 2012).

Culturally Responsive Teaching There is a large body of literature on culturally responsive teaching. Gay (2000) believes that culturally responsive teaching refers to integrating courses and teaching models with culture and stresses that schools should attach importance to students’ culture and appropriately reflect their native culture. Accordingly, the teaching process must adopt various appropriate actions, behaviors, languages, methods, and contents; effectively respond to students’ needs from different cultural backgrounds; and improve students’ learning outcomes. Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) pointed out that culturally responsive teaching has four levels: established inclusion, developing a positive attitude, enhancing meaning, and engender competence. Hooks (1994) believes that teachers must create a suitable teaching environment where students are free from fear, totalitarianism, estrangement, centralization, and paradigm-shifting to feel comfortable learning. Banks (1993) proposed four approaches to multicultural courses: (a) contribution approach, (b) additive approach, (c) transformation approach, and (d) social action approach. Each approach is briefly described below: (a) Contribution approach: Also known as the “hero and holiday” model, which highlights the contribution of national heroes and proposes adding the heroes, celebrations, and culture of ethnic minorities overlooked by textbooks into mainstream courses during special holidays or suitable opportunities, or using lectures, experiential activities, or exhibitions for students to come in contact with the cultures of ethnic minorities. Courses are still based on people, events, and things of mainstream culture and are not placed in the context of ethnic minorities, mainly to explore the meaning and importance of culture. For

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

371

example, the Amis tribe’s “Elders Drinking Song” was selected as the theme song and was introduced during the Olympics in 1996. This approach’s advantage is that it is simple and easy to implement, which has made it the most popular among teachers. The disadvantage is it still uses mainstream culture as the standard for selecting heroes and cultures of ethnic minorities and does not truly achieve multicultural education. The contribution approach is the initial stage of reforming multicultural courses, but its discussion of culture lacks sufficient depth. Hence, special attention must be paid to avoid ethnic biases during implementation. (b) Additive approach: This approach does not change the existing curriculum structure and incorporates ethnic culture, concepts, topics, and perspectives into mainstream curriculums through a single book, lesson, or course. For example, discussing books related to ethnic minorities during literature class or offering “ethnic studies” as an elective course, teachers can assign the audiobook “Pangcha Wawa’s Summer Vacation” to understand the Amis tribe’s culture. Many schools organize “Multi-cultural Week” to understand and appreciate different cultures, which is also an additive approach. The additive approach’s advantage is that it can be implemented in the existing curriculum structure and is even more in-depth than the contribution approach. The disadvantage is that students are still seeing ethnic minorities’ cultures from the dominant group’s perspective and will not understand the relationship between dominant and ethnic minorities. A sequential approach must adopt the additive approach to multicultural education and gradually increase content on other ethnic groups’ cultures. (c) Transformation approach: This approach completely surpasses the additive approach and emphasizes the overall change of curriculum structure, nature, and basic assumptions. This approach discusses concepts, issues, and events from the perspective of different ethnic groups and cultures. For example, the social studies lesson “Taiwan’s Development” describes Taiwan’s development process from the Han people’s perspective. Hence, teachers can discuss Taiwan’s development issues from the perspective of different ethnic groups and allow students to understand the contribution and viewpoints of different ethnic groups. The advantage of the transformation approach is that it enables students to understand the contribution of different ethnic cultures to society’s overall culture, reduces ethnic bias, and raises self-awareness among ethnic minorities. The disadvantage is that it is hard to implement. It requires significant change to the curriculum structure, on-the-job training for teachers, and a permanent curriculum development institution. The transformation approach is ideal for the reform of multicultural courses because it systematically and informatively discusses ethnic groups’ issues in depth. Due to the massive effort required for curriculum reform involved in the transformation approach, the cost is relatively higher, and implementation is more complicated. (d) Social action approach: This approach contains elements of the transformation approach. Besides allowing students to discuss critical social issues from different ethnic groups, it also allows them to take action after reflection. Specific

372

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

methods of the social action approach include discussing ethnic biases on campus during class, considering solutions, and deciding to reduce the occurrence of biases on campus; discussing biases of newspapers in reports on ethnic minorities; and writing letters to the editors demanding improvement. The social action approach’s advantage is that it develops students’ critical thinking, decision-making, social action abilities, political efficacy, and teamwork skills. Disadvantages include the great effort required for curriculum reform, longer preparation time of teachers for classes, and topic selection, which can result in disputes. Overall, the social action approach emphasizes students’ critical thinking and problem-solving abilities; abilities are necessary for citizens in a diverse society. However, whether curriculum designers and teachers have the ability is a matter that needs to be considered. There are many examples of culturally responsive teaching in Taiwan in recent years. Liu (2000) prepared a multicultural course plan based on an additive approach and implemented it in a class with different ethnic groups. The experimental teaching result was used to analyze teachers’ and students’ response to this teaching approach to provide a basis for establishing a culturally responsive teaching model. Research results indicated that culturally responsive teaching improved students’ concept of culture and their attitudes toward different cultures. Wu (2000) pointed out that multicultural education needs to build teachers’ multicultural teaching beliefs and change the course structures to truly create multicultural education environments that cultivate modern citizens with multicultural perspectives. This research also echoed the transformation approach. In another vain, some scholars have pointed out that due to the uniqueness of indigenous areas, teachers who belong to tribes must have the disposition and skills to respond productively to students’ life (Jong et al. 2008). Pan (2016) explored the issues encountered by a small elementary school in Kaohsiung City when implementing culturally responsive teaching and analyzed solutions. The study pointed out that 1. Instruction: (a) The power of care provided by teachers surpasses the teaching of specialized knowledge; (b) teacher must design culturally responsive courses that integrate local cultures; (c) there must be respect and tolerance for the perspectives of different cultures via culturally responsive teaching; (d) there must be effective teaching and differentiated teaching concepts established. 2. Teachers: (a) The long travel time and inconvenient transportation have resulted in teachers being unwilling to teach in remote areas; (b) improved dormitories of schools in remote areas will attract teachers to teach there; (c) the long travel time to remote areas has resulted in the low willingness of teachers to participate in workshops there. 3. Parents: (a) Parents have relatively low socioeconomic status, so the results of family education are not apparent, and parents do not focus much on children’s education; (b) parents are busy with maintaining livelihoods and have relatively low participation in school affairs. There are also studies on improving reading comprehension with cultural response teaching in Taiwan. The research results showed that if the curriculum can be closer to the cultural life experience of students, teaching strategies in line

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

373

with students’ learning style, and creating a teaching environment that respects multiculturalism, students’ reading comprehension could be improved (Chen 2016a, 2016b; He 2007; Hung 2009). Curriculum design is based on the concept of cultural response teaching, trying to combine the rich local natural and human resources, designing teaching courses from the most primitive and direct living environment of students, and letting students know their history, cultural relics, and customs through cultural response courses. In order to increase students’ local awareness, improve their reading interest and comprehension ability, and then improve their learning performance.

Digital Reading Paper is no longer the only form of reading (Zheng 2009). The pervasiveness of mobile devices has caused many companies to develop e-readers, e-paper, and digital reading content and improve their convenience with additional functions. In a broad sense, all reading activity through digital media can be referred to as “digital reading.” “Digital reading” refers to reading digital content either online or offline and can be further divided into “electronic reading” and “Internet reading.” The former displays reading materials on digital media. The latter only refers to reading activity while connected to the Internet, with reading contents including multimedia, e-books, websites, e-mail, and news discussion communities. The Taiwan Digital Publishing Forum received subsidies from the Ministry of Culture in 2012 to implement the “Research Project on the Current Status of Taiwan Digital Publishing Market and Citizens Digital Reading Preference.” The survey at the time showed that digital reading is becoming more popular, increasing 12.4% among readers 16–22 years old. It indicated that more Taiwanese people are willing to experience digital reading (TDPF 2012). A total of 4340 new e-books applied for International Standard Book Number (ISBN) in Taiwan in 2018, accounting for 11.10% of all new books published for the year. Data from public libraries showed that readers borrowed nearly 1.75 million e-books, up 400,000 compared to 2017 (Central News Agency 2019). Digital reading has the following characteristics: (a) There is a multimedia presentation, form of reading via multimedia that is different from the reading method that mainly uses text with images for support; (b) digital reading provides search and link functions. A rapid information search function can be provided along with links to expand the scope of reading; (c) digital information makes it convenient for readers to create a personal library; (d) digital readers can use software tools to search, browse, select, copy, and download digital content and build their database for personal use so that they can organize and index information they browsed; (e) digital readers can skip through digital content when reading more dynamic, and hyperlinks allow them to click on contents they want to read. It is unnecessary to read from top to bottom, making reading more flexible; (g) digital reading allows online interactions and sharing. Internet reading can be more than reading and can include writing, increasing interactions between readers and creators or among

374

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

readers; (h) digital reading is not confined by time and place and allows reading at any time with a computer or reading interface; (i) digital reading reduces paper use, which conforms to environmental trends. The use of a computer interface for reading reduces paper use (Lin 2009a, b). Overall, readers having increased access to digital reading sources and being able to read at any time will help increase the digital reading population.

Picture Books and E-Books That Incorporate Indigenous Culture The practice of using picture books for teaching shows that students significantly improved in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, indicating that it causes students to show an active learning attitude (Ara 2019). Hence, it is not difficult to understand the critical power of using indigenous picture books in schools. Indigenous picture books are the combination of two terms, “indigenous” and “picture books.” These two terms involve many aspects when combined, including discussions in the field of picture book literature, the transformation of oral to text, the performance of illustrations in literary works, the relationship between illustrations and text, the identity of the author and artist, national identity and cross-cultural issues, and even the role of the publisher. Indigenous picture books are characterized by their richness and diversity (Kuo 2012). Cultural picture books can incorporate different ethnic cultures. Li (2008) believes that the features of cultural picture books should (a) emphasize on local cultures, (b) inspire cultural identification, (c) develop diverse cultural perspectives, and (d) include knowledge on textual research (Nabu 2012). Before the 1990s, indigenous picture books were mostly created by writers who lived on the plains, such as Chung-Hua Children’s Book Series and Yuan-Liou Indigenous Book Series. However, more indigenous writers began to write picture books after the 1990s, such as Paelabang Danapan, Sakuliu Pavavalung, Liglav A-wu, Gi Rahitzu, Meimei Masowm, and Pur-dull. With this critical shift in authorship, indigenous people can transform from object to subject. They are no longer limited to be passively introduced in education, and they could develop toward passing on cultural experience and aesthetics and be seen (Kuo 2012). Developments in the information technology (IT) and digital era have affected how indigenous language is passed on and learned, which was initially orally in Taiwan during family and tribal activities. Inevitably, rapid developments in IT and digital technology changed how language is learned. In an era of information deluge, knowledge is not only passed on and learned on the Internet, but the public is also used to using smartphones and apps as mediums for learning. This knowledge dissemination model breaks through limitations of place, time, and other objective environmental factors, making knowledge dissemination more convenient and faster (Chen 2019). Even though indigenous people in Taiwan might not have a computer at home, most people have smartphones. If teaching materials can be placed on parents’ mobile devices, children will be able to learn in their native language at home, allowing their language and culture to pass through more methods (Zhou 2015). Reading strategies have changed following technological development.

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

375

Sutherland (2004) believes that the interactive function of e-books encourages teachers and students to discuss topics and lets students get into the habit of actively participating in class, forming a collaborative community of inquiry that causes students to think actively. Korat and Shamir (2012) pointed out that the combination of e-books and interactive multimedia functions can effectively improve students’ reading comprehension. Zhou (2015) stressed that native language learning should not be limited to school and should occur at any time and any place to be effective. If teaching materials could be available on the mobile devices of indigenous parents where they could access digital resources, the children could learn in their native language at home. This approach would be aligned with the Council of Indigenous Peoples’ mission and Ministry of Education to jointly promote indigenous languages, allowing language and culture to be passed on. According to the above references, indigenous people in Taiwan mainly carry on cultural inheritance through oral transmission. The learning styles of indigenous students are more suitable for visual and intuitive learning. Hence, if we ascribe to the contribution approach of culturally responsive teaching, combining popular science with the ethnic language of the indigenous culture in electronic audiobooks would better align to indigenous students’ learning styles and conform to the traditional cultural inheritance of indigenous. This approach would help to enhance the importance of multicultural education in Taiwan.

Reading Popular Science Text Popular science education uses easy-to-understand ways for the general public to understand scientific processes (Lu 2009). The goal of Taiwan’s science curriculum development has gradually transitioned from elitist education to national science literacy (Liu and Chiu 2012). Issues with conventional popular science texts include too low and challenging learning interests, preventing popular science education from truly being provided to the masses (Chao 2010). The development of popular science texts cannot be overlooked as a way to allow popular science education better meet learners’ needs. Wellington and Osborne (2001) pointed out a narrow and a broad definition of science reading. The former refers to obtaining information from science textbooks during science class; the latter refers to getting science information from children’s books, magazines, and news. Huang and Chen (2011) believe that science reading is learning science through reading. Science reading materials include popular science books, science articles, science stories, or science fairy tales (Lai 2012). As for teaching strategies for science reading, Wellington and Osborne (2001) recommended that teachers guide children to learn actively and develop science reading techniques. Active reading should include three elements: (a) purposeful reading, (b) guidance from a teacher, and (c) cooperative learning with sharing and feedback activities. Macceca (2007) recommended that before teachers begin reading the text,

376

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

the teacher should first ask children to browse through all illustrations and select the most important one. The teacher should then ask questions about the illustration and predict the answer. This will stimulate students to ask questions and find the critical point when reading. Language and reading are essential media when using popular science texts to learn science (Hung et al. 2010). Indigenous people pass on their culture orally and not in writing. Their native language’s grammar is different from Mandarin used in school, affecting indigenous students’ understanding of Chinese characters or difficulty with translation. This also affects their acceptance of teaching materials and performance in assessments and even affects language-based subjects, such as their understanding of science concepts (Wang and Chang 2009; Liao et al. 2010). On this basis, the popular science text used in this study is in the form of a narrative and incorporates the Atayal tribe’s culture. Contents of the story referenced current popular science picture books, and the difficulty is suitable for students in third to sixth grade in elementary school. Illustrations support the text. The indigenous language teacher reads the text out loud in Squliq Atayal, and experts and professionals record the Mandarin audio to complete the bilingual mobile learning electronic audiobook.

Case Analysis According to the study of Chen (2012), indigenous in Taiwan mostly live in remote areas where Internet resource is not popularized, causing low motivation and learning achievements. In recent years, the government in Taiwan has been proactively promoting digital learning in remote areas to minimize the digital gaps in remote areas through remote digital learning and enhance Indigenous’ motivation. E-book readers possess the advantages of portability, small size, and steady constant Internet connections, attracting more and more readers to use. However, due to digital gaps and economic factors, e-book readers are not popular among indigenous. There are currently limited studies that explore factors that affect aborigines’ motivation regarding e-book readers’ use. Chen (2012) proposed a research model based on the technology acceptance model, together with effects from factors such as the task-technology fit model, and invited Paiwan students in Taiwan to carry out the trials for e-book readers. According to the research results, “adaptability” and “technology self-efficacy” have positive influences on “usability,” “task-technology fit,” and “usefulness” and also indirectly affect the “willingness of use” of users. Gender differences and differences in experiences when using computers and the Internet also affect the “willingness of use.” Chan (2017) infused indigenous’ living conditions into the program for e-picture books for mathematics and introduced digital software and hardware into the program. The term living conditions mean community tribe, religious belief, and livelihood model. The program was adapted based on the “mayasvi” (war ritual) of the Tsou. It integrated the life background familiar to Tsou students, presented the discussion and explanation of mathematical problems to think about mathematical

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

377

problems, and found suitable problem-solving strategies. By implementing activities with mathematics e-picture books integrating living conditions, this research aims to understand the third-grade Tsou students’ achievements of mathematical concepts during implementation activities. According to the research results, the program infusing living conditions with e-picture books for math may help indigenous students understand mathematical concepts, enhance students’ learning interests for math, facilitate the improvement of mathematical learning effects, and indirectly allow indigenous students to understand their own culture. The software used was Hamastar, PingPong, and Evernote. Hama eBook is an interactive multimedia e-book editing software. The software provides comprehensive e-book editing and reading functions and easily facilitates the integration of various multimedia elements (including video, image, and text) that import loggings (PDF and PPT) into the editing software to complete a personal digital picture book. Furthermore, it provides various interactive programs for simulation, allowing readers to interact with e-books and simulation tests apart from reading books, thus improving the sense of participation in reading and learning. PingPong is an interactive teaching media that provides instant feedback. The interactive platform of PingPong allows students to respond to questions instantly and send text answers/opinions and even pictures. Teachers can instantly collect data for statistical analysis and class feedback. The question models include multiplechoice, true-false, and drawing options. PingPong is available for both Android and iOS systems. Like accessing a real-life classroom, users only take two steps to use the software: a teacher opens a classroom and enters the classroom. The only difference is that the teacher on the Internet opens the virtual classroom door to the students and then enters it. Evernote is a note-taking software with a simple operating interface and stable remote storage function. A “note” can be a snippet of text, a complete webpage or webpage extract, photo, audio note, or written note; a note can also add attachments. Notes may be categorized into different folders, and they may have labels and annotations added, be edited, searched, or exported. Evernote supports multiple operating systems and provides remote synchronization and back-up functions. Using the interactive platform of PingPong, Evernote may record students’ answers to questions during the program, allowing teachers to review students’ learning effects during classes afterward. Chen (2017) designed a mathematics program for fourth graders in elementary school infused with the Seediq cultures in Taiwan and transformed the learning program into an e-book. The production process of a picture e-book is divided into four periods, including (a) the duration of the research, (b) program design period, (c) e-book transformation period, and (d) result evaluation period. The storyline was based on the historical relics, including the “Rmdax Tasing Legend” of the Seediq ancestors and the competition for the hunting field between tribes. The story is originated from the Seediq. It is said that there was a gigantic white rock in the Central Mountain Range that the Seediq called “Rmdax Tasing” (meaning the shiny stone), which is the origin of their ancestors. Also, Rmdax Tasing is the hunting

378

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

range for Seediq to hunt. When the Seediq hunts in the Central Mountain Range, Rmdax Tasing is like a spiritual rock that blesses and protects the Seediq, guiding the Seediq like a lighthouse losing their ways. The story combined mathematical concepts of “approximate number,” “angle,” and “natures of triangle and quadrilateral.” Teachers considered that this e-book teaching material could improve the learning interests of students for mathematics. Picture books have functions of entertainment (Matsui 1995), knowledge building (Chang 1991), imagination exertion (Chung 1996), socialization, and improving reading abilities (Fang 2003). E-picture books can show large and exquisite pictures of picture books, help readers understand the story context, and improve reading interests (Tsao 1998); e-picture books also attract students’ attention and increase their learning motives (Doty et al. 2001). The story narration and guidance of e-picture books supplement textbooks’ insufficiency and facilitate the compilation of textbooks’ concepts and potential program development for teachers (Clyde 2005). In recent years, according to the research using e-picture books for teaching, the method can improve students’ scientific conception and cognition for scientific natures (Wang 2003; Lu 2007), increase learning interests (Lu et al. 2008), and also improve comprehensive ability (Matthew 1997). The storyline of the research (Chen 2017) was invented by infusing the thread of the Seediq culture and the allusion of inter-tribe fights in the “Rmdax Tasing Legend.” Subsequently, the research explored mathematical concepts that may be involved based on cultural context and developed mathematical questions. The paper-based picture book was illustrated in accordance with such scenarios and finalized as an e-book with multiple functions of “animation, audio, and interaction.” Furthermore, the research used action research to address some of the major challenges while creating the e-picture book. Such problems include “inaccessibility of cultural information, “difficulty to integrate with high-level mathematical concepts,” and “difficulty in segregating mathematical questions with textbooks.” However, difficulties encountered during the process may be gradually solved by adopting the strategy of “widely using social and human network resources” and “peer interaction and reflection.” Such “problem diagnosis” and “new action plans” may be listed as important references for preparing e-picture books infusing indigenous cultures with mathematical concepts in the future.

Current Study This study develops a mobile learning electronic audiobook (indigenous language, Mandarin) with popular science text (mathematics text, science text) that incorporates indigenous culture and discusses indigenous students’ reading comprehension achievement. A differential scale is administered to ascertain the factors that cause differences in reading comprehension achievement. This study uses electronic audiobooks in a class that teaches reading comprehension using popular science text. Before starting the class, the teacher first teaches students how to use a PC tablet and electronic audiobook and then administers a reading comprehension pre-test.

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

379

Students then use their mobile device to read the electronic audiobook in the Atayal language. When teaching, the teacher asks questions, and students engage in discussions to find the answer. The post-test is immediately administered after the reading class ends, and the difference between students’ reading comprehension after using the electronic audiobook is analyzed. Indigenous participants of this study are third and fourth graders (14 students) and fifth and sixth graders (17 students) in Yilan County’s elementary school and third to sixth graders (16 students) in Hsinchu County’s elementary school; Han participants are fifth graders (31 students) in New Taipei City’s elementary school. This study designs popular science-related text (mathematics and science) that incorporates indigenous culture elements in coordination with indigenous students’ learning characteristics. This allows indigenous students to read in a way that they like. The popular science-related text is in the form of a narrative combined with Atayal culture. Current illustrated books on popular science were referenced for the contents of stories, and the difficulty is suitable for third to sixth graders in elementary school. Pictures are provided to aid the text description. In the Illustrated Storybook on Geometric Shapes, adapted from A Cloak for the Dreamer, published by Marilyn Burns and Aileen Friedman in 2004, the text contains the traditional weaving culture of the Atayal tribe. Students may compare the text in the Atayal language and Mandarin and learn how to read and improve pronunciation. The story contains geometric concepts and the traditional weaving culture of the Atayal tribe, allowing students to understand geometric concepts through different woven shapes. The story The Tribe’s Uninvited Guest was written by the research team. The story combines popular science knowledge on optics and sound with the traditional festivals and tools of the Atayal tribe, allowing students to understand the traditional tools, ceremony, and agricultural culture of the Atayal tribe while learning concepts of optics, sound, and heat conduction. The reading comprehension achievement test uses content read by learners as post-test items, 5–7 items per e-book, and multiple-choice questions. The tests were prepared and are scored by two indigenous elementary school language teachers and one Han elementary school teacher, with a total score of 100 points. The reading strategy scale was translated and adapted from the learning strategy scale of Merchie et al. (2014). The scale is divided into nine sub-scales: 7 items for “summarizing and schematizing,” 1 item for “highlighting,” 3 items for “rereading,” 7 items for “paraphrasing,” 3 items for “linking with prior knowledge,” 3 items for “studying titles and pictures,” 3 items for “planful approaching,” 5 items for “monitoring,” and 5 items for “self-evaluation”; 37 items in total. The reading anxiety scale was translated and adapted from the foreign language reading anxiety scale of Zhao (2009). After conducting internal consistency analysis, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.84, the scale as a total of 20 items. Research results show that after indigenous students read electronic audiobooks, their reading comprehension of The Tribe’s Uninvited Guest improved significantly. The improvement among male indigenous students was significantly higher than female indigenous students; the development reached the level of significance for all Han students. This shows that using an electronic audiobook in an indigenous

380

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

language significantly improved indigenous and Han students’ reading comprehension. Reading strategy results show that indigenous scored the highest in “marking key points” and scored the lowest in “interpretation”; male indigenous students scored the highest in “marking key points” and scored the lowest in “planned reading”; female indigenous students scored the highest in “self-evaluation” and scored the lowers in “interpretation.” Han students scored the highest in “repetition” and scored the lowest in “conclusion and visualization”; male Han students scored the highest in “repetition” and scored the lowest in “conclusion and visualization”; female Han students scored the highest in “marking key points” and scored the lowest in “conclusion and visualization” and “planned reading.” Reading anxiety results show that indigenous students became anxious when reading in their indigenous language, which may be due to them being unable to directly understand the story and scenario because they are unfamiliar with the indigenous language or terms. This anxiety was significantly negatively correlated with reading comprehension. Difficulties with the production of indigenous language electronic audiobooks include cultural differences and difficulty with gathering data. Before producing an electronic audiobook, it is necessary to search for related data and sufficient preparations for popular science text to better incorporate indigenous culture. For the text to reflect on what it is actually like in indigenous students’ lives, it is necessary to confer with indigenous tribes and discuss the text’s contents with local indigenous language teachers and tribal elders. Contents of the electronic audiobook referenced Taiwan’s current textbooks and picture books and are aligned with the Ministry of Education’s learning indicators and goals. The difficulty of text was adapted to be suitable for third to sixth graders in elementary school. The sentences were rewritten to incorporate mathematics and science knowledge, and the final version was revised and approved by teaching experts to complete the text for the electronic audiobook. After the electronic audiobook text was completed, it was necessary to verify with tribal elders if the contents contradicted indigenous culture, and tribal elders or indigenous language teachers were asked to translate the text. This, by far, was the most important and complex part of the electronic audiobook production as translation is not a simple task. This is because the text was written in Chinese, and the translation to indigenous language, for example, Atayal, may miss each language’s nuances. Many Chinese terms could not be directly translated to the Atayal language. For example, “dark and uninhabited” in Chinese could only be expressed as “no people” in the Atayal language. Furthermore, “east, south, west, north” is rarely used in the Atayal language and culture, and direction is mostly expressed in objects’ relative positions. Hence, “the sun rises from the east” in Chinese is only translated to “the sun rises” in the Atayal language; “special glory” that often appears in Chinese is only translated to “proudest victory” in the Atayal language. This shows that when translating common terms or idioms in Han into the Atayal language, it is necessary to use similar terms or idioms in the Atayal culture as a replacement.

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

381

Conclusion In sum, in combining science text teaching materials with cultural response teaching, whether reading through e-books can improve the effectiveness of reading comprehension has aroused the attention of the aborigines in Taiwan because it is a teaching method that has not yet been popularized. This represents a new method of learning science from the cultural background of students and using the native language to combine with emerging technologies. It provides a path for the recovery of the native language and the complex levels and nuances of information technology and science learning around the world. Furthermore, teaching demonstrations have been performed for the above research to clear doubts, including “delaying in program progress” and “insufficient learning for students,” for teachers who might not accept the methods in the tribes. It is also found that e-books infused culture with popular scientific concepts may improve students’ learning effects, showing that e-books may serve as important teaching material to help indigenous students learn. The preferable way to design and prepare e-teaching materials for indigenous in the future is by combining the thread of indigenous cultures with illustrations of popular scientific concepts to create stories, further exploring the popular scientific concepts that may be possibly involved, and then completing the e-book. In addition, the challenges encountered during the process of creating the e-picture book by adopting the culturally responsive teaching methods include “inaccessibility of cultural information, “difficulty to integrate with high-level mathematical concepts,” and “difficulty in segregating mathematical questions with textbooks.” However, such difficulties were able to be resolved through constant meetings, discussions, and revisions with elders from tribes and professional teachers. Such “problem diagnosis” may serve as important references to prepare e-book infusing indigenous cultures with popular scientific concepts in the future. In-depth experiences and understanding of indigenous cultures are material challenges that must be faced by a Han curriculum designer. It is recommended that supports such as “reading more cultural information” and “seeking more consultation from elders, institutions, and personnel related to the Council of Indigenous Peoples” must be adopted to facilitate the operation to develop teaching materials. Furthermore, designing an evaluation tool that accords with the popular scientific concepts involved in the e-book for teachers and students also serves as a significant factor that affects teachers’ and students’ willingness to use the results of the evaluation. It is believed that continual revision and development will bring more teachers and students to practice e-book teaching willingly. The international trends in Taiwan’s domestic policies have profoundly affected the culture preservation, native language learning, identity recognition, and community development of indigenous. However, the level of revival for indigenous’ native languages correlates with the participation of indigenous. Many indigenous grapple with the challenges and importance of reviving their native languages. In addition, educating professionals lacking knowledge of indigenous languages is a significant problem for indigenous language development and preservation in Taiwan. Learning

382

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

subject knowledge combined with emerging technologies and based on the indigenous cultural thread is a method to attract the next generation of indigenous students to learn their native languages and sustainable operations. It is hoped that this chapter injected new energy into using native language and culturally responsive teaching for indigenous to improve their reading comprehension and science content knowledge not just in Taiwan but globally. There is no difference between the basic abilities of the indigenous and the Hans in Taiwan. However, the current standardized tests of mainstream culture are not based on the cultural background and the life context of the indigenous, and thus the performance of the indigenous students is the general standard. It is suggested that the formulation of relevant policies can evaluate indigenous students’ learning effectiveness in more diversified ways. The Taiwanese government’s education policy for the indigenous should be reviewed and improved as a whole in terms of administrative measures, courses and teaching, teacher training, talent cultivation, and social education so that the indigenous students can achieve the ideals of equal educational opportunities and social justice and bring new prospects and opportunities for the nation.

References Anaya SJ (2004) Indigenous peoples in international law. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952332 Ara R (2019) The experience of teaching picture books in “eBooks of aboriginal languages”. Aboriginal Educ World 88:62–65 Baker L, Wigfield A (1999) Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Read Res Q 34:452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/ RRQ.34.4.4 Banks JA (1993) Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. In: Banks JA, Banks CA (eds) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp 195–214 Barnhardt R, Kawagley A (2005) Indigenous knowledge system and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropol Educ Q 36(1):8–23. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008 Burger J (1987) Report from the frontier: the state of the world’s indigenous peoples. Zed Books, London. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259001400411 Castles A, Coltheart M (2004) Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition 91:77–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00164-1 Central News Agency (CNA) (2019) National library publishing trends report: the number of new books declines and the population of E-reading Grows [Web message]. Retrieve from https:// www.cna.com.tw/news/acul/201902010045.aspx Chan YH (2017) The integration of indigenous people life situation in the process of designing and instructing mathematic-an example of third graders in Tsou tribe. Unpublished master’s thesis, The National Taichung University of Education, Taichung City Chang CJ (1991) The theory of children’s literature creation. Fu Chun Culture, Taipei Chang SN, Hong TL, Zhang LW, Zhang JS, Liu DW (1997) Community, ethnicity, family factors and academic achievement of primary school children: an analysis of four elementary school in the Taitung County. J Nat Taiwan Normal Univ 8:27–52 Chao SZ (2010) Taiwan indigenous language education political analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung University of Education, Pingtung County Chen ZL (2008) Taiwan aboriginal ethnic education. Shtabook, Taipei

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

383

Chen CJ (2012) Exploring the factors influencing aboriginal students’ intention to use e-book reader for learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shu-Te University, Kaohsiung City Chen SS (2013) An action research on the effects of balanced instruction approach on the indigenous students’ reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Donghwa University, Hualien County Chen HY (2016a) Action research of performing culturally responsive teaching in Mandarin course in elementary school. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung University, Pingtung County Chen LJ (2016b) The study on the curriculum and teaching of applying indigenous language immersion program to material and learn Squliq language. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chi-Nan University, Nantou County Chen YT (2017) The action research of electronic book production from Seediq culture and mathematical course of fourth-grade in elementary school. J Educ Multicultural Res 15: 83–122 Chen KS (2019) Designing the language learning tools with the core of aboriginal cultures: teaching materials, teaching aids and future technology. Aboriginal Educ World 88:6–7 Chen SL, Tzeng SJ, Hung LY (2006) The effectiveness of a remedial reading program for underachieving aboriginal students in Taiwan. J Normal Univ 51(2):147–171. https://doi.org/ 10.29882/JTNUE.200610.0007 Ching LH, Chiu SZ (2004) The development of a model for mathematics text reading comprehension: angle unit in the mathematics text as an example. Bull Spec Educ Rehabil 12:99–121. https://doi.org/10.3966/156335862004060012005 Chou SJ (2008) A study on the curriculum program of ethnic education in primary schools. Wunan, Taipei Chung YF (1996) A content analysis of values in picture story books for the past decade. Unpublished master’s thesis, Chinese Culture University, Taipei City Clyde AL (2005) Electronic books. Teach Libr 32(5):45–47 Cobo JM (1986) Study of the problem of discrimination against indigenous populations. International covenant on civil and political rights. United Nations, Geneva Colchester M (1984) The crisis of ownership: the plight of the tribal populations of northern Bangladesh. Survival Int Rev 43:29–35 Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) (2015) The indigenous peoples basic law [Web message]. Retrieve from https://law.apc.gov.tw/EngLawContent.aspx?lan¼E&id¼8 Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) (2019) Residence of indigenous peoples [Web message]. Retrieve from https://www.apc.gov.tw/portal/docList.html?CID¼200161A7D09A7FEC Damm J (2012) Multiculturalism in Taiwan and the influence of Europe. In: Damm J, Lim P (eds) European perspectives on Taiwan. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-531-94303-9_5 Doty DE, Popplewell SR, Byers GO (2001) Inter CD-ROM storybooks and young reader’s reading comprehension. J Res Comput Educ 33(4):374–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2001. 10782322 Fang SJ (2003) Teaching with FUN: picture books and literature instruction. Psychology, Taipei Fu LY (2004) Who’s science education? – science education in multicultural perspective. Curric Instr Q 7(1):91–108. https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.200401.0091 Gagné ED, Yekovich CW, Yekovich FR (1997) Cognitive psychology of school learning. Allyn & Bacon, Boston Gay G (2000) Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research and practice. Teacher College Press. Responsive teaching: When and how school teachers cross cultural boundaries to reach students. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED376242.pdf, New York. https://doi.org/ 10.5860/CHOICE.38-1683 Guan YT (2017) The story structure strategy is integrated into the study of the listening and speaking teaching of the fifth-grade aboriginal children. Paper presented at the 2017 Aboriginal Research Conference), National Chiayi University, Chiayi

384

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

He YQ (2007) The action research of culturally responsive teaching in a Chinese course: an example of a Taroko junior high school classroom in Eastern Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tzu Chi University, Hualien County Hooks B (1994) Theory as liberatory practice, (from teaching to transgress – as quoted by Kaminsky, Sherrie in “Comparing Pedagogy and Andragogy for Both Common and Dissimilar Meanings”) [Web message]. Retrieved from http://www.usm.maine.edu/~dlarson/kaminsky2. htm Huang JP (2008) Aboriginal students are reading. Aboriginal Educ World 23:12–17 Huang MZ, Chen WD (2011) A collection of scientific reading resources for middle grades students in elementary school in the field of nature and science and technology. Sci Reading 4–13 Hung CH (2009) Cultural responsive teaching and elementary school reading and writing curriculum design in Chang-Le Elementary School, Pingtung County. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taitung University, Taitung County Hung YN, Chin CC, Liao SC (2010) Elementary school science teachers’ knowledge and teaching of scientific reading. Tunghai Educ Rev 4:94–126 Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues (1987) Indigenous peoples: a global guest for justice. Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Zed Books, London International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (1986) Indigenous peoples and human rights. In: IWGIA yearbook 1986. IWGIA, Copenhagen Jong PC, Ou CH, Yeh CR (2008) Teachers’ pedagogical practice in indigenous areas: Yun-Hai elementary school as an example. Secondary Educ 59(1):8–21 Ke CT (2000) An investigation of van Hiele Levels of Atayal students in the elementary schools of Hualien County. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Hualien Teacher College, Hualien County Korat O, Shamir A (2012) Direct and indirect teaching: using e-books for supporting vocabulary, word reading and story comprehension. J Educ Comput Res 46:135–152. https://doi.org/10. 2190/EC.46.2.b Kuan YT (2017) A study on the integration of story structure strategy with listening and speaking teaching for grade 5 indigenous students in elementary schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Donghwa University, Hualien County Kung SS, Hung LY, Wu CJ (2011) Chinese reading literacy of remote junior high students: a study of Han and Atayal students. Paper presented at the Conference of Disadvantaged Student Education, Tamkang University, Taipei Kung SH, Pai YL, Su YF, Wu CJ (2012) Chinese reading literacy in Atayal and Han junior high school students in a remote area of Taiwan. Contemp Educ Res Q 20(2):135–169. https://doi. org/10.6151/CERQ.2012.2002.04 Kuo YT (2012) The illustrations and words in aboriginal picture books. Aboriginal Educ World 47: 22–25 Lai CS (2012) A study on elementary school science reading instructional module. J Humanit Soc Sci Kunshan Univ Sci Technol 4:27–42. https://doi.org/10.29923/KSHSS.201210.0002 Lee MJ, Xu JL (2000) International law and the rights of indigenous peoples. Political Sci Essays 12:161–187 Li YH (2008) The study of aboriginal languages instruction by integrating technology into Peer Tutoring. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiayi University, Chiayi County Liao BY, Yang WJ, Ye JC, Huang BS (2010) Interpreting the difficulties in explaining Chinese scientific texts of aboriginal students from the perspective of language. Symposium on teaching and practice of math, physical and chemistry subjects for aboriginal students, 2010. In: Symposium conducted at the meeting of National Taitung University, Taitung City. (in Chinese) Lin SM (2000) The study of fifth-grade elementary school aboriginal students’ Chinese reading and writing ability in Hsin-I Hsiang, Nantou County. Unpublished master’s thesis, The National Taichung University of Education, Taichung City Lin N (2009a) Aboriginal students ethnic language E-learning research. J CAGST 2009:595–607. https://doi.org/10.30153/JCAGST.200903.0036

14

E-Reading in Texts of Multicultural Popular Science

385

Lin CM (2009b) A study on E-reading promotion of elementary school and junior high school students. Interdiscip J Taiwan Library Adm 5(2):49–67 Lin YC (2020) Education based on indigenous knowledge: constructing geography education of Bunun. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City. https:// doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202001579 Lin SY, Wu MT, Cho YI, Chen HH (2015) The effectiveness of a popular science promotion program on nanotechnology for elementary school students in I-Lan City. Res Sci Tech Edu 33 (1):22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.971733 Liu MH (2000) Constructing culturally responsive teaching: a case study of a multicultural classroom. J Nat Hualien Teach College 11:115–142 Liu JG, Chiu MH (2012) Review and Prospect of the development of science curriculum in junior schools in Taiwan. Sci Educ Monthly 347:2–20 Lo YW (1995) A study of Chinese reading learning of junior high schools students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung City Lu SC (2007) The development and instruction of picture e-book “biological evolution”. Taiwan Education Symposium, 2007. Symposium conducted at the meeting of University of Taipei, Taipei City. (in Chinese) Lu CH (2009) Popular science reading makes science easy to read. Public Library Guidance Group Newsletter, 5. Retrieve from http://lac2.glis.ntnu.edu.tw/publiclibepaper/index.php?id¼100 Lu CC, Lin SH, Tsai CW (2008) The study of teaching course design by CD-ROM storybooks of microbiologists. Paper presented at Conference of Asian Science Education CASE 2008, National Kaohsiung Normal University Macceca S (2007) Traits of good writing: grade 5. Shell Education, Hungtinton Beach Matsui T (1995) The seed of happiness: Japanese children’s picture book. Formosan Magazine, Taipei Matthew KI (1997) A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. J Res Comput Educ 29(3):263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1997.10782198 Merchie E, Van Keer H, Vandevelde S (2014) Development of the text-learning strategies inventory: assessing and profiling learning from texts in fifth and sixth grade. J Psychoeduc Assess 32 (6):533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914525155 Mou CY, Chen BZ (1996) Aboriginal education. J Educ Reform 21:13–17 Nabu A (2012) Making good use of aboriginal languages and images to produce picture books of aboriginal stories. Aboriginal Educ World 47:10–11 Pan SC (2016) Culturally responsive teaching in a special remote school. Sch Adm 104:184–210 Sutherland R (2004) Designs for learning: ICT and knowledge in the classroom. Comp Educ 43:5– 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.017 Taiwan Digital Publish Forum (TDPF) (2012) Taiwan digital publishing market status report in 2012 [Web message]. Retrieve from http://www.dpublishing.org.tw/2012/12/ Taiwan Indigenous People’s knowledge Economic Development Association (2012) Aboriginal distribution map [Web message]. Retrieved from http://www.twedance.org/aboriginal00.aspx Tan KT (2002) Taiwan aboriginal education. Shtabook, Taipei Tang KT, Tseng SY (2009) Community-based education in a Taiwan aboriginal complete school. Taiwan J Sociol Educ 9(1):91–134 Tsao JY (1998) Picture, story, and book. J Arts Educ 91:19–30 Tseng JY (2001) A study of the reading comprehension ability and the reading comprehension strategies of elementary school Atayal student. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tzu Chi University, Hualien County Vacca JAL, Vacca RT, Gove MK (1991) Reading and learning to read, 2nd edn. Harper Collins Publishers, New York Wang YC (2003) A study of scientific story integrated in science curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung City Wang CC (2010) Story structure teaching and shared reading, 2nd edn. Psychology, Taipei

386

T.-H. Huang and Y.-J. Li

Wang HC, Chang CY (2009) Integrated curriculum of aboriginal culture into mathematics and natural technology for high-grade students in elementary school. The 48th Taiwan Psychological Association-Educational Psychology, 2009. In: Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Taiwan Psychological Association, Taipei City. (in Chinese) Wellington JJ, Osborne J (2001) Language and literacy in science education. Open University, Philadelphia Wlodkowski RJ, Ginsberg MB (1995) A framework for culturally responsive teaching. Educ Leadersh 53(1):17–21 Wu YJ (1999) Mechanism affecting elementary school students’ achievements: a comparison between Taitung county and Taipei municipality. Educ Res J 43:213–242. https://doi.org/10. 6910/BER.199907_(43).0010 Wu YH (2000) A study of english instructional activities and students’ learning motivation: a class in Jen-Jen Elementary School (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Hualien Teacher College, Hualien County, Taiwan Wu YL (2006) The effect of dialogic reading and audio book reading on kindergarten children’s listening vocabulary and reading behaviors. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Hsinchu University of Education, Hsinchu City Wu MC (2007) Using picture storybooks to help disadvantaged students’ literacy development: a study of a fourth-grade aboriginal student. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Hsinchu University of Education, Hsinchu City Zeng JE (2001) A study of the reading comprehension ability and reading comprehension strategies of elementary school Atayal student. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tzu Chi University, Hualien Zhao A (2009) Foreign language reading anxiety: investigating english-speaking university students learning Chinese as a foreign language in the United States. Doctor of Philosophy, The Florida State University Zheng YY (2009) Paper, no longer the only form of reading: Taiwan publishing trends in May 2009. New Books Recent Publ Taiwan ROC 125:60–66 Zhou SH (2015) The recent development of the application for eTextbooks of aboriginal language. Aboriginal Educ World 61:56–59 Zhou SC, Ye SL (2012) Construction and continuity: on the editing and using fundamental teaching material of indigenous cultures in Taiwan. Taiwan J Indigenous Stud 5(4):1–28. https://doi.org/ 10.29910/TJIS.201212.0001

Part III Science Teaching

Introduction to Science Teaching

15

S. Lizette Ramos de Robles and Alejandro J. Gallard Martínez

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Short Description of each Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Remarks Before Entering the Section on Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

390 393 398 399

Abstract

In this introductory chapter, we provide an overview of each chapter in the section entitled Science Teaching. The chapters cover a wide range of multicultural themes, particular to each contributing author’s scholarly interests from the United States of America, México, or Lebanon. The chapters cover a wide range of subjects such as the language used to teach science, bilingualism, and translanguaging. The chapters also cover issues associated with rural/urban science teaching and the nature of science, all situated within sociocultural aspects of position/situate science teaching. Our standpoint is that science teaching cannot be disassociated from the contexts within which learning is enacted. Specifically, a set of ongoing global sociocultural influences contextually situate science teaching, influencing the teacher’s role in science teaching, learners’ learning processes, and the context in which education is enacted and situated. In using sociocultural lenses, we differ from positivist epistemological positions. Understanding how culture unfolds in science classroom spaces acknowledges that outside agents are constantly mitigating upon them. In this sense, the chapters S. L. Ramos de Robles Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] A. J. Gallard Martínez (*) Georgia Southern University, Savannah, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_63

389

390

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

in this Handbook’s section Science Teaching are framed by ontological, epistemological, and axiological interpretations that underscore the complexity of the social and cultural processes that influence educational spaces. Keywords

Bilingualism/multilingualism/plurilingualism · Sociocultural · Science teaching · Super diversity · Multicultural urban/rural

Introduction Science Teaching is the title of this part of the International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education published by Springer, hereafter referred to as the Handbook. Science teaching is an aspect that throughout the history of science has been given particular interest. With the intent of contributing to this growing body of literature in this part we offer 12 contributions from authors in the United States of America, México, and Lebanon, covering a wide range of multicultural themes regarding science teaching. The highlighted themes deal with specific themes related to language, translanguaging, rural science teaching, nature of science, and more general aspects related to sociocultural facets of science teaching. This spectrum of foci represents a set of ongoing global sociocultural influences that contextually situate science teaching. Our standpoint is that science teaching cannot be disassociated from the teacher’s role in science teaching, learners’ learning processes, and the context in which teaching is enacted and situated. By focusing on not just science teaching but also the teacher, learners, and the context, we can offer multiple interpretive lenses to make explicit the plethora of pedagogical factors that make up the inter- and intrasectional aspects of teaching in general and science teaching in particular. Adding to this complexity, in each chapter, the author (s) epistemological framework(s) is/are framed by multiple cultures, languages, and the hegemony of Western science and the hegemony of the language used for teaching. We suggest that as the readers critically analyze each chapter, the inherent implications to past and current educational practices can be made explicit, contributing to specific transformative improvements in science teaching. As section editors, our goal was to unearth the sociocultural contextual factors that position what happens in science classrooms as science teaching is confronted. We assert that the positional properties of these contextual factors implicitly and explicitly include some students while at the same time excluding others. In general terms, those with the correct cultural and social capital are represented in the STEM fields. Those designated as underrepresented (lacks the correct cultural and social capital) are not. However, this dichotomy is superficial as it ignores the contextual complexities of being positioned as a designated underrepresented person. From a socio-critical perspective, to define someone as underrepresented is to obfuscate that they are an outlier or a member of the set of otherness. Yes, it is the word otherness that defines every chapter in this section. Specifically in multicultural spaces,

15

Introduction to Science Teaching

391

defining a science learner by their gender, mother tongue, race, ethnicity, geographic spaces such as urban versus rural, and socioeconomic status (SES) is an otherness that encapsulates a set of sociocultural contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) used to position science learners (Gallard Martínez et al. 2018a). By positioning science learners, we mean using otherness that results in institutional and systemic contextual limit-situations for those defined by the above categories. Each of these chapters is situated within the theme of teaching science, which is a part of the education system to include the spaces in which science teaching is enacted. By enactment, we mean a culture of teaching and learning science fraught with limit-situations for others. Limit-situations are sociocultural factors that can restrain or constrain an individual from accomplishing their goals. These others can be Black, LatinX males or females, low SES status, or those discouraged from using their mother tongue for learning. Others lack the cultural and social capital that the hegemony of science teaching embraces. Unfortunately, the literature in science education is replete with scholarship that either ignores or lacks an awareness of the status quo’s power that frames teaching science (Gallard Martínez et al. 2021). Yes, we readily admit that some others deal successfully with the various STEM pathways (Gallard Martínez et al. 2018b). But we counter the underscoring of success for some by emphasizing, as an example, that the success rate for White males in the STEM fields is much more significant than that of any female regardless of color, ethnicity, mother tongue, or SES status. Within the educational spaces that the teaching of science occupies exists an abundance of resources designed for the non-others to be successful, while what is left over is for the others. Before we Describe each Contribution, Alejandro and I, as Section Editors, suggest that it is essential to consider the following question: Is there a tension between a one-size-fits-all emphasis in science teaching versus transforming the socio- and pedagogical cultures of science teaching by insisting that students are individuals with unique experiences? if the answer is no, then we must admit that science teachers and science teacher educators do not need this section of the Handbook. However, if the answer is yes, we wonder how this section of the Handbook can help mitigate a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching science? Specifically, how can a section on science teaching contribute to the success of those people labeled as designated underrepresented in the stem pipelines? The importance of these two questions is to interrogate how we teach science. Specifically, is science teaching done to meet all learners’ needs or only those who have the correct cultural capital? From the different voices of the authors, we can learn how to challenge what we know about the diversity of contexts and practices where science’s teaching and learning occur. By opening a critical lens, readers of this section will develop an understanding of multiple science teaching realities. Accordingly, we share these chapters with science education scholars and practitioners, education policymakers, and inservice and preservice science teachers. Our hope is that all will benefit from the ideas of the authors. We especially promote the notion that discussion and enrichment of the field of science teaching can be enhanced by analyzing and assessing other ontological, epistemological and axiological theoretical and

392

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

methodological positions that will assist in transforming current and future science teaching practices. The following is the order and major themes of the chapters in this part Preparing teachers to develop multicultural approaches for teaching students in different school contexts. 1. Regina L. Suriel: ▶ Chap. 16, “Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models and Missed Opportunities for Multicultural Science Education” 2. Sharon Dotger, and Terrance Burgess: ▶ Chap. 17, “Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science Teaching and Learning” 3. Rhea Miles, Leonard Annetta, Shawn Moore, and Gera Miles: ▶ Chap. 18, “Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and Underrepresented Populations in Rural Areas” 4. Christopher Emdin: ▶ Chap. 19, “On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius” 5. Bhaskar Upadhyay: ▶ Chap. 20, “Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts” 6. Saouma BouJaoude, Abdullah Ambusaidi, and Sara Salloum: ▶ Chap. 21, “Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of Arab Countries” Developing effective multilinguistic strategies for diverse linguistic student populations. 7. Amy Ricketts, Minjung Ryu, Jocelyn Elizabeth Nardo, Mavreen Rose S. Tuvilla, Camille Gabrielle Love: ▶ Chap. 22, “Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse Multicultural Classrooms” 8. S. Lizette Ramos de Robles, and Alejandro J. Gallard M.: ▶ Chap. 23, “A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms” 9. Noushin Nouri, Alma D. Rodríguez, and Maryam Saberi: ▶ Chap. 24, “Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding Translanguaging in Multicultural Settings” 10. Angela Chapman, and Patricia Alvarez McHatton: ▶ Chap. 25, “It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx Learners’ Native Language to Learn Science” Portraying pedagogic approaches that are valid for Indigenous Students. 11. Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo, and Alejandra García Franco, ▶ Chap. 26, “Multicultural and Dialogic Science Education in Indigenous Schools in the Mayan Highlands, México” 12. Sharon Nelson-Barber, Zanette Johnson, Jonathan Boxerman, and Matt Silberglitt: ▶ Chap. 27, “Using Context-Adaptive Indigenous Methodologies to Address Pedagogical Challenges in Multicultural Science Education”

15

Introduction to Science Teaching

393

A Short Description of each Chapter ▶ Chapter 16, “Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models and Missed Opportunities for Multicultural Science Education” (Suriel, R.) Regina Suriel’s article suggests that science teaching is very complex and that multiple factors influence science teachers’ best intentions. Specifically, for science teachers to deliver impactful science teaching that is inclusive within multicultural science education, teachers should possess both in-depth science content knowledge and a good understanding of students’ cultural knowledge that they bring with them. Often, science teachers have knowledge gaps that prevent them from teaching science effectively using students’ funds of knowledge. She centers on the knowledge gap that science teachers have when teaching scientific models. Perhaps this results from poor content preparation or science methods courses that teach science without connecting to specific content and diverse perspectives. Regina reminds us that multiculturalism and science teaching are situated within the needs of a diverse student population and the teacher’s content knowledge. Specifically, she argues that science teachers and science teacher educators use pedagogical methods that limit learners’ depth of content knowledge and exclude multicultural perspectives. Her observation is framed around the teaching of scientific models (SM), which is a major concept in Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States 2013) by creating a tension between methods-content-multiculturalism and -specific content knowledge. ▶ Chap. 18, “Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and Underrepresented Populations in Rural Areas” (Miles, R., Annetta, L., Moore, S., and Miles, G.) R. Miles, L. Annetta, S. Moore, and G. Miles remind us that “Teachers and students in rural communities have many challenges that could limit multicultural high-quality science instruction.” For instance, students may lack access to broadband technology. Rural science teachers may not have access to professional development opportunities that promote inclusiveness, equity, and empowerment nurtured from the school’s own culture. Miles et al. identify that students in rural areas are underserved and underrepresented in STEM, often due to a regional deficiency in economic resources to meet each rural school district’s needs. Rather than focusing on each district, they advocate establishing regional STEM centers that can provide centralized location services for virtual and face-to-face STEMfocused education opportunities to help underserved teachers. However, for these proposed STEM centers to deliver virtual assistance, the school districts would need to have the bandwidth and technology available to utilize this potential service. Simply put, for STEM students to experience quality education, more economic resources need to be brought into rural areas. ▶ Chap. 17, “Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science Teaching and Learning” (Dotger, S., and Burgess, T.) Dotger and Burgess provide a historical and current perspective of lesson study practice and its use as a pedagogical tool in teaching and learning mathematics and science. Lesson study originated in Japan and emphasized learning mathematics

394

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

through problem-solving. “Lesson study is a form of teacher professional learning centering the study of public enactment of instruction and students’ learning in live time amid a careful study of curriculum, standards, instructional materials, research, and goals for students.” Through live-time public feedback, teachers’ lesson study practice includes curriculum, standards, instructional materials, research, and student goals. A main objective is to improve lesson implementation and investigate how various students in the class experience the lesson. Students’ experiences are the drivers of teachers’ subsequent instructional improvements. They view lesson study as a form of research in action which helps teachers empower themselves by understanding what they can and cannot control. In the case of lesson study, they emphasize the importance of paying careful attention to what students bring to the classroom (e.g., funds of knowledge) and attending to inequities found in the curriculum, emphasizing the idea that students can control their learning needs. ▶ Chap. 19, “On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius” (Emdin, C.) Emdin interrogates urban youth’s needs and incorporates hip hop into teaching science and, by implication, learning the same. He advocates that through hip hop, students can connect to science phenomena and incorporate it into the world of urban youth. Perhaps for many science educators, this would be a radical idea. Emdin argues that science teachers and science educators must reimagine how science can be taught and learned. He has reimagined science education through Science Genius BATTLES, which has gained national and international fame. It enables science teachers to incorporate urban culture into science teaching and make science learning meaningful and personal. Thus, through hiphop, traditionally disengaged urban youth can relate to the beauty of the sciences by creating their own hiphop songs that are grounded within science phenomena. ▶ Chap. 20, “Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts” (Upadhyay, B.) Bhaskar Upadhyay’s chapter’s background is situated within the complexities of science teaching in high poverty urban schools in multicultural contexts globally. Specifically, he spotlights the difficulties of teaching science in low SES urban schools (high poverty urban schools), which are contextualized by a plethora of different cultures and languages, and which create limit-situations not only for the science teacher but also for students. His description of high poverty in macrogenic terms parallels low SES urban schools globally by describing them as having high science teacher attrition, dismal per-student funding, insufficient per-student funding, and low academic expectations. Central to his argument is that schooling experiences for students positioned by a type of praxis inclusive of each student’s community and cultural foundations and framed by social justice and a sociopolitical consciousness can result in higher student achievement success. A strong implication throughout this chapter is the idea that not all schools are the same. The sociocultural spaces in which high and low-poverty schools reside in should not be thought of as the same. Within each of these spaces, some contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) define the types and amounts of resources available to students

15

Introduction to Science Teaching

395

determined by how wealthy or poor students are and how their cultures and languages represent the status quo of acceptable cultural capital. ▶ Chap. 21, “Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of Arab Countries” (BouJaoude, S., Ambusaidi, A., and Salloum, S.) BouJaoude et al. discuss the inclusion of the nature of science (NOS) in the curriculum of several Arab countries and present a look at the impact of NOS research in the Arab countries of Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. In doing so, they interrogated adopted NOS frameworks, NOS in science textbooks, and how education policymakers and science teachers (to name a few) view NOS. They reject the prevalent restricted view of NOS by being critical of the lack of consideration given to multiculturalism. To alleviate this pedagogical and policy gap, they suggest incorporating a framework entitled the family resemblance approach (FRA) to NOS. Their “recommendation is based on the premise that FRA is responsive to NOS multicultural issues and has the potential to engender more in-depth thinking about science and its role in society.” Some of the critical issues that can be addressed through the FRA pedagogical framework are how power and oppression manifest themselves in the sciences (e.g., the alienation of science students based on their cultures or gender) and how these sociocultural issues can be mitigated. ▶ Chap. 22, “Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse Multicultural Classrooms” Ricketts, A., Ryu, M., Nardo, J.E., S. Tuvilla, M.R., and Gabrielle Love, C.) Ricketts et al. discuss how global demographics have changed the United States of America. New immigrants and refugees entering the United States of America with new languages and dialects have created what they call linguistically superdiverse multicultural classrooms as the new norm. The notion of super-diversity is a very complex set of learning spaces filled with varied students’ backgrounds, such as immigration status, countries of origins, their mother tongues, and religions. Dealing with these sociocultural factors has created new nuances in the pedagogical methods developed without these populations in mind. The authors provide us with an in-depth look at how a high school in the Midwestern United States addresses changing demographics of the students with an increasing number of migrants (mostly former refugees) from Myanmar, Congo, Syria Honduras, among others. This new group of emergent multilingual students have brought with them over 20 different languages and are classified by the school as limited English proficient. In their findings, Ricketts et al. discuss the new instructional practices that science teachers implemented to facilitate emergent multilingual students’ science learning and how implemented instructional practices supported or did not support student learning and participation. Additionally, they provide insights into the gaps in the existing literature that deals with teaching science in multilingual classrooms and provide implications for the future through a series of questions. ▶ Chap. 23, “A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms” Ramos de Robles, S. L., and Gallard M., A.)

396

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

Ramos de Robles and Gallard M. argue for the necessity of creating inclusive educational spaces for multiple cultures and languages that challenge an environment of otherness. A central theme in their chapter is the need to understand that science teaching takes place in contextualized complex spaces characterized by learning that has already occurred in multiple languages and cultural experiences. Focusing on mother tongues, they use the term bilingualism/multilingualism/ plurilingualism (BMP) as a way of underscoring the need for respecting the linguistic and cognitive tools students bring to the science classroom. In using the term BMP, an emphasis is placed on developing a type of praxis based on a holistic approach to accommodate learning when students bring multiple languages and cultures to science classrooms. An important implication of their chapter is in accord with other chapters in this section. When students’ languages, coupled with inclusive social interactions and collaborations and where otherness is respected and included, a student’s learning to include science is facilitated and enriched. ▶ Chap. 24, “Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding Translanguaging in Multicultural Settings” Nouri, N., Rodríguez, A.D., and Saberi, M.). In this chapter, the authors focus on translanguaging as part of a sociocultural framework that values diverse students’ cultures and languages and enhances their learning of science concepts. Using meta-synthesis as a methodological tool, they analyzed scholarship on translanguaging. They teased out a framework of six proficiencies and know-hows for science teachers to incorporate into their praxis to enhance student learning of science and help science teachers develop new and increase existing professional competencies when teaching science in multilingual and multicultural science classrooms. There is a strong implication for impacting current praxis in the following six recommended competencies to be developed: (a) The teacher should know pedagogical methods on how to teach bilingual students; (b) the teacher believes in the importance of using translanguaging pedagogy and has professional dispositions; (c) the teacher can identify the rationale for using translanguaging pedagogy; (d) the teacher possesses professional skills to implement translanguaging pedagogy; (e) the teacher selects appropriate pedagogical approaches and instructional strategies to apply translanguaging pedagogy, and 6) the teacher is aware of challenges of using translanguaging pedagogy and is able to handle them. ▶ Chap. 25, “It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx Learners’ Native Language to Learn Science” (Chapman, A., and Alvarez McHatton, P.) Chapman and Alvarez McHatton use the notion of capital as a theoretical construct developed by Bourdieu (1986), who argues that the more one can demonstrate what one knows is part of acceptable societal norms, the stronger is one’s position in society. In their chapter, they specifically look at the role of Spanish as linguistic capital and that of Spanish in the United States of America in P-12 and science classrooms. One of their questions is whether science classrooms that insist on or primarily teach in English create a deficit perspective toward students whose mother tongue is Spanish. Another way of asking this question is to speculate if

15

Introduction to Science Teaching

397

suppressing the linguistic capital of heritage languages is a form of linguistic oppression? The answer to either question is beyond their chapter’s scope and more complex than the problem seems. For example, they found in their study that a relationship between a student’s command of Spanish increased their ability to develop agentic action toward deficit views of those whose primary language is Spanish. On the other hand, students who did not have a command of Spanish as their primary language could not see Spanish as linguistic capital. They also found that explicit use of strategies that leverage Spanish support knowledge can improve bilingual learners’ learning outcomes in science classrooms. The use of English-only is a deeply rooted practice in our schools. This study directly challenges the idea of English only by affirming that Spanish as a supportive language in multilingual science classrooms in the USA leads to learning. ▶ Chap. 26, “Multicultural and Dialogic Science Education in Indigenous Schools in the Mayan Highlands, México” Gómez Galindo, A.A., and García Franco, A.) Gómez Galindo and García Franco discuss the linguistic diversity of México (365 variants of 68 different languages) and how, despite plurilingualism being recognized in the constitution, this country’s multilingual diversity and parallel cultural diversity is superficially treated in the national curriculum. Even though almost 25% of the population is indigenous, traditional knowledge (TK) and indigenous languages are ignored. For example, the cultivation of milpa (a policrop system with maize, beans, and squash as principal components) has been recognized as relevant in resisting climate change, disease and promoting diversity. Traditional knowledge related to the cultivation of milpa should be recognized as knowing in and of itself and should not be subordinated to western forms of thinking that disempower indigenous people in the long and short end. Gómez Galindo and García Franco authored a book written in Spanish, Tsotsil and Tseltal entitled: “Aprendiendo en la milpa,” (Learning in the Milpa1) which was used as the basis for a series of professional development (PD) workshops in the Mayan highlands of México. The goal of the PD’s was to introduce a specific set of TK that allowed teachers to problematize, retrieve, and analyze their practice and the social construction of a new shared knowledge associated with milpa cultivation. ▶ Chap. 27, “Using Context-Adaptive Indigenous Methodologies to Address Pedagogical Challenges in Multicultural Science Education” (Nelson-Barber, S., Johnson, Z., Boxerman, J., and Silberglitt, M.) Coupling technology and place-based learning (PBL) Nelson-Barber, et al. describe how they developed Indigenous Mapping on FieldScope to be used throughout indigenous communities. The scientific information in the newly designed PBL program for indigenous communities contained culturally sensitive ecological science concepts by working with indigenous groups of people from Hawai‘i, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the Navajo Nation to ensure contextual accuracy. Goodness-of-fit and the impact of meaningful, lasting

1

A crop growing system used in Mesoamerica.

398

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

learning were the main goals of this contextually based effort. They refer to it as a combination of Participatory Research methods and Context Adaptive research methods. When collecting data with Indigenous and other diverse communities, they developed seven heuristic principles to guide them: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Cultural Humility Seek Community Perspectives from the Outset Pay Attention to What People Do and Say Broaden perspective with context and iteration Respect Cultural Practice, Knowledge, and Epistemology Ethical Research Implications and Impacts Affirm the Integrity of Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Final Remarks Before Entering the Section on Science Teaching In the Science Teaching section in this Handbook, the topics encompass scientific models associated with the Next Generation Science Standards, science teaching with underserved and designated underrepresented populations in all geographic areas, attention to inequities such as economic resources and student diversity, analysis and attention to the role of languages other than English, and the lingering effects of colonialism are the main topics addressed by the authors. The authors’ discussions of their experiences or suggestions regarding the enactment of the themes mentioned above and the spaces in which science teaching occurs are positioned by an essential sociocultural concept: the idea of spaces. All spaces contain resources, but not all spaces are equal (Ramos de Robles, & Gallard Martínez, this chapter). The multiple meso- and microspaces within these macrospaces vary by the population (e.g., rural vs. urban, high SES, low SES) that occupies each one and how existing resources can attract or not attract additional resources to any space. Specifically, how spaces are inhabited defines the amount and variety of available resources by the resources they lend to the spaces. As an example, a school district with 5% of students on free and reduced lunch and an almost 100% graduation (high SES and high graduation rate) will attract more resources within the space of the school than one with 60% of students who are on free and reduced lunch and a 70% graduation rate (low SES and low graduation rate). As different from positivist epistemological positions, sociocultural lenses allow for generating research that is inclusive of how culture unfolds in science classroom spaces. In this sense, the publication of this Handbook and the multitude of voices can be considered an attempt at which the social sciences and the humanities offer ontological, epistemological, and axiological interpretations that enable the consumer to understand with greater complexity the social and cultural processes that influence educational spaces, thus not limiting understanding solely to individual and cognitive analysis. Finally, those who participated in this section on science teaching consider this an opportunity for our chapters to foster more excellent critical

15

Introduction to Science Teaching

399

dialogue for readers and researchers interested in this field. We further recognize that such dialogue can be enriched through informed agreement or disagreement of ideas and facts. And that it is through discussion that we can strengthen both scientific literacy and proficiency, consequently leading to the construction of more just and critical societies. Hopefully, this contribution will serve as a basis and aid in promoting the development of new research, which includes understanding and making explicit the complexities that characterize the field of science teaching.

References Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed) Handbook for theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp 241–258 Gallard Martínez AJ, Pitts W, Brkich K, Ramos de Robles SL (2018a) How does one recognize contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) as a basis to understand and arrive at better approaches to research designs? Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:545–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9872-2 Gallard Martínez A, Pitts W, Ramos de Robles SL, Milton Brkich K, Flores Bustos B, Claeys L (2018b) Discerning contextual complexities in STEM career pathways – insights from successful Latinas. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:1079–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9900-2 Gallard Martínez AJ, Pitts W, Bustos Flores B, Ramos de Robles SL, Claeys L (2021) Latinas pathways to STEM: exploring contextual mitigating factors. Peter Lang, New York NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models and Missed Opportunities for Multicultural Science Education

16

Regina L. Suriel

Contents Need for Multicultural Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Expectations for Teaching Scientific Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scientific Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expectations for Student Learning About Scientific Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers’ Challenges with Teaching Scientific Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How I Collected My Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summer Professional Development for Middle School Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Making Sense of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middle-Grade Science Teachers Participating in SM-Focused PD: Emergent Themes . . . . Secondary-Level Science Teacher Instructional Use and Understanding of Scientific Models: Findings from Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Researcher’s Reflexivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

403 404 405 406 407 408 408 409 410 412 413 413 414 420 421 424

Abstract

Scientific literacy from a multicultural education lens is essential to educating today’s youth; however, teachers may lack these competencies and pass on knowledge gaps to students. Thus, there is a pressing need to understand science teachers’ knowledge gaps impeding them from imparting high-quality multicultural science curricula. The researcher examined science teachers’ knowledge of scientific models (SM), which are foundational scientific and engineering tools. I employed a mixed method qualitative approach embedded in both R. L. Suriel (*) Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_26

401

402

R. L. Suriel

postpositivistic and critical orientations. A questionnaire administered after a professional development and interview data were collected from secondarylevel science teachers serving diverse student populations. Study findings shed light on the need to develop science teachers’ understanding of SM to deepen their scientific literacy, and that of their students, so they can be better equipped to integrate multicultural science education frameworks. Keywords

Scientific models · Science education · Scientific literacy · Professional development · Science teachers’ content knowledge · Multicultural science education · Middle school science teachers · Scientific and engineering practices

Scientific literacy and multicultural science education (MSE) have been at the forefront of curricular reforms now more than ever because competencies imparted by these reforms are much needed to function effectively in today’s multicultural society and global economy (Atwater and Riley 1993; Banks and McGee Banks 1993; National Academies of Sciences [NAS] 2016). Current reforms for scientific literacy call for science instruction that integrates scientific and engineering practices, inclusive of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM knowledge, so students can learn and apply scientific concepts while working collaboratively with others to solve abstract problems (Knipprath et al. 2018; NAS 2016). Addressing abstract problems that affect society require knowledge that is diverse in perspectives and approaches so that proposed solutions can be applicable in diverse natural and social contexts (NAS 2016). To improve and change social conditions, scientifically literate citizens are needed, so they are better prepared to make informed decisions about issues affecting their lives and be able to contribute to the science knowledge corpus (NAS 2016; Yacoubian 2018). While science educators are charged with developing scientific literate citizens by imparting STEM competencies, multicultural science extends goals of science education by engaging learners in the scientific enterprise through science curricula that integrates students’ “funds of knowledge” (González et al. 2005) so that all knowledge is considered and used in problem-solving but, in doing so, learners from diverse backgrounds may feel as part of the solution and enabled to enact change (Banks and McGee Banks 1993; Freire 1994; Gay 2010, 2013; Ladson-Billings 1995). Students’ funds of knowledge are the “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge” (González et al. 2005, p. 133), e.g., indigenous knowledge or culturally based science knowledge. However, international achievement measures show K-12 students in the United States lagging behind in scientific literacy compared to students in other leading nations (US Department of Education [USDE] 2020), and, nationally, an academic disparity in science achievement exists between different groups of K-12 students with Asian and White students outperforming students from traditionally marginalized communities (STMC), e.g., Black, Latinx, and Native Americans

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

403

(Kennedy et al. 2021; Musu-Gillette et al. 2017). The racial disparity in science achievement may be an indicator for the limited number of college-level STEM graduates and professionals from traditionally marginalized communities (MusuGillette et al. 2017). K-12 STMC do not often experience high-quality science curricula or curricula that includes students’ funds of knowledge (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007). As such, these learning experiences may impede STMC from engaging in science learning. Thus, science teachers’ depth of content knowledge about scientific and engineering practices and multicultural science education is needed if we are to nurture scientific literacy in all citizens to effectively engage with science. This chapter focuses on teachers’ knowledge of scientific models, a scientific and engineering practice, and how this knowledge can be used to integrate tenets of MSE. The next section of this chapter defines MSE and national expectations for teaching scientific modeling. Then, research questions, data collection, and analysis for this study are presented that address science teachers’ definitions of SM and teachers’ expectations for students about SM to highlight challenges and limitations for the effective teaching of SM and missed opportunities for enacting tenets of MSE. Lastly, a discussion section articulates ways in which science educators can assist teachers in developing content and pedagogical knowledge for teaching SM integrated with tenets of MSE.

Need for Multicultural Science Education Student demographics in US public schools show an increase of culturally and linguistically diverse students, a trend predicted to continue in future years (USDE 2019a; Valencia 2010). However, teacher demographics have remained unchanged with the majority of teachers being middle-class Whites (Gabriel et al. 2015; USDE 2019b). As such, a cultural mismatch exists between teachers and students that may impede science teachers from incorporating students’ funds of knowledge in their instruction to best engage them in learning (La Salle et al. 2020). Multicultural science education is a theoretical framework that can assist teachers in providing science instruction that engages all students, especially STMC, who may be disenfranchised from science learning because they do not see themselves, their experiences, and funds of knowledge as part of the science curriculum (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; Boisselle 2016). As a social construct, MSE anchors its gaze on quality science education to create equitable learning opportunities for all learners, regardless of their cultural background, cognitive or physical abilities, or sex orientation (Atwater and Riley 1993). The tenets of MSE align with Banks’ dimensions of multicultural education in providing learners with equity pedagogy that provides an anti-prejudice curriculum by integrating science content with students’ funds of knowledge such as sciencebased cultural knowledge that they bring with them. Important here is that teachers provide students with opportunities to analyze and determine how knowledge is constructed and influenced by frames of reference, biases, or perspectives so that they can construct knowledge themselves (Banks and McGee Banks 1993). MSE

404

R. L. Suriel

and other culturally responsive paradigms in education also seek to empower learners through rigorous high-quality science curricula embedded within learner’s cultural knowledge so that they feel validated and valued, see themselves and their ancestors represented as contributors to the knowledge corpus, and be better informed to challenge forms of societal oppression; collectively, these behaviors can better equip learners to be social agents of change (Banks and McGee Banks 1993; Freire 1994; Gay 2010, 2013; Ladson-Billings 1995). These ideas, inherent in critical theory, aim to dismantle power structures for the emancipation of the oppressed (Freire 1994; Giroux 1983; McLaren 1994) by understanding that power structures are institutionalized and can be enacted through science curricula (Mensah and Jackson 2018). Tensions of power can manifest themselves in various ways. This includes the exclusion of needed content and students’ funds of knowledge when teaching, due to a deficit type of thinking such as the blaming the victim lens, which presupposes what learners can and cannot do (Valencia 1997, 2010) or teachers who fail to decolonize science by solely espousing Eurocentric science views (Boisselle 2016). Decolonizing the curriculum involves the intentional integration of value systems other than that of the hegemony to include other ways of knowing (Battiste 2014; Higgins 2016; Tavernaro-Haidarian 2019). Thus, learners are disempowered when they do not engage in high-quality multicultural science curricula that impart scientific literacy (Atwater 1996; Atwater and Riley 1993). A quality multicultural science curriculum is one that is inclusive of highly qualified teachers and adequate resources (NRC 2012; Williams and Atwater 2014) and provides students with an in-depth understanding of and development of essential skills about important science topics so students can learn and propose potential solutions to real-world problems (Glatthorn et al. 2001; NAS 2016). Moreover, critical teachers who teach quality multicultural science draw on tenets of MSE to (a) integrate various learning strategies that target multiple intelligences and learning styles, (b) integrate students’ funds of knowledge to enrich and discuss science from multiple perspectives, and (c) provide students an anti-prejudice curriculum that is loaded with opportunities to examine how science knowledge is constructed (Atwater et al. 2013; Banks and McGee Banks 1993; Glatthorn et al. 2001; Ladson-Billings 1995; NRC 2012). Teachers’ knowledge of their students, and of how to best integrate the cultural assets they bring with them, makes the science curriculum be more meaningful, engaging, and empowering.

National Expectations for Teaching Scientific Modeling Teachers are charged with teaching a high-quality multicultural science curriculum, particularly when teaching STMC. Nearly two decades ago, the National Science Teacher Association positioned that “Science teachers have the responsibility to involve culturally diverse children in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career opportunities” (NSTA 2000, 2nd para). Similarly, NRC’s current science education reform echoed NSTA’s call for increasing the number of

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

405

STEM professionals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM career fields such as females, African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinx so that STEM professions draw on multiculturally diverse perspectives (NRC 2012). The NRC calls for science education that is equitable, providing students with: opportunities to learn science and become engaged in science and engineering practices; with access to quality space, equipment, and teachers to support and motivate that learning and engagement; and adequate time spent on science but also connecting to their interests and experiences so that they better engage with science learning. (NRC 2012, p. 28)

However, how to best integrate experiences and interests of STMC to best teach science and engineering practices is unclear. Teachers need to develop STMC who possess in-depth knowledge of science and engineering practices and frame this effort within tenets of multicultural teaching and learning. The STEM competencies to be taught in K-12 school contexts are articulated in NRC’s A Framework for K-12 Science Education (2012) or The Frameworks and outlined in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS 2013). At its core, rather than teaching each STEM discipline in siloes, the NRC calls for teaching of scientific and engineering that integrate STEM knowledge (Nadelson and Seifert 2017; NRC 2012). Learning expectations for creating and revising scientific models, practices known as scientific modeling (Justi and van Driel 2005) are tasks that easily integrate scientific and engineering practices.

Scientific Models An agreement exists among researchers that scientific models are representations of phenomena, ideas, processes, or systems that attempt to (a) convey explanations or descriptions of scientific ideas, principles, and theories (Oh and Oh 2011), (b) test hypothesis, and (c) provide intellectual access to the ideas the model describes (Bailer-Jones 2009). SM organize information logically and coherently in statements, often expressed physically or in written manifestations (e.g., mathematical formulas, DNA structure, charts, and diagrams). Collectively, these functions of SM describe the purpose of SM (Cheng et al. 2019). Cheng et al. (2019) also describe the nature of SM as “the ontological beliefs about the relationship between scientific models and the target events” (p. 3). Thus, SM can reflect reality or share new expressions of abstract ideas or new theoretical aspects (Oh and Oh 2011). For example, the string theory model was created for its theoretical benefits, and not wholly to explain existing empirical data. Furthermore, SM can be analogies or simple, partial presentations of patterns that attempt to capture the essence of natural phenomena and serve to link phenomena and theory (Oh and Oh 2011). For example, the water cycle is not physically present in nature per se, but a representation of the observed sources and sinks of water. Because SM are partial representations and approximations of reality, they are inherently limited in predictive power and precision (Bailer-Jones 2009).

406

R. L. Suriel

Lastly, Cheng et al. also describe the process of scientific modeling. Scientific modeling refers to the continuous evaluation and revision of SM to reflect scientific advances and understandings. The revision of the geocentric model to the heliocentric model is a good example of a revision based in new understandings. The evaluation of SM includes determining its “fit between the model and the actual phenomenon” (Oh and Oh 2011, p. 1119). A scientific model that does not accurately fit with other accepted models or predict what it intended when tested empirically is considered invalid and thus can be rejected or revised (Bailer-Jones 2009; Oh and Oh 2011).

Expectations for Student Learning About Scientific Modeling Learning about SM and scientific modeling is important because it provides students with opportunities to engage in scientific and engineering practices of (a) reasoning about scientific phenomena; (b) creating, presenting, criticizing, and evaluating theories and ideas; and proposing new models based on their evaluations (Chen et al. 2016). When SM and scientific modeling are taught within MSE frameworks, students can also examine alternative models that serve to affirm students’ funds of knowledge. Accordingly, The Frameworks ask that students “construct drawings or physical models as representations of events or systems to explain or make predictions about how the system will behave in specified circumstances” (p 58) and to discuss a model’s limitations and precision as the representation of a system. The Frameworks also suggest that curricula should provide students with modeling tools so that they come to value, design, construct, and use scientific models with ease. The skill requirement for student-made models, according to The Frameworks, needs to increase in complexity throughout the grades, to be used to clarify and share ideas and explanations and allow others to criticize proposed and alternative models, and to make adequate revisions where needed (NRC 2012). To meet the recommendations and expectations of The Frameworks for scientific modeling, the state of Georgia specifies these expectations in their newly revised content standards that are partly based on the NGSS. The Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) for science instruction requires that students use, develop, defend, and evaluate scientific models on at least half of the yearly grade level content standards. For example, the content standards for 7th-grade Life Science specifically require students to use, develop, defend, and evaluate scientific models on 7 of the 15 standard elements. As of 2017, teachers began using the new science GSE while also receiving ongoing professional development on how to best address the new content standards. While the teaching of science content remained the same as previous years, teachers remain challenged with newly required knowledge and skills posed by the NGSS and GSE. Georgia teachers are not alone in this challenge. US science teachers as whole possess knowledge gaps about scientific and engineering practices and how to best teach it (Banilower 2019; Cheng et al. 2019; Karleah et al. 2017).

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

407

Teachers’ Challenges with Teaching Scientific Modeling While science teachers often have students use and create SM to explain their conceptual understanding of some phenomena, teachers often lack a clear understanding of SM (Yenilmez and Oztekin 2016). Cheng et al. (2019) document how many science teachers’ inadequate understanding of scientific modeling (SM) challenges them in designing instruction that develops a comprehensive or incomplete understanding of SM. For example, Cheng et al. (2019) note that many teachers believe that SM depict “accurate or simplified demonstrations of events as they occur in nature” (p 3). A superficial understanding of SM may lead some teachers to limit their instruction about the nature of SM and scientific modeling (Cheng et al. 2019). Thus, students may not be afforded opportunities to evaluate models they or their peers create or to develop alternative models to explain natural phenomena, as The Frameworks recommends. Science instruction that limits the examination of alternative ways of knowing may impede students, STMC in particular, from engaging in high-quality multicultural curricula. In fact, science teachers struggle with incorporating MSE approaches (Suriel and Atwater 2012; Williams and Atwater 2014). Inaccessibility to highquality curricula, i.e., integrated scientific and engineering practices inherent in SM, exacerbates educational inequalities and may have long-lasting educational effects for STMC. STMC often experience instruction that is straightforward, limited in depth of content knowledge, and devoid of multicultural perspectives and knowledge other than that of the hegemony (Atwater et al. 2013; Banks and McGee Banks 1993; Suriel and Atwater 2012; Tavernaro-Haidarian 2019). Similarly, many science teachers do not engage with high-quality science curricula nor multicultural science education during their teacher preparatory programs nor in their professional development (Banilower et al. 2018; Underwood and Mensah 2018). Though teachers have experiences with SM as science learners themselves, teacher prep programs nor professional development adequately prepare teachers to teach (a) scientific and engineering practices, especially SM (Banilower et al. 2018; Cunningham and Carlsen 2014; Love and Wells 2018; Ünal et al. 2014), and (b) multicultural science education (Radloff and Guzey 2016; Suriel and Atwater 2012; Türk et al. 2018). Thus, the need to understand science teachers’ knowledge gaps about SM that impede them from imparting integrated, high-quality, multicultural science curricula is pressing (Bang and Luft 2013; Wang et al. 2014). As content teachers, science teachers’ knowledge of SM is an important prerequisite to the integration of MSE. An in-depth understanding of SM can lead critical, reflective teachers to identify and utilize opportunities to enrich instruction with students’ science-based funds of knowledge and to have students examine the process of knowledge construction from diverse perspectives (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; González et al. 2005). Thus, a discussion of the integration of SM and MSE first requires an examination of teachers’ understanding of SM and then an examination of how they can best integrate content with MSE. This study focuses on the examination of science teachers’ definitions of scientific modeling and their expectations for students’ scientific modeling. This study addresses the following

408

R. L. Suriel

research questions: (1) How do science teachers define scientific models? and (2) What learning expectations do science teachers hold about students’ understanding of scientific models? In the next section, I discuss the framework and processes guiding data collection and analyses for responding the research questions.

How I Collected My Data Qualitative inquiry concerns itself with examining the human experience (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). Using an inductive approach, qualitative inquiry explores and seeks to describe a “central social phenomenon of interest to provide rich insight into that phenomenon” (Nowell and Albrecht 2019, p. 351). As such, study findings are not generalizable (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). In this mixed method qualitative study, the phenomenon explored was secondary-level science teacher’s understanding of scientific modeling and their expectations for students’ scientific modeling. A mixed method approach was utilized in this study to draw on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect and analyze data (Almeida 2018). Moreover, an exploratory design for the mixed method approach was appropriate for this study because data were collected in two phases, with qualitative data building on initial quantitative results (Almeida 2018). The first phase of the study utilized a questionnaire containing both preselected responses, a quantitative measure, and options for constructed responses. Findings from questionnaire responses led to the development of an interview protocol. Thus, the second phase of the study helped further explain findings from the questionnaire and consisted of data collection via face-to-face interviews administered by me, the researcher. I also collected participant observation fieldnotes throughout the study (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011; Emerson et al. 1995). Processes for data collection and data analysis are discussed below.

Context and Participants I am an immigrant Spanish-English-speaking Latina science educator in the United States with teaching experience in high school sciences and teacher educator courses (Suriel 2016). The Southeastern town where I teach has a history of racial divide and social unrest, with documented lynchings of Black citizens over 100 years ago (The Mary Turner Project 2014). Commitments to multicultural education in our teacher preparatory program are often inadequate and inconsequential, and this lack thereof is very evident in course syllabi assignment expectations and students’ inability to explain and apply tenets of multicultural education in their teaching or social behaviors (Sleeter 2018; Suriel and Atwater 2012; Suriel et al. 2017; Suriel and Freeman in press). As such, undergraduate students who graduate from our teacher programs often depart with dispositions toward marginalized communities that are unchanged from what they have historically experienced in their education and social contexts. It is within this context that I developed professional development

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

409

(PD) workshops for middle school science teachers, most of whom are graduates from our teacher programs, to further develop a deeper understanding of science concepts, especially of SM.

Summer Professional Development for Middle School Teachers Professional development for local science middle-grade teachers were conducted for the past 14 years through a Math Science Partnership Grant. I was a science instructor for the last four summers of this PD. During each summer PD, teachers were engaged in the PD from 9 AM to 2 PM for 4 consecutive days. The goal of the PD was to enrich science teacher’s quality of instruction by increasing teacher’s science knowledge and resources along science content standards, grades 4–8. Participants of this PD were local middle school science teachers teaching close to the university. The university is in a small city with nearby farming areas, where crops such as cotton, peanuts, and cabbage are grown. As of 2017, the median household income is $40,000 (GA County, n d). Students in this area are mostly from low-income families, usually living in poverty (GA County, n d). Public school student demographics are predominantly White (68%) and Black (21%), with a growing Latinx community (6%), Asian (2%), and multiracial (2%) (Institute of Education Sciences 2017). Teachers in this area reflect the national trend for Southeastern states of mostly White teachers (76%), Black teachers (17%), and Hispanics (2.5%) (percentage of other races were not reported; USDE 2012). Most of the schools where they teach, at the very least, provide a class set of portable digital devices to use for instruction. At the onset of the study, I had previously taught the PD science workshop for 2 years. Over the first two summers, I learned of the need for fifth-grade teachers to engage their students with developing SM to explain scientific phenomena. With opportunities for developing physical scientific models during the PD, teachers were pleased with their SM creations, and their enthusiasm for more interactive hands-on, minds-on experiences catalyzed for me a niche for targeted scientific and instructional skills development in future PD. However, a major concern about the teachers’ conceptual understanding was shared with me by the PD directors. They noted that teachers’ science content knowledge was weak in the areas of SM. The PD program’s content-based posttest indicated low scoring performance in these areas. Fifth-grade teachers struggled with interpreting SM. For example, based on a diagram illustrating Earth, sun, and moon celestial relationships, most teachers could not accurately describe Earth’s position for each season. Prior to my third year of instruction, the state of Georgia where the PD took place was undergoing curricular change by adapting NGSS concepts to its own version of the standards. As such and based on my understanding of the PD teachers’ needs, I unpacked the science content standards and focused on the eight NGSS scientific and engineering practices, “Developing and Using Models” in particular (NGSS 2013). In preparation for the 7th grade Life Science PD extending over the next two summers, I sought instructional strategies that would marry both teachers’ use of

410

R. L. Suriel

technology for teaching science in fun and innovative ways and teachers’ understanding of scientific models. For the third summer PD, 20 Life Science teachers participated and learned more about the first 3 of 6 new state-mandated 7th-grade Life Science content standards. Enrichment activities for this PD focused on organismic diversity and internal structures that work to sustain life, e.g., the cell and various organ systems. SM were defined for teachers using commonly used examples of SM for explaining scientific concepts such as the water cycle, animal and plant cells, mathematical equations, and molecular models. In addition to creating and exploring commonly used SM for teaching science, participants also learned to use free of charge digital apps for SM such as Microsoft Excel Data Analysis, SageModeler, and Tinkercad. Tinkercad affords its users creativity in developing three-dimensional models of objects with ease which can then be printed dimensionally. Participating teachers used Tinkercad to create 3D animal and plant cell models. During the fourth summer PD workshop, 11 returning teachers and 9 new teachers were introduced to the remaining 3 of 6 Life Science content standards. Enrichment activities for this PD were designed to increase teachers’ understanding of ecological systems including the interdependence of organisms with each other and with their environment. During this workshop, teachers were taught the nature of scientific models and the purpose of SM for describing and communicating ideas. However, teachers were not taught the process of scientific modeling for examining or testing existing SM. Rather, teachers replicated existing SM using different resources. For example, they used and learned more about Tinkercad for replicating a 3D model of an ecosystem. During this activity, I collected fieldnotes on teacher conversations and confidence using Tinkercad to create scientific models of various ecosystems.

Data Collection Data for this mixed methods study were collected using three researcher tools which consisted of a questionnaire, three face-to-face interviews, and fieldnotes over a 2-year period. Each tool is described below, followed by a section describing data analysis. The university’s Internal Review Board approved this study. Fieldnotes The data collection process first began with the collection of fieldnotes. Fieldnotes are qualitative notes taken by a researcher during or after observing events that are the subject of their study (Emerson et al. 1995). Because fieldnotes are based on the experiences of the observer, descriptions or reflections of the noted events are subjective and are not generalizable (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). However, fieldnotes are helpful in understanding events as they occur in vivo and may include hunches, feelings, emotions, perceptions, and gestures difficult to capture with other researcher tools (Phillippi and Lauderdale 2017). In this study, fieldnotes were collected during the PD when I taught content, when PD-participating teachers shared responses to prompts and during the academic year when I visited their

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

411

schools on other supervisor roles. This set of fieldnotes were collected during and in between the last two summer PD workshops. At the conclusion of these workshops, a second set of fieldnotes were collected when I observed and interviewed participants and their instruction. Fieldnotes were collected digitally and on paper and then expanded later with researchers’ reflections of the events (Phillippi and Lauderdale 2017). Questionnaire At its simplest, questionnaires are tools that standardize data gathering about a specific query (Brace 2018). Questionnaires can be self-completed by participants or used as tools by interviewers and can be administered in a variety of ways. They are diverse in design, ranging from requests for constructed responses to Likert-style responses or a mix of both (Brace 2018). In this study, a questionnaire was used to gather teachers’ understanding and instructional experiences with SM, including the use of three-dimensional (3D) digital SM. The questionnaire was administered online through Qualtrics to participating teachers and at the conclusion of the last PD workshop. The self-completing questionnaire consisted of 24 items, with 20 multiple choice items and 4 written responses. Eight of the items gathered demographic and teaching background information; seven items gathered teachers’ definitions on SM and their instructional uses for teaching and assessing knowledge on SM. Nine items gathered teaching experiences using 3D digital models of SM; four of these items collected written responses. Data analysis for the questionnaire consisted of a Qualtrics automated calculation of response percentages for multiple choice items. Written responses were analyzed qualitatively using a coding system described below. The findings of relevant responses are described in a later section. However, based on these findings, an interview protocol was devised to further explore science teachers’ definitions and instructional experiences with science models. Interviews Interviewing is a qualitative research method where the researcher interacts with the interviewee, usually through predetermined and focused questions about a specific topic (Brinkmann 2014). In this study, face-to-face, semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted using an interview protocol with a set of predetermined questions that prompted further discussions and allowed interviewees to respond to questions using their own words (Brinkmann 2014). Interviewees were first informed of the responsibility of the researcher with keeping all information anonymous, secured, and then destroyed at the conclusion of the study. Moreover, participants were offered the liberty to decline to participate in the study at any time or to answer any or all interview questions. The interview protocol consisted of seven demographic and teaching background questions and nine questions about their knowledge and instructional use of scientific models. Demographic questions included identifying their racial background, age, gender, degrees they hold, length of teaching, and courses they have taught. Questions about participants’ knowledge and instructional use of scientific models centered on defining scientific models (SM), recalling science instructors or textbook definitions of SM, describing how they use SM in their instruction, and how they assess their students’ understanding of SM.

412

R. L. Suriel

The interviews took place at the local middle school with Shanita, at my place of work with Trinity, and at a local coffee shop with Evena. All teachers teach at schools near the university, and all names are pseudonyms. The interviews were recorded using iPhone’s Voice Memo app and iPad’s audio recording feature. Interviews were scheduled for 45 minutes; however, two of three participants agreed to continue recorded discussions after this timeframe.

Making Sense of the Data Data for this study were analyzed in different stages. Because fieldnotes were ongoing throughout the study, fieldnotes were consistently expanded to add reflections and gained insights and corrected for errors. For the first phase of the study, fieldnotes gathered from the PD along with questionnaire written responses were analyzed using a coding system. Fieldnotes and questionnaire written responses were extracted, placed on a separate word document, and then coded. The coding of data process involves assigning words, phrases, or categories in order to easily retrieve specific pieces of information (Merriam and Tisdell 2016). Once data were initially coded, codes were then organized into categories to eliminate redundancies. Categories were then read and reflected on in an effort to let relevant meaning emerge (Creswell and Poth 2016). In the meaning making process, emergent themes were noted (Ezzy 2002). A quotation bank was also used to gather and organize relevant experiences that could highlight and enrich meaning. Lastly, quantitative data gathered though the questionnaire were examined for patterns. Response patterns were then used to support emergent themes. In this process, results from the three sets of data were triangulated to enhance the accuracy of the data (Creswell and Miller 2000; Lub 2015) and support emergent themes. Emergent themes for this phase of the study are described below. For the second phase of the study, three audiorecorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and then analyzed using the same data analysis approach as the fieldnotes and written responses from the questionnaire. Likewise, fieldnotes from Shanita’s teaching observations underwent the same data analysis treatment. This study draws on the mixed method approach to increase the validity of study findings by using both data triangulation and member checking (Creswell and Miller 2000; Lub 2015). Both approaches are aligned with postpositivistic paradigms, whose intent is to provide rigorous data analysis similar in approach to quantitative data analysis (Lub 2015). However, my research orientation is positioned within critical theory with an emancipatory intent. Thus, I was reflexive, a process whereby personal values, beliefs, or relevant experiences were made explicit to the participants and the readers (Hughes and Pennington 2017). Moreover, the interviewed participants and I collaborated in the research process by exchanging ideas of the studied phenomena (Lub 2015). Lastly, a peer colleague, of the same ethnicity as me, served as an evaluator of data interpretations and data findings (Lub 2015). Collectively, these actions voice and validate the lived experiences of both the participants and me, who are from traditionally

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

413

marginalized communities and whose voices have been traditionally oppressed by the hegemony (Freire 1994; Giroux 1983; Lub 2015; Walls 2016).

Study Findings Middle-Grade Science Teachers Participating in SM-Focused PD: Emergent Themes In this section, I share findings resulting from data analysis from questionnaire responses and fieldnotes gathered from 18 middle-grade science teachers participating in an SM-focused PD extending over 2 summers. I first present participant demographics followed by emergent themes emerging from data analysis. Participating teachers in this study were mostly females (65%); with 50% White, 44% African American, and 6% Latinx. They had varied science teaching experiences ranging from 1 year to 16 years. Seventy-five percent of teachers considered themselves as digital natives, having used technology from an early age, compared to 25% who considered themselves digital immigrants, learning to use technology as an adult. Data analysis for questionnaire responses resulted in the following emergent themes: teachers’ increased confidence with teaching SM and Tinkercad and teachers’ limited understanding of SM. Emergent themes are discussed below. Theme One: Teachers Felt More Confident Teaching Scientific Modeling and Using Tinkercad Teachers value the use of SM to teach science concepts and felt that SM provide students with visual, tactile, concrete, and alternate experiences that augment knowledge and understanding of scientific phenomena. Teachers also use SM to explain concepts, preferring to use 2D to 3D models. Teachers had little to no experience (66.6%) with 3D digital modeling, but half of the teachers felt comfortable teaching it. When provided with curricular resources, teachers felt that they are very likely to use 3D digital modeling. According to teachers, the use of 3D digital SM for learning increases students’ digital experiences and supports SM development at minimal costs. Fieldnotes noted a returning teacher who shared with the group how she has utilized Tinkercad throughout the academic year. She shared that she began using the app and had her students build a model of an animal or plant cell. She also shared that her students liked using Tinkercad so much that it became a staple in her instruction, allowing students to use the app when time permitted. A second teacher, who was then selected to be interviewed for this study, shared that she also used Tinkercad with students to design animal and plant cell models. She also shared that students enjoyed its use. Theme Two: Teachers Had Limited Conceptual Understanding of Scientific Models When defining scientific models in a multiple-choice questionnaire item, participants (0%) were not able to discern whether SM include (a) its parts and how these parts interact with one another, (b) the boundary of the system, and (c) predictions. Also, 62.5% of teachers were not able to discern SM as

414

R. L. Suriel

non-comprehensive representations of natural phenomena. However, in another item, teachers were able to recognize that student-made models are not true representations of reality. Participant observation fieldnotes also revealed that teachers taught the purpose of SM for describing, accessing ideas the models describe, and communicating conceptual understanding. As such, teachers had students use or replicate existing SM to show conceptual understanding. However, both questionnaire data and fieldnotes show that teachers did not teach about the nature of SM and did not have students evaluate SM for assumptions and predictive power or to test hypotheses. Rather, teachers often focused on the functional aspects of the models for representing accurate content information. Assessment of SM content accuracy often occurred through summative assessments (34%), observations (37%), and discussions/presentations (29%) and not through the process of scientific modeling. Questionnaire responses and fieldnotes show that teachers view SM as tools to teach and assess students’ understanding of scientific concepts. However, teachers’ inability to define SM accurately signals a knowledge gap, which impedes teachers from providing in-depth understanding of SM as tools that scientists use to present ideas and that have inherent limitations so that SM can be further examined against current theories or assess its predictive power. Furthermore, teacher expectations for student explanations of SM are often linear or flowchart-like rather than aiming at deeper understanding of scientific concepts. Teachers’ knowledge gap is thus exercised in their instruction of SM, which limits students’ access to high-quality science curricula. As such, equitable learning opportunities that also include students’ culturally based knowledge and experiences are inhibited when teachers have a limited understanding of SM. For example, learning opportunities to have students compare different culturally based models for explaining organismic diversity and structures that work to sustain life could be provided so that students not only learn and come to value different ways of knowing but also to examine evidence supporting the different models (Finn et al. 2017). To home in on how scientific models were being taught, I recruited three middleand secondary-level science teachers for interviews and to conduct observations of their instruction of SM. One middle-grade teacher who participated in the PD volunteered to be interviewed. When I visited schools in student-teacher supervisory roles throughout the year, other workshop teachers informally provided feedback about scientific modeling with the use of Tinkercad.

Secondary-Level Science Teacher Instructional Use and Understanding of Scientific Models: Findings from Interviews In this section, I present findings from data collected via face-to-face interviews with three secondary-level science teachers about their understanding and instructional use of SM. Emergent themes from interview data analysis are shared below. Shanita’s interview data analysis were also corroborated with fieldnotes collected

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

415

via two different observations of her instruction that focused on animal and cell scientific modeling. Also, a researcher’s reflexivity section is included to share my experiences with instructional uses of SM. SM Bring Ideas on a Concrete Level So That Students Can Understand It: Shanita’s Understanding and Teaching Experiences with SM I am familiar with Shanita. Shanita had been a student in my science methods course and had attended three of the four PD workshops. Shanita identifies herself as an African American female in her late 20s who began teaching right after earning her undergraduate degree in middle-grade science education. Since then, she has been teaching middle school students for 4 years. She has taught 6th-grade Earth Science, and as a STEM academy teacher, she has taught 7th-grade Life Science. Regarding Shanita’s science content knowledge at the undergraduate level, she completed about 18 credits of the science courses such as general biology and chemistry. Moreover, she completed teacher-bound Earth, Life, and Physical Science courses, in which in comparison to science major courses, these courses provide more generalized science content. As a student in the science methods course, she learned about how to teach science effectively, especially regarding the teaching of English language learners. Shanita’s students are White and Black with a couple of students from varying ethnic backgrounds whose parents serve at the nearby military base. Her students have been selected to participate in the STEM Academy based on academic performance. Overall, her students are from low-income or working-class families. Shanita invited me to observe a lesson where her Life Science students designed a 3D digital plant or animal cell model using Tinkercad. I sat in the class and heard her school supervisor instruct students on how to log on to the app. Later, I formally met the supervisor teacher who had learned to use Tinkercad from Shanita. Shanita taught several of her peers how to use Tinkercad to teach science and mathematics. During the lesson, she instructed the students to create their models, and each student aptly replicated a plant or animal cell from displayed textbook-based models. Students were also asked to label cell organelles. The focus of the activity, for Shanita, was for students to show the relative sizes and positions of the organelles within the cell. Shanita reviewed the expectations for the cell model assignment which emphasized the accuracy of the organelle depictions and relative locations within the cell. On the day of the interview, I also observed the same students finalize their cell models while in class. Shanita reviewed the state content standard for this unit which require students “to develop a model and construct an explanation of how cell structures contribute to the function of the cell as a system in obtaining nutrients in order to grow, reproduce, make needed materials, and process waste” (State Content Standard for Life Science 2016). Shanita used the functioning of a city system as an analogy to explain and review the function of cell organelles. Students were expected to explain how the cell organelles function to maintain cell processes. At the end of the lesson, Shanita participated in an interview with me.

416

R. L. Suriel

Interview questions first addressed Shanita’s academic experiences with defining SM and follow-up questions probed on her definitions and instructional use of SM. When asked how her college instructors defined SM, she shared that: I know that in my educational program, SM were not mentioned in the [science content] standards. So, there was not necessarily a mandatory implementation of SM [in lesson designs or instruction]. However, I do recall my science instructors stressing doing whatever it takes to have the students understand [concepts]. An effective teacher will have some SM to bring the [scientific] concepts to the real world, to real life so that they can experience it. . ..In my science methods course, I learned and created instructional models to teach the human body. However, before [the current content standards], SM were not emphasized. . .. Until now, I did not consider students developing SM.

Shanita goes on to define SM as tangible representations of scientific concepts. She shares that A SM is an idea or scientific concept that contains a wealth of information. Something that is not observable, not real-life observable but can be created in the palm of your hands so that you can understand it.

When asked how she used scientific models in her teaching, Shanita shared that: First, I check on the [content] standards. . . if the standards mandate that students develop a [scientific] model, I know that it is my time to develop a model. . .the purpose for students’ developing a SM is to take something that we are learning about and they can’t physically see it, they can’t touch it or the idea might be too big to understand or too small to see, a SM brings ideas on a concrete level so that students can understand it and see the many parts of the model. It brings all that they are learning into one space. . .. First, I teach the scientific concept then I provide students with an assignment grading rubric of a student-developed model to indicate assignment expectations. Most importantly, I ask students to conduct research on the SM and target students’ understanding for the function of each process or parts.

When asked if she ever addresses limitations of SM when teaching about them, Shanita’s first response alluded to her expectations for students’ completed assignments. She shared that “Some limitations for students when they do not meet assignment expectations. . . do what they are supposed to do. . . Limitations are poor work or unacceptable work.” Upon further elaboration of the question, Shanita stated “to be honest, the only limitation I have is when students are not creative in their [SM] designs.” For Shanita, limitations of SM concern the students’ accuracy of physical SM representing the science concept.

At the conclusion of the interview, Shanita and I carried a 30-minute discussion on the definition and effective use of SM. Shanita learned how she can enrich students’ understanding of SM, for example, by having students examine assumptions inherent in commonly used cell models and to provide students opportunities to compare different types of human cells. At a later date, we collaborated and

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

417

co-presented at a local science conference on the use of Tinkercad and SM. Fieldnotes of Shanita’s instruction did not indicate the use of students’ culturally based knowledge, though I never disclosed to Shanita that I was observing her instruction for the integration of her students’ culturally based knowledge. However, Shanita was an enthusiastic and confident teacher who valued and motivated her students to learn. Evident in Shanita’s responses is an understanding for the purpose of SM as concrete replicas or visual representations of scientific ideas. She failed to include explanations for the nature of SM in her definition in that SM contain assumptions that may limit their predictive power and that SM are continuously evaluated and changed overtime. Shanita’s commitment to teaching SM relies heavily on meeting the content standards, and she does so at a superficial level. The lack of emphasis on the previous content standards for teaching SM and the expectation of the new standard for explaining models of cell function did not prompt Shanita to teach the nature of SM or scientific modeling or other ways of knowing about life (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; Finn et al. 2017). As such, her students were prevented from engaging in scientific and engineering practices such as criticizing or evaluating cell models, which require more cognitive demands. While well-intentioned, Shanita’s limited understanding of SM prevented her from providing equitable instruction through a high-quality science curriculum. I also had the opportunity to conduct the same interview with a high school science teacher, who did not participate in the summer PD. Following, I present findings emerging from the interview regarding her understanding and use of SM. SM Help Students Gain Some Understanding of Scientific Concepts: Trinity’s Definition and Instructional Uses of SM Trinity is a very friendly person who finds a smile at every opportunity. She identifies herself as an African American teacher in her early 40s. Trinity holds a bachelor’s degree in health and physical education, a master’s degree in secondary education, and a doctoral degree in adult and career education. Trinity is a veteran high school teacher with 14 years of teaching experience. During her first 10 years, she taught a variety of courses which included courses in biology, physical science, mathematics, and physical education. During these years, she also taught as a special education teacher, serving as co-teacher and teacher of small groups. She currently serves as a science curriculum coach at the local high school, supervising and evaluating both science teachers’ instruction and curriculum resources. As a coach, and in conjunction with her school district leaders, she helps train science teachers in evidence-based instructional practices so that teachers can implement them in their classrooms. I have known Trinity for the past 5 years. I served as a member of her doctoral dissertation committee. As her instructor, I assisted Trinity with her understanding of cultural capital and the Latinx culture. For her study, she gained an emic perspective of Latinas who have successfully completed college degrees. We also worked collaboratively to organize an afterschool mentoring program for high school Latinas.

418

R. L. Suriel

Trinity and I met at my campus office, where we have met previously many times during her dissertation work. I began the interview by first providing Trinity with examples of common SM that are often used to teach science concepts, such as models of the cell, ATP models, the water cycle, and organizational charts. I then asked her how she has used SM to teach science. Trinity shared that: You cannot teach without them. [I use them] to help the students gain some understanding of scientific concepts. For example, if you are teaching the double helix DNA model, if they do not see it [a physical representation of the model], they are never going to remember why is called the double helix model; which will hopefully connect to something that is already recorded in their memory that looks like a ladder. . . So, they’ll remember the ladder model, what the DNA model is also called. . .SM give them a visual of what we are talking about.

When asked how she defines SM, Trinity goes on to explain that a SM “is a diagram, a picture, or something tangible that students can look at or work with, that would help explain what the scientific concept is or that process they need to understand.” In response to the question about her college instructors defining SM, Trinity explained that in her college science courses, her instructors did not define science models, though they used SM all the time to explain scientific concepts. In recalling her experiences, she acknowledged that for “hard to understand concepts, they did define SM, specifically in physics. I remember my instructor showing us models of different kinds to help us better understand SM. . .I struggled [learning physics concepts] and SM were beneficial to my understanding of them.” As a science teacher, Trinity also used SM as pedagogical scaffolds to introduce concepts and to connect students’ prior knowledge or lived experiences by assessing their understanding of the SM. She used instructional videos, physical and conceptual models, and simulations as tools to teach science concepts. She also had students develop physical models to explain scientific processes. When asked how she assesses student’s understanding of SM, Trinity shares that she assessed students’ understanding of SM through formal and informal assessment techniques. For Trinity, SM are tools to understand and assesses conceptual knowledge. Similar to Shanita, missing in her instructional approach is developing students’ understanding for how scientists define and use the tools to explain natural phenomena or how engineers draw on scientific assumptions to examine or develop new solutions. At the conclusion of the interview questions, Trinity agreed to continue a discussion on SM. I presented a formal definition for SM, and she agreed that students need to be properly taught what SM entails. We reviewed a number of examples of how SM can be taught and used effectively. I also recommended learning more about modelbased learning as an approach so that her teachers can use it in their instruction. Trinity’s understanding of SM is limited. Trinity failed to define SM as epistemic tools for justifying scientific practices. Though clear on her instructional intent for the use of SM in drawing on students’ prior knowledge to better understand and explain science concepts, Trinity did not connect her explanations to students’ cultural capital or the culturally based knowledge about SM they may bring with them.

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

419

At the conclusion of our interview, Trinity referred me to one of the science teachers who she coaches at her school. She felt that Evena’s instruction utilized SM effectively. In the next section, I present Evena’s instructional use and understanding of SM. There Is More Here Than the SM Portrays: Evena’s Instruction of SM Evena is an African American teacher in her mid-30s, currently teaching Physical Science and Environmental Science at a local high school. Her undergraduate studies focused on both criminal justice/forensics and early childhood education; her current master level studies focus on chemistry education. She has been teaching for 14 years and had previously taught high school Biology, Human Anatomy, Chemistry, and Physics. Her student demographics are similar to that of Shanita’s because they both teach in the same county. However, most of her students participate in non-honors classes and are often academically average or struggling students. When asked if she remembers her college science instructors defining SM, she did not remember anyone defining the terms but recalls how her instructors showed pictures of SM and referred to the scientists who proposed them. When asked to describe how she defines SM for her students, she replicates her college experience and shows pictures or physical SM. She goes to explain “We don’t really define what a scientific model is, we just show them. . .I do talk to them about it. . .I explain how things can be wrong. I tell my students all the time to question [science knowledge].” Evena defines SM as: a concise way of demonstrating a larger idea, you know, stuff that people can see so that the layman would understand, and some of the deeper things that go on. For example, it is hard to explain DNA because it is so small, and a model can help students see it [what it involves]. Students can manipulate the model and gain a quick understanding, not a deep understanding.

On a follow-up question about considering students’ depth of understanding of SM, Evena shared that there are many issues with SM that may detract from deep understanding. She explains that inherent in their brevity, many scientific models can be confusing and can create misconceptions which then take much more time to deconstruct. She found SM to be “for the most part, more helpful than not” in teaching science concepts. In her instruction, she first explains the concept using SM while also clarifying that there may be other information that is not factored in the models. In describing how she uses SM in her instruction, Evena shares that: Because a lot of our students do not like to read texts. . .scientific models are a good way to give them a snapshot of the science concepts. So, for the DNA model, they get to see how the A and the T go together and the C and the G; and it is really easy to compare DNA and RNA because I can show them both models for comparison. I can also have students replicate the water cycle because a lot of them also have difficulty telling me what they need. So, on a test, they can either write [their explanations] or create their own version of the model to explain it and I give them a reservoir [of terms] they have to use.

420

R. L. Suriel

Evena explained that in her teaching, she has students construct and use models frequently. She provided examples of many SM she uses to explain scientific concepts. She also listed several online science-based learning apps she uses to support conceptual understanding and development. She assesses students’ conceptual understanding with the use of SM, but SM are used to identify individual parts or describe processes. When asked if she assessed students’ understanding of SM, its limitations and assumptions, she mentioned that only for SM related to the food chains and food webs she asks about exceptions to the models. She explained that in some instances, she probes students to identify what is missing in the SM or what they can add to the model, “to remind them that there is more here” than the SM portrays. She shares that it is difficult to have students develop SM. For her, the new [state] content standards do not provide clear guidelines for how to assess students’ understanding of SM other than for identification of its parts or processes. Evena adds that standardized exams do not measure the nature of science or scientific modeling. Evena sheds light on her definition of SM. Similar to Shanita and Trinity, she also defines SM as representations of scientific ideas and tools for explaining science concepts. She acknowledges that SM are more than their parts and functions. She intentionally scaffolds skepticism of SM, for example, when she used the Food Webs/Chains SM as opportunities for students to consider the nature of SM. However, she limits her students’ understanding of scientific modeling because she does not encourage or afford them the opportunity to criticize and evaluate the models themselves or examine different ways of knowing such as the way indigenous people use traditional ecological knowledge to sustain life (Das Gupta 2011). Evena also believes that the nature of SM makes them confusing and misleading, so they take additional instructional time to explain. Moreover, because her students do not like to read texts, and standardized assessments do not measure the understanding of assumptions and limitations in SM, Evena limits her students from acquiring a deeper understanding of SM and thus hinders students’ engagement with highquality science curricula. Evena’s teaching behaviors also replicate her own educational experiences stemming from a deficit view of what students can and cannot do.

Researcher’s Reflexivity As a science student attending public school in New York City, I enjoyed learning science. I recall specific scientific models that I learned to use to explain scientific phenomena, the animal cell model in particular. It was not until after teaching high school Biology that I came to question my understanding of the animal cell model. I taught Biology courses bilingually to STMC at an impoverished high school located in the Bronx, NY. Though I taught about the cell parts and cell processes, had students learn about different animal cells for comparison and prompted scientific thinking regarding the cell purpose and efficient designs, I did not have my students evaluate scientific models of the animal cell nor the theoretical assumptions behind them. Neither did I have my STMCs provide alternate explanations nor draw from

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

421

their culturally based knowledge for how the body functions. I did however, on certain topics, utilized students’ funds of knowledge to explain science concepts, for example, when discussing ecosystems or predator-prey relationships and food webs and chains. Like my study participants, I taught most science concepts as I experienced it myself in my science education. My science instructors did not explain the nature of scientific models nor did they teach me the process of scientific modeling. In my instruction, I expected students to use SM to describe, share, visualize, and sometimes test scientific concepts, when time and resources allowed. Also, my science instructors never made science relevant to me by drawing on my experiences or funds of knowledge. Their instruction consisted of Eurocentric scientific views, with no discussion of the scientific contributions made by scientists from traditionally marginalized communities. I did not see myself or my Latinx community as contributors of scientific knowledge. However, in my effort to make science relevant to my students, I drew on their linguistic and cultural strengths and experiences, which I also shared with them as a member of their community. Though not formally trained in MSE, caring for my students and dedicating my efforts for increasing their scientific literacy inspired new conceptualizations for science instruction, one that aligned with culturally responsive pedagogies (Suriel 2016). As such, my students engaged with science learning, and this was evident in their participation in science activities and future careers (Suriel and Freeman in press).

Further Thoughts The National Research Council placed an emphasis on science education that is inclusive of diverse, multicultural perspectives to enable a functional multicultural society in today’s digitally demanding marketplace and to nurture all students in the pursuit of STEM careers particularly students from the cultural minority (NAS 2016; NRC 2012). This noble approach sets goals for science education; however, the means to get there are still nebulous (Han and Buchmann 2016). Also tasked with teaching high-quality science curricula integrated with multicultural science education (MSE), teachers are often unprepared to teach it (Banks and McGee Banks 1993; Atwater et al. 2013; Pearson 2017). A targeted professional development (PD) on increasing teachers’ quality of science instruction, especially regarding scientific models, was conducted with middle school science teachers. Increasing teachers’ knowledge of SM was considered by me, the PD instructor, a prerequisite to teachers’ ability to integrate MSE frameworks. The first research question for this study examined teachers’ definitions of SM. PD participating teachers’ responses to the questionnaire and interviews show that teachers’ depth of understanding of SM is limited. PD teachers were not able to discern SM as non-comprehensive representations of natural phenomena with assumptions and limitations. This study finding is corroborated by other studies reporting on the limited knowledge of SM that science teachers, science educators, and elementary and high school students possess (Torres et al. 2015; Ünal et al.

422

R. L. Suriel

2014; Windschitl et al. 2008). For example, in a study of science teacher educators’ views of SM, Ünal et al. (2014) found that teacher educators used SM solely for descriptive purposes and did not address scientific assumptions or limitations. In fact, a limitation of this study was that the PD did not provide teachers with sufficient opportunities to explore the nature of SM or the process of scientific modeling, though definitions and experiences with SM were provided using various examples. The second research question examined teachers’ expectations for students’ understanding of scientific models. Study findings indicate that teachers are wellintentioned with having students replicate existing SM to explain scientific concepts and attempting to meet NRC expectations for scientific and engineering practices. Thus, teacher’s expectations for their students’ depth of understanding about SM are low. Data indicate that PD participants did not assess students’ understanding for the nature of SM nor scientifically modeling. Interviewed teachers pointed to lack of knowledge on how to teach SM effectively, students’ lack of motivation for reading texts, and state’s lack of requirement for assessing SM as reasons for why they do not teach or expect students to define or assess SM adequately. Like many other teachers, for Evena, knowledge that is not assessed via standardized exams is often ignored or superficially addressed and fails to meet rigorous explanations. Gallard Martínez and Antrop-González (2013) would agree that teachers in this study addressed the state content standards about SM in part and the spirit of the content standards was lost by trivializing the science curriculum and limiting students’ depth of knowledge. Combined, these instructional factors prevent students from developing critical skills inherent in scientific and engineering practices and prevent them from engaging in high-quality curricula. It is evident that for all study participants, a knowledge gap about scientific models exists. Interview responses shared by Shanita, Trinity, and Evena and my reflexive notes shed light on our science education experiences, which indicate that our science instructors did not provide adequate definitions of SM or experiences to examine them in depth nor did they decolonize the curriculum. Content knowledge that science instructors who teach science teachers prioritize may become suspect of deficit views (Valencia 1997, 2010) because of what they believe science teachers can and cannot learn (Dixson and Anderson 2018; Obiakor 2008, 2014). Science instructors enact deficit views by holding on to educational proprietary rights and interest convergence, policies, and behaviors espousing positions of power (Dixson and Anderson 2018; Gabriel et al. 2015). In doing so, science instructors’ exclusionary practices for missed teaching knowledge important for science education disenfranchises science teachers from acquiring knowledge to be able to move beyond the intent of content standards to develop quality science curricula that empowers learners in utilizing science knowledge effectively in their learning (Gallard Martínez and Antrop-González 2013). The knowledge gap about SM is particularly concerning in educational contexts with limited resources such as highly effective teachers, cognitively demanding enrichment opportunities and science teaching materials, where this gap often creates educational inequalities (Banilower 2019; Suriel and Freeman in press). Resource limitations are often experienced by

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

423

students from the cultural minority, the poor, and the differently abled (Bae and Lai 2019; Banilower 2019; Collins et al. 2020; Torres et al. 2015). Norström (2013) argues that teachers are limited in their ability to teach SM effectively because school science does not accurately represent scientific or engineering practices. According to Norstrom, school science is far from scientific practices because it is static, outdated, and unrealistic in its ability to provide authentic science learning. However, other researchers (Seel 2017; Windschitl et al. 2008) argue that teachers can provide meaningful science learning about SM though model-based inquiry. Windschitl et al. (2008) and Seel (2017) assert that science teachers can draw on model-based inquiry, an approach that better emulates scientific practices with first proposing models based on prior knowledge to hypothesize explanations of natural phenomena and then seeking evidence to support hypotheses or refine models. However, because of the complex nature of SM and the different ways scientists utilize models, Chen et al. (2016), Hardman (2017), and Windschitl et al. (2008) contend that within the context of school science, teachers should be able to use SM to support scientific explanations. To be effective and critical science teachers, a good understanding of SM and MSE and how to best teach these are needed (Shulman 1987; Verdugo-Perona et al. 2016). Justi (2005) suggests that science teachers should be provided opportunities to analyze their practices about SM so that they reflect on their instruction to a) gain a deeper analysis of their practice, b) examine how their instruction enhances student learning, and c) turn reflections into actions. Moreover, Justi suggests that teachers engage in learning situations that are analogous to those of their students, so that they can experience learning from their perspectives. With this approach, teachers can identify pre and misconceptions, revise instruction to address these, extend knowledge with more cognitively demanding instruction, and integrate instruction with tenets of MSE. Lastly, Justi (2009) recommends that teacher development on SM be long term so that teacher’s depth of content and pedagogical knowledge grow over time from the early stages of comprehension of content to transformation through critical interpretation of curricular materials, evaluation, and critical reflection of instruction; these developmental stages are described by the model of pedagogical reasoning (see Wilson et al. 1987). It is imperative that science teachers and educators develop a cadre of critical multicultural science teachers so that they are better prepared to develop multicultural scientific literate individuals. Science educators and teachers can transform science curricula from a critical lens (Dunac and Demir 2017) by enriching science knowledge beyond that required by the content standards and teaching high-quality multicultural science curricula inclusive of students’ funds of knowledge (González et al. 2005), especially when learning about SM (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; Atwater and Suriel 2008; Dunac and Demir 2017; Gallard Martínez and AntropGonzález 2013; González et al. 2005; Suriel 2016; Williams and Atwater 2014). Science educators and teachers can present SM from the currently accepted Western scientific corpus and from indigenous science and have students present predictions and limitations of those models (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; Finn et al. 2017). By doing so, students’ science knowledge can be expanded to include diverse,

424

R. L. Suriel

multicultural perspectives and knowledge. However, it is important that students examine how knowledge for the various SM is constructed and consider why the accepted SM provide the best explanation with the existing evidence. While all students benefit from multicultural science curricula, STMC in particular can be more engaged with learning science and empowered when they see themselves and their people as contributors to the body of knowledge, feel better equipped to be social agents of change (Freire 1994; Gay 2010, 2013; Ladson-Billings 1995), and dismantle power structures for the emancipation of the oppressed (Freire 1994; Giroux 1983; McLaren 1994). If our goals are to develop a highly functional and multicultural scientifically literate society, then science teacher preparatory programs need to refocus their attention to teaching high-quality multicultural science curricula.

References Aikenhead GS, Ogawa M (2007) Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2:539–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8 Almeida F (2018) Strategies to perform a mixed methods study. Eur J Educ Stud 5(1):137–151. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1406214 Atwater MM, Riley JP (1993) Multicultural science education: perspectives, definitions, and research agenda. Sci Educ 77(6):661–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770609 Atwater MM, Suriel RL (2008) Science curricular materials through the lens of social justice: research findings. In: Chapman TK, Hobbel N (eds) The practice of freedom: social justice pedagogy in the United States. Routledge, New York, pp 273–282. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203854488 Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodard U, Hillsman N (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful forecasters of science learning and performance. Theory Pract 52(1):6–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690. 2013.743757 Bae CL, Lai MHC (2019) Opportunities to participate in science learning and student engagement: a mixed methods approach to examining person and context factors. J Educ Psychol 112(6): 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000410 Bailer-Jones DM (2009) Scientific models in philosophy of science. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh Bang E, Luft JA (2013) Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in the classroom during their first 5 years. J Digit Learn Teach Educ 29(4):118–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013. 10784715 Banilower ER (2019) Understanding the big picture for science teacher education: the 2018 NSSME+. J Sci Teach Educ 30(3):201–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1591920 Banilower ER, Smith PS, Malzahn KA, Plumley CL, Gordon EM, Hayes ML (2018) Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc, Chapel Hill Banks JA, McGee Banks CA (1993) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives, 2nd edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston Battiste M (2014) Decolonizing education: nourishing the learning spirit. Alberta J Educ Res 60(3): 615–618 Boisselle LN (2016) Decolonizing science and science education in postcolonial space (Trinidad, a developing Caribbean nation, illustrates). SAGE Open 6(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244016635257 Brace I (2018) Questionnaire design: how to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research, 4th edn. Kogan Page, London

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

425

Brinkmann S (2014) Unstructured and semi-structured interviewing. In: Leavy P (ed) The Oxford handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016635257 Chen Y, Benus MJ, Yarker MB (2016) Using models to support argumentation in the science classroom. Am Biol Teach 78(7):549–559. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.7.549 Cheng MF, Wu TY, Lin SF (2019) Investigating the relationship between views of scientific models and modeling practice. Res Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09880-2 Collins KH, Joseph NM, Ford DY (2020) Missing in action: gifted black girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Gift Child Today 43(1):55–63. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1076217519880593 Creswell JW, Miller DL (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract 39(3):124– 130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Creswell JW, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 4th edn. Sage publications, London Cunningham CM, Carlsen WS (2014) Teaching engineering practices. J Sci Teach Educ 25(2):197– 210. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.1991.187461 Das Gupta A (2011) Does indigenous knowledge have anything to deal with sustainable development? Antrocom Online J Anthropol 7(57–64):10.31826/9781463235413-007 Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2005) Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 1–32 DeWalt KM, DeWalt BR (2011) Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham Dixson AD, Anderson CR (2018) Where are we? Critical race theory in education 20 years later. Peabody J Educ 93(1):121–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1403194 Dunac PS, Demir K (2017) Negotiating white science in a racially and ethnically diverse United States. Educ Rev 69(1):25–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1150255 Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL (1995) Writing ethnography fieldnotes. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Ezzy D (2002) Qualitative analysis: practice and innovation. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12912-020-00421-1 Finn S, Herne M, Castille D (2017) The value of traditional ecological knowledge for the environmental health science and biomedical research. Environ Health Perspect 125(8): 085006-1–085006-9. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP858 Freire P (1994) Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Continuum Publishing Company, New York Gabriel M, Martínez J, Obiakor FE (2015) Dismantling deficit thinking through teacher preparation. In: Obiakor FE, Rieger A, Rotatori A (eds) Critical issues in preparing effective early child special education teachers for the 21st century classroom: interdisciplinary perspectives. Information Age, Charlotte, pp 25–35 Gallard Martínez A, Antrop-González R (2013) Toward Latin@ revisionings of decolonizing Western science and math. Cult Stud Sci Educ 8:755–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422013-9511-x Gay G (2010) Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn. Teachers College Press, New York Gay G (2013) Cultural diversity and multicultural education. Curric Inq 43(1):48–70 Giroux HA (1983) Theory and resistance in education: a pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin & Garvey, South Hadley Glatthorn A, Carr JF, Harris DE (2001) Planning and organizing for curriculum renewal. Curriculum Handbook, ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/curriculum-hand book/398/chapters/Thinking-About-Curriculum.aspx González N, Moll LC, Amanti C (2005) Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

426

R. L. Suriel

Han S, Buchmann C (2016) Aligning science achievement and STEM expectations for college success: a comparative study of curricular standardization. RSF 2(1):192–211. https://doi.org/ 10.7758/RSF.2016.2.1.09 Hardman M (2017) Models, matter and truth in doing and learning science. Sch Sci Rev 98(365): 91–98 Higgins M (2016) Decolonizing school science: pedagogically enacting agential literacy and ecologies of relationships. In: Taylor CA, Hughes C (eds) Posthuman research practices in education. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137453082_12 Hughes SA, Pennington JL (2017) Autoethnography: process, product, possibility for critical social research. Sage, Thousand Oaks Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2017) Education demographics and geographic estimates town school district. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ Programs/Edge/ACSDashboard/1303390 Justi R (2009) Learning how to model in science classroom: key teacher’s role in supporting the development of students’ modeling skills. Educación Química 20(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0187-893X(18)30005-3 Justi R, van Driel J (2005) The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modeling: promoting, characterizing and understanding the process. Int J Sci Educ 27(5): 549–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323773 Karleah H, Sithhole A, Kibirige J (2017) A needs assessment for the adoption of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in K-12 education in the United States. J Educ Train Stud 5(9):54– 62. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i9.2576 Kennedy B, Richard F, Funk C (2021). 6 facts about America’s STEM workforce and those training for it. Pew research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/14/ 6-facts-about-americas-stem-workforce-and-those-training-for-it/ Knipprath H, Depaepe F, Deprez J, De Cock M, Hellinckx L, Langie G, Struyven K, Van de Velde D, Van Petegem P, Dehaene W, Thibaut L, Buyse M-P, Ceuppens S, De Loof H, De Meester J, Goovaerts L, Struyf A, Pauw JB-D (2018) STEM education in Flanders: literacy and a positive attitude towards STEM. IEEE Instrum Meas Magaz 21(3):36–40. https://doi.org/10. 1109/MIM.2018.8360917 La Salle TP, Wang C, Wu C, Neves JR (2020) Racial mismatch among minoritized students and White teachers: implications and recommendations for moving forward. J Educ Psychol Consult 30(3):314–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2019.1673759 Ladson-Billings G (1995) Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. Am Educ Res J 32(3): 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465 Love TS, Wells JG (2018) Examining correlations between preparation experiences of US technology and engineering educators and their teaching of science content and practices. Int J Technol Des Educ 28(2):395–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9395-2 McLaren P (1994) Life in schools: an introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education, 2nd edn. Longman, White Plains Mensah FM, Jackson I (2018) Whiteness as property in science teacher education. Teach Coll Rec 120(1):1–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218818093 Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2016) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. JoseyBass, San Francisco Musu-Gillette L, de Brey C, McFarland J, Hussar W, Sonnenberg W, Wilkinson-Flicker S (2017) Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2017 (NCES 2017–051), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Nadelson LS, Seifert AL (2017) Integrated STEM defined: contexts, challenges, and the future. J Educ Res 110:221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Science literacy: concepts, contexts, and consequences. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/ 10.17226/23595

16

Quality Science Curricula: Teachers’ Understanding of Scientific Models. . .

427

National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and Core ideas. National Academic Press, Washington, DC National Science Teacher Association. (2000) NSTA position statement: multicultural science education. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/multicultural.aspx Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013): for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press Norström P (2013) Engineers’ non-scientific models in technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 23(2):377–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9184-2 Nowell B, Albrecht K (2019) A reviewer’s guide to qualitative rigor. J Public Admin Res Theor 29(2):348–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy052 Obiakor FE (2008) The eight-step approach to multicultural learning and teaching, 3rd edn. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque Obiakor FE (2014) Multicultural education: the mismeasured but important phenomenon. In: Holliman J (ed) The Routledge international companion to educational psychology. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 181–190 Oh PS, Oh SJ (2011) What teachers of science need to know about models: an overview. Int J Sci Educ 33(8):1109–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191 Pearson G (2017) National academies piece on integrated STEM. J Educ Res 110:224–226. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289781 Phillippi J, Lauderdale J (2017) A guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res 28(3):381–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102 Radloff J, Guzey S (2016) Investigating preservice STEM teacher conceptions of STEM education. J Sci Educ Technol 25(5):759–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9633-5 Seel N (2017) Model-based learning: a synthesis of theory and research. Educ Technol Res Dev 65(4):931–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9507-9 Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 51(1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 Sleeter CE (2018) Multicultural education, past, present, and future: struggles for dialog and powersharing. Int J Multicult Educ 20(1):5–20. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1663 Suriel RL (2016) Multicultural education and experiences from a Dominican immigrant educator. In: Obiakor FE, Martínez J (eds) Latin@ voices in multicultural education: from invisibility to visibility in higher education. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 107–122 Suriel RL, Atwater MM (2012) From the contribution to the action approach: White teachers’ experiences influencing the development of multicultural science curricula. J Res Sci Teach 49(10):1271–1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21057 Suriel RL, Freeman TB (in press) A critical duoethnography of two female science educators of color who have defied the odds. In: Conra CG, Bristol TJ (eds) AERA handbook of research of teachers of color. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC Suriel RL, Martínez J, Evans-Winters V (2017) A critical co-constructed autoethnography of a gendered cross-cultural mentoring between two early career Latin@ scholars working in the deep south. Educ Stud 54(2):165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1356308 Tavernaro-Haidarian L (2019) Decolonization and development: reimagining key concepts in education. Res Educ 103(1):19–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719839750 The Mary Turner Project (2014). Retrieved from http://www.maryturner.org/mtp.htm Torres J, Mautinho S, Vasconcelos C (2015) Nature of science, scientific and geoscience models: Examining students and teachers’ views. J Turk Sci Educ 12(4):3–21. https://doi.org/10.12973/ tused.10148a Türk N, Kalayci N, Yamak H (2018) New trends in higher education in the globalizing world: STEM in teacher education. Univ J Educ Res 6(6):1286–1304. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer. 2018.060620 U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2012) School and staffing survey. Table 1. Total number of public school teachers and percentage distribution of school teachers, by race/ethnicity and state: 2011–2012

428

R. L. Suriel

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2019a) Table 203.60. Enrollment and percentage distribution of enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by irace/ethnicity and level of education: Fall 1999 through fall 2029. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_203.60.asp U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2019b) Fast facts, teacher characteristics and trends. Retrieved from https://nces.ed. gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id¼28 U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2020) Highlights of U.S. PISA 2018 results web report (NCES 2020-166 and 2020072). Available at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2018/index.aspi Ünal S, Sadoglu GP, Durukan UG (2014) Teacher educators’ views of “model” concept and their mental models. J Balt Sci Educ 13(5):674–694 Underwood JB, Mensah FM (2018) An investigation of science teacher educators’ perceptions of culturally relevant pedagogy. J Sci Teach Educ 29(1):46–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X. 2017.1423457 Valencia RR (1997) The evolution of deficit thinking: educational thought and practice. The Falmer Press, Washington, DC Valencia RR (2010) Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: educational thought and practice. Routledgei, New York Verdugo-Perona JJ, Solaz-Portolés J-J, Sanjosé-López V (2016) Pre-service primary teachers’ scientific knowledge and attitudes towards science learning and their influence on the understanding of the nature of science. Croatian Journal of Education/Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj I Obrazovanje 18(3):779–815. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v18i3.1760 Walls L (2016) Awakening a dialogue: a critical race theory analysis of U.S. nature of science research from 1967 to 2013. J Res Sci Teach 53(10):1546–1570. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea. 21266 Wang S, Hsu H, Campbell T, Coster D, Longhurst M (2014) An investigation of middle school science teachers and students’ use of technology inside and outside of classrooms: considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers. Educ Technol Res Dev 62(6):637–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9355-4 Williams SM, Atwater MM (2014) Policy issues in science education: the importance of science teacher education, equity, and social justice. In: Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler MB (eds) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7651-7 Wilson S, Shulman LS, Richert A (1987) “150 different ways” of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. In: Calderhead J (ed) Exploring teachers’ thinking. Cassell, London, pp 104–124 Windschitl M, Thompson J, Melissa B (2008) How novice science teachers’ appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry use in classrooms. Cogn Instr 26(3):310–378. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177193 Yacoubian HA (2018) Scientific literacy for democratic decision-making. Int J Sci Educ 40(3):308– 327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1420266 Yenilmez TA, Oztekin C (2016) Science teacher candidates’ perceptions about roles and nature of scientific models. Res Sci Technol Educ 34(2):219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143. 2015.1137893

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science Teaching and Learning

17

Sharon Dotger and Terrance Burgess

Contents Lesson Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of Lesson Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Essential Elements of Lesson Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lesson Study and Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lesson Study and Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lesson Study and Implications for Equitable Science Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vignette: The Landforms Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

432 432 434 438 441 442 449 451 451

Abstract

Lesson study is a form of teacher professional learning centering the study of public enactment of instruction and students’ learning in live time amid careful study of curriculum, standards, instructional materials, research, and goals for students. The chapter explains the historical origins of lesson study practice, identifies its essential elements, and links those elements to equitable learning outcomes for students. Lesson study has a deep association with teaching mathematics through problem-solving. This method of teaching mathematics is reviewed to connect to methods of science teaching and emphasize the need for specific instructional practices to be studied in terms of their impacts on student

S. Dotger (*) Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. Burgess Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_18

429

430

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

learning. Specific examples within the Western lesson study canon are explored to illustrate this need. This chapter links these aspects of lesson study with equitable science teaching and learning. Keywords

Lesson study · Instructional materials · Anti-racist pedagogy · Multicultural science instruction

In an elementary classroom mostly enrolled with students of color, a White preservice teacher enacts a lesson collaboratively planned with three of her White classmates. All four adult women are in the classroom together, one teaching and three observing students. They are in a science methods class using lesson study as a framework to study curriculum and instructional materials, plan lessons that allow them to evaluate a teaching hypothesis linked to student learning, enact these lessons with students, and use observational data to evaluate the hypothesis. The goal of the lesson is to elicit students’ tentative explanations for what might happen to salt when it dissolves in water. The teacher calls on students as they volunteer, recording their thinking on the board. One student, a Black girl, sits near the counter in the rear left corner of the classroom. Her science notebook is open on her desk. Beneath it, on a white sheet of paper, are handwritten messages to her in adult-looking script, given to her by someone outside this teaching team, reminding her of behavioral goals “to avoid getting angry” and to “use breathing to avoid outbursts.” It seems other expectations are written on the page, but the science notebook covers them. She raises her hand confidently. The teacher invites her into the lesson by asking if she would like to add-on to the last idea shared by a classmate. “No,” she replies, “I have my own words.”

This opening anecdote, while brief, illustrates the detailed observations that can be made of students and their experiences during a research lesson – a cornerstone of lesson study practice. The multitude of observers in the classroom allow for many vantage points, especially when those observations are focused on documenting the students’ experience in the classroom. This increases the likelihood that a range of insights will emerge for the teaching team to evaluate the students’ experiences and use the range of observations to evaluate the lesson. Additionally, the anecdote highlights several issues that relate to science teaching specifically and schooling more broadly. The racial differences between the preservice teachers and the students in the classroom are common across the United States (Plumley 2019). The presence of multiple preservice teachers in a single classroom is less prevalent, although more common among teacher educators who use lesson study as a mechanism for promoting learning to teach (e.g., J. M. Lewis 2019). Eliciting students’ reasoning about a science phenomenon is in keeping with the goals of teaching science ambitiously (Windschitl et al. 2018), as is the invitation for a student to add on to a peer’s idea. Yet, the Black student’s response challenges the expectation that contributions to the class build on ideas already introduced; perhaps by listening to her idea, she may be invited intentionally into science, develop her sense of agency, and demonstrate the array of literacies Black girls aptly demonstrate in a variety of contexts (Muhammad and Haddix 2016).

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

431

Black girls continue to be stifled in school (Butler 2018; Morris 2016); thus a teacher must respond with great care to one asserting her right to share her thinking. Science educators have emphasized the importance of student discourse and sharing of ideas (e.g., Duschl and Osborne 2002), but this literature requires further interrogation of what happens when a teacher’s goals for conversation – in this case, adding on to a peer – do not align with a student’s goals, to share her own ideas with the class. While her answer may seem as an unwillingness to follow along with the subtle direction of conversation initiated by the teacher, it may also be that the student is exercising her own agency as a learner. However, given that at least one adult in the school is giving her written directions about managing her anger, it is possible that her attempt to exercise her own agency could be misread as disrespect. In this case, the White teacher in the front of the class knew nothing of the note on the student’s desk and invited her to share her thinking. Yet, given that young Black girls are too often considered angry by their White teachers, a deeper racialized power dynamic is likely at play (Evans-Winters and Esposito 2010; Morris 2016). To improve the opportunities to learn for students of color, the common racialized power dynamics must be disrupted. A multicultural education means broadening the norms of the mainstream culture of schooling, and that cannot be done without interrogating whiteness. Simply adding on the views of other cultures to deeply saturated White norms means that whiteness remains centered, yet whiteness is the core of racial problems (Le and Matias 2019). Since most science educators and science teachers are White, including the first author of this chapter, they must collectively work to identify how whiteness is embedded within their norms and assumptions about what is taught, to whom, and how. Whiteness among teachers, manifested within myths of meritocracy, fear of people of color, color evasiveness, and defining majority-minority schools as rife with deficits of their own making, is well-documented (Picower 2009). However, additional work needs to be done to interrogate whiteness in science education. Teachers are the most important factor in determining students’ learning opportunity within the classroom each day, as they determine students’ minute-to-minute experiences with content during school while they negotiate a variety of signals (Schmidt and McKnight 2015). As other authors in this text have made clear, for schools to become places where students thrive, teachers must use instructional practices that leverage students’ cultural, political, and social knowledge as assets for learning. For this chapter, this acknowledgment of students’ assets is applied to the work of teaching, as teachers operate within and contribute to the formation of an integrated pattern that informs their practices and the means by which they relate to their students. Essentially, for the culture of learning to change in schools, the culture of teaching must change as well. Fortunately, existing scholarship can illuminate the mechanisms for teacher learning that need to be deployed at scale to support the changes to the culture of teaching that are critical for supporting all students. For example, one way to notice the culture of US teaching, as represented by teaching and professional learning models, is to compare it with those of other cultures to highlight previously unnoticed aspects of common practices and assumptions (Stigler et al. 2000).

432

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

The purpose of this chapter is to review what is known about one such mechanism, lesson study, and argue for its connection to anti-racist, justice-oriented pedagogies for science teaching. In its very nature, lesson study implicates standards, existing research, curriculum, instructional practice, school culture, and student learning. While rather simple in its fundamental structure, its relationship to the wide array of factors that influence the work of teaching becomes complex quite quickly. Over time, repeated cycles of lesson study can continue to interrogate these relationships and impact schooling beyond a single location or a single case. A note about language, where possible, Japanese terms for the concepts embedded within lesson study and classroom instruction will be used. This is done as a sign of respect for the Japanese teachers, researchers, and students whose public examples and explanations have greatly influenced our thinking. It is also done to maintain precision, as the Japanese terms often apply a complexity to teaching practice that is difficult to translate into a singular word or phrase in English.

Lesson Study Lesson study’s history provides insight into how it developed and the endurance of challenges that have spanned at least 150 years of teacher learning in the United States. To implement lesson study effectively, understanding its intentions can be helpful, especially when some teachers might object to lesson study in US contexts due to their perception that it cannot export to cultures different from that of Japan.

History of Lesson Study Lesson study in Japan is a collaborative mechanism for teachers to conduct local research about teaching and learning and build systematic instructional improvements over time. It includes the characteristics shown in the professional development literature to be associated with improved classroom instruction and student learning outcomes (Desimone 2009; Gibbons and Cobb 2016). Today, in Japan, it is practically a universal form of teacher professional development (Akiba 2016; Akiba et al. 2007) that serves a triad of functions – it promotes teacher professional learning, advances local research, and interrogates policy implementation (Lewis and Lee 2017). To provide context, lesson study’s history must be located within the broader Japanese educational system. The Tokugawa family led Japan for over 250 years with a decentralized government (1600–1867) and an isolationist policy for foreign affairs (Sims 2019). During this time, most men and some women were literate and numerate, as tenarai shisho (writing masters) taught children to read, write, and conduct arithmetic (Sims 2019; Tsujimoto 2017). 1868 marked the end of the Tokugawa shogunate and the beginning of the Meiji Ishin (Renovation) in Japan (Sims 2019; Tsujimoto 2017). The four-class system that formally guided daily life

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

433

was officially ended within 4 years of the Ishin, and a greater interest in Westernstyle systems emerged (Sims 2019). These interests in Western-style systems included education. Japanese teacher educators reached out to normal schools in the United States. Object lessons were popular within US normal schools in the 1870s. Object lessons were focused on teaching concepts with a focus on physical objects and giving students and opportunity to manipulate them, prior to formal introduction of vocabulary by the teacher. The ideas students would learn were located within the objects under study. In 1872, American teacher Marion Scott came to the first normal school in Tokyo to teach object lessons, which became part of Japanese teacher education (Makinae 2019). The structure of the object lesson was soon incorporated into Japanese mathematics textbooks (Makinae 2019). The textbook revisions eliminated the prior focus on the algorithm for addition and instead focused on students counting objects, like stones, flags, or fruit, to build understandings of addition through pictures of real objects and contextualizing those pictures in realistic situations. Using objects as a means of contextualizing mathematics was the foundation of object lessons and started the relationship between lesson study and mathematics teaching. As the object lesson focus continued, Japanese teacher educators studied the work of Edward Sheldon, the principal of the New York State Normal School in Oswego, who expanded the idea of the object lesson to include criticism lessons and model lessons. A criticism lesson was essentially what is now called microteaching, whereby a prospective teacher would teach a lesson to a group of peers and then the lesson would be discussed. Essential to the process was having a “presiding critic” who was prepared to summarize the discussion. A model lesson was like a demonstration given by an expert teacher. The model lessons would be observed by the prospective teachers and discussed afterward. Sheldon published several examples of these model lessons in his Manual for Elementary Instruction (1871) but warned that these examples, if only used verbatim by teachers, would fail to help them develop excellent practice. Instead, he suggested, teachers must “. . .catch the spirit and philosophy of the system and work it out somewhat in their own way” (Sheldon 1871, p. 8). Object lessons and criticism lessons continued in Japan. As normal schools spread across the country, textbooks were developed by teacher educators explaining these methods of teacher training and were used with prospective teachers. By the early 1900s, conferences were organized by local boards of education. Some were called criticism lesson conferences, others called lesson study conferences and marked a transition from criticism lessons being key features of prospective teachers’ learning into the professional development of in-service teachers (Makinae 2019). Lesson study, as practiced now, draws from European, North American, and Japanese roots. Caution, however, is necessary. In Sheldon’s original work, he justified the purposes of schooling with colonialist and assimilationist language. To oppose and overturn this view of schooling, lesson study can be used to advance culturally sustaining pedagogies – those that “sustain linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive social transformation” (Alim and Paris 2017, p. 1). Our goal is to use lesson study to advance teachers’ readiness to center

434

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

their instruction on the knowledge and experiences of their students, honoring variance in perspective to advance learning. Two key publications in the late 1990s introduced lesson study to Western nations, or so it initially seemed. The first was A lesson is like a slowly flowing river (Lewis and Tshuchida 1998). In it, authors pointed out that Japanese teachers reported they shifted from teaching science as “teaching as telling” to “teaching for understanding” and attributed this shift to their kenkyuu jugyou (research lessons) (Lewis and Tshuchida 1998). Lewis and Tsuchida revealed some fundamental features of research lessons, including observation by other teachers, a careful collaboratively designed research plan, and focused discussion of students’ learning. Known as live research lessons, these features are a focal, defining feature of lesson study. These descriptors of lesson study contributed to the foundation upon which most Western lesson study scholarship has been based. The second publication, The Teaching Gap (Stigler and Hiebert 1999), overviewed findings from the TIMSS video study. The authors noted substantial differences in teaching practices across international cultures. For example, in US mathematics classrooms, students were given opportunities to invent solutions and think independently during 0.7% of seatwork time, whereas in Japanese classrooms, students were being given these opportunities 44.1% of the time (Stigler and Hiebert 1999, p. 71). This 63-fold disparity in learning opportunity was attributed to differences in teaching. Japanese teaching patterns largely focused on a method known as teaching mathematics through problem-solving (Takahashi 2006). The Japanese teachers interviewed by the TIMSS researchers identified lesson study as the mechanism by which they learned to teach mathematics this way.

Essential Elements of Lesson Study As a phrase, lesson study was translated from the Japanese phrase jugyou kenkyuu, which could have also been translated as lesson research. This nuance in translation is one reason lesson study might be described as “collaborative lesson research” (Takahashi and McDougal 2016, p. 513). In Japanese, jugyou refers simultaneously to instruction, teaching, and class; it therefore includes the work of the teacher (his/her practices during the lesson) and the students’ work as they engage in the lesson activities. Additionally, this term acknowledges the reciprocal relationship between the actions taken by the teacher while teaching and those of the students while learning. To establish the essential elements of lesson study for this chapter, five sources were studied and compared. The first source is a practical guide for lesson study researchers and practitioners, written by a team of researchers with more than 20 years of lesson study experience in the United States (Lewis et al. 2019) and references the second source: online videos, templates, and other tools for supporting lesson study practice (lessonresearch.net). The third source is a literature review identifying the features of lesson study necessary for it to be an effective mechanism for teacher learning (Seleznyov 2018). The fourth and fifth sources were authored by

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

435

a team who has conducted lesson study research and presented lesson study conferences for 20 years with local teachers in Chicago, Illinois, and around the world (Takahashi and McDougal 2016, 2019). While these authors highlight some differences in the details of how lesson study is conducted, they agree on the essential elements. All describe lesson study as being an iterative process with at least four phases; one author splits phase one and phase four into two parts (Takahashi and McDougal 2016). The first phase, study, is to establish the research theme or purpose of the lesson study cycle. The research theme can be established by a team, or, if lesson study is practiced by most teachers within a school, the theme can also be shared school-wide (Lewis et al. 2019). Importantly, a research theme is also an opportunity for a team to articulate a socially just and antiracist goal, while linking the goal to specific instructional tools or strategies to be tested live in the third phase of lesson study. Once the theme is established, the team agrees upon a subject area for their research (like science) and a topic (like sound). The next step, kyouzai kenkyuu, is included by some authors in phase one (Lewis et al. 2019; Takahashi and McDougal 2016) but has also been described as the beginning of phase two (Seleznyov 2018). Kyouzai refers to the subject content within instructional materials as well as the contexts and methods to be used when teaching students (Watanabe et al. 2008). In Japan, instructional materials are more explicit about the standards and research supports for teaching practices included within them; thus the term kyouzai assumes a connection between instructional materials, teaching practices, and standards. However, in the United States, the detail of instructional materials varies, as does the degree to which the materials embody the intention of the standards they supposedly address (Lewis et al. 2019). Therefore, kyouzai kenkyuu in a US context would need to extend beyond the instructional materials to include the study of the standards, other associated documents that support them, and research (Doig et al. 2011). Kyouzai kenkyuu guides the selection of the learning task to be deployed with students during the research lesson (Doig et al. 2011). The task, when used in the lesson, should create a context within which students reinvent the ideas under study (Takahashi 2006). Kyouzai kenkyuu should deepen teachers’ understanding of the instructional materials beyond the focal lesson at the heart of the lesson study cycle (Yokosuka 1990, translated in Watanabe et al. 2008). When kyouzai kenkyuu attends to this deep understanding, teachers’ learning is expanded. This is a very important aspect of lesson study that can be underappreciated by novice practitioners. As explained by Yokosuka in Watanabe et al.’s translation, teacher learning should be impacted by: the entire process of research activities related to kyouzai, beginning with the selection/ development, deepening the understanding of the true nature of particular kyouzai, planning a lesson with a particular kyouzai that matches the current state of the students, culminating in the development of an instructional plan. (p. 133, 2008)

The process of kyouzai kenkyuu is often longer than the amount of time a teacher spends alone when engaging in traditional lesson planning. This is because the team

436

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

needs to build a shared understanding of the full range of factors that influence the instructional materials they study. This can be assisted by consultation with a knowledgeable other, someone outside the team who can guide the selection and discussion of research, point the team to instructional materials more likely to help them achieve their stated goals, help develop deeper understanding of content, and assist them in evaluating standards, materials, and research according to their commitments to equity and anti-racist pedagogies – additional roles of the knowledgeable other will be discussed later in this chapter (Takahashi and McDougal 2016). Whether kyouzai kenkyuu is completed at the end of stage one (study) or the beginning of stage two (plan), it leads to the development of the research plan – an agreed upon component of phase two of lesson study. The research plan includes the lesson plan but also the summary of the team’s kyouzai kenkyuu and the contribution of the lesson to the overall unit. This means that during the plan stage, the team must understand the trajectory of the unit and the contributing ideas of lessons that precede and follow the research lesson. One unanimous idea among the manuscripts reviewed to identify essential elements is that the research plan should be reviewed by a knowledgeable other (Lewis et al. 2019; Takahashi and McDougal 2016, 2019; Seleznyov 2018). The research lesson plan should also be written down. This allows the plan to be shared with any observers and creates a record of the team’s rationale and learning. Once the cycle is complete, the plan can be shared with other teams within the school or in other locations. Lewis and colleagues stress closing phase two with a mock-up lesson (Lewis et al. 2019). The mock-up lesson involves the teacher of the live lesson teaching a practice lesson to the rest of the team. The other team members act as students. The mock-up lesson allows the team to polish any transitions, carefully plan the board, practice the wording of questions to students, and anticipate student responses to each segment of the lesson. Mock-up lessons allow the team to try out their lesson without risking a poor lesson with actual students. The third stage of lesson study is the live lesson. During the live research lesson, one team member teaches the lesson to a group of students. The other members of the team observe the students during the research lesson. If additional observers are invited to attend the research lesson, a pre-lesson discussion is an important step to orient the additional observers to the intentions of the research team (Lewis et al. 2019). During the live research lesson, observers should not talk with each other or with the students. The questions raised by the team during the first two phases should guide the observers in the data they gather. Essentially, the observers’ goal is to be additional eyes and ears for the teacher, honing their skills at noticing students’ reasoning and interactions and preparing to share the data they gather when the lesson is over. There are a few key differences in this type of observation as opposed to other forms of teacher professional development that include observation. The point of the research lesson observation is not to evaluate teacher performance. Teachers should push themselves to use new instructional practices, which will involve risk-taking. The research lessons are also planned by a team, and thus crediting a “good lesson”

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

437

to the teacher of the research lesson only diminishes the collaborative culture lesson study is intended to build (Lewis et al. 2019). The research lesson is also a time to hone observers’ skills at carefully noticing students (Takahashi and McDougal 2016). Unlike other types of observations, the entire research lesson needs to be observed by all observers. Part of what is being researched is the flow of the lesson from beginning to end and the way the sequence of the lesson components contributes to student learning – this cannot be achieved with only a 20-min (or less) lesson snapshot, as is typically the case within current US K-12 instructional observations. Although a critique of lesson study when considered through a multicultural perspective may position it as a practice by which a room of mostly White adults surveil students of color, we argue that this is not its intention. Rather, lesson study privileges noticing (Takahashi and McDougal 2016), and this practice coupled with the lesson reflection (phase four) challenges teachers to confront their views of what constitutes learning through observing how students’ discursive practices are linked to their own cultural funds of knowledge, which are oftentimes ignored within the science classroom (Brown 2019). The research lesson can be recorded using video and/or audio technologies. Photographs of student work and the board can be taken. These artifacts can be useful to support the team’s learning and to share the activity of lesson study with other teams. However, these are not adequate substitutes for live observation of the research lesson. Part of the goal of lesson study is to develop a collaborative culture skilled at discussing the impact of instruction on student learning as it develops during lessons, as opposed to only evaluating learning as evidenced by formative or summative assessments after instruction has ended. Live research lessons often inspire excitement among the students and the research participants. Capturing that excitement during the fourth phase is one of the ways lesson study can lead to collaborative culture. If teachers watch video of the lesson separately and at different times, rather than watching the live lesson together, finding additional time and space to share what they noticed with each other and the research team can be complicated and delayed to the point that its impact on teacher learning and the construction of a collaborative culture is minimized. The conclusion of the research lesson transitions the lesson study team into phase four – reflect. This phase should be guided by a discussion protocol that foregrounds the observations of the teacher, the other team members, and then, if any, the additional observers (Lewis et al. 2019; Takahashi and McDougal 2016; Seleznyov 2018). The goal of the post-lesson discussion is to evaluate the research theme and related hypotheses about the deployment of instructional routines and how these routines would lead to student learning. There are several demands to manage during a post-lesson discussion. Post-lesson discussions that only use general and superlative language about the lesson are unlikely to support further teacher learning (Chokshi and Fernandez 2004; Lewis and Hurd 2011). At the same time, discussions wherein the audience only serves as “fixers” to any problems that were observed are likely to insult the research team and decrease morale (Lewis et al. 2019). To navigate between these two extremes, post-lesson discussions should be guided by a moderator, ideally someone not on the research team. The moderator

438

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

should help the observers focus their comments on detailed descriptions of student interaction, verbalization, expression, writing, and use of any manipulatives. With several detailed descriptions, the comments of both observers and the teaching team can focus on what they learned from the experience (Chokshi and Fernandez 2004). When comments focus on their own learning, the teaching team reveals how their thinking is developing as they compare their intentions in the lesson design to the lesson outcomes with the data gathered by the observers. Observers also learn how to talk differently about if a lesson “went well” or not and how to talk with one another about student learning that is different from evaluating student performance on highstakes assessment data (Chokshi and Fernandez 2004). The post-lesson discussion should involve a knowledgeable other (Lewis et al. 2019; Takahashi and McDougal 2019; Seleznyov 2018). This could be the same knowledgeable other consulted during the early phases of the cycle, but it is helpful if the expertise comes from yet another person (Takahashi and McDougal 2019). If a new knowledgeable other confirms ideas that the team heard from a different expert, learned from their kyouzai kenkyuu, and that was evident in the observational data and their own experience from the research lesson, the team is likely to view those ideas as useful and applicable to additional instruction. Even if the knowledgeable other notices aspects of the lesson that were not previously anticipated or noticed, these comments can drive the team to new questions in a future lesson study cycle. A new knowledgeable other can also extend the network of experts known to this lesson study team – generating more expertise that the school community may consult in the future to study new teaching challenges. Takahashi and McDougal (2019) consider the post-lesson discussion as the end of phase three and save the initiation of stage four for the construction of a written reflection added on to the research plan. Lewis et al. (2019) and Seleznyov (2018) include the written reflection as a component of stage four, a task to be completed following the post-lesson discussion. All authors agree that at least one additional meeting is required to accomplish this portion of the lesson study cycle. The reflection should be shared with other lesson study teams to “mobilize knowledge” generated by the research cycle (Seleznyov 2018).

Lesson Study and Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving Worldwide, lesson study has been most frequently conducted in mathematics (Huang et al. 2019). In Japan, lesson study has been used to hone a method for teaching mathematics: teaching mathematics through problem-solving. Using problem-posing tasks in mathematics instruction has been increasingly emphasized in standards around the world – including China and the United States (Cai and Nie 2007). There is evidence that building teachers’ knowledge of teaching mathematics through problem-solving has been a focus in Indonesia (Susanta 2013) and that research investigating the use of this teaching method has occurred throughout the world (Liljedahl and Santos-Trigo 2019).

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

439

The relationship between teaching mathematics through problem-solving and lesson study provides a mutualistic benefit for both (Fujii 2018). This mutualistic relationship is worth discussing to consider how teaching mathematics through problem-solving is like an equitable, socially just science teaching agenda so that the benefits for students of the teaching mathematics through problem-solving approach can be leveraged well in the science classroom. Science teachers may think that they already engage their students in problemsolving, but teaching mathematics through problem-solving has a specific meaning. These problem-solving lessons are intended to build conceptual understanding (Fernandez and Yoshida 2004; Stigler et al. 1999). In this teaching method, a teacher should “allow mathematics to be problematic for students” (Shimizu 2008, p. 941). In other words, when the student is faced with the task, they are not immediately certain of the pathway to take to determine the answer. If they are certain, then the task becomes an exercise, often a useful way for students to apply what they have learned (Shimizu 1999). Exercises are still worthy – they may build automaticity, speed, or memory. The key, for teachers, is not to mistake an exercise for a problem. A problem, by definition, then rises above format and is deeply connected to students’ prior knowledge and opportunity to learn. Problem-solving in mathematics is not a new idea; in fact, it could be traced to Colburn’s ideas that repeated practice should be used as an instructional approach after students developed understanding by grappling with a problem (Jones and Coxford 1970). As analysis of TIMSS data made very clear, Japanese students engage in problem-solving to solve novel problems during about 40% of their mathematics lessons (Stigler and Hiebert 1999). Relative to other nations in the study, this was a very high percentage. In problem-solving lessons, Japanese teachers use a four-step structure (Shimizu 1999) built from the substantial influence of How to Solve It (Polya 1945; Takahashi 2011). While many examples of problem-solving lessons complete all four steps in a class period (e.g., Becker et al. 1990), there are documented examples of steps extending over multiple days of mathematics instruction (Fujii 2014). Japanese teachers begin a problem-solving lesson with a step called hatsumon (Shimizu 1999). Hatsumon, translated literally, means question. In the context of a classroom, it means a question posed by the teacher (Takahashi 2011). When hatsumon is done well, a teacher poses the question or problem in a way that builds student interest, draws them into a desire to solve the problem, and may even have a dramatic flair appropriate for the context. Critically, hatsumon does not involve an explanation by the teacher of how to solve the problem. The second step in a teaching mathematics through problem-solving lesson involves students working independently to find at least one, if not multiple approaches to solve the problem. During this time in the lesson, the teacher engages in kikan jyunshi, known as “students’ individual or group-based problem solving as the teacher walks by their desks” (Inoue 2011) or as monitoring individual student ideas to bring them to the whole class for further discussion when the individual and/or small group work is complete (Fujii 2014). This is sometimes mistaken as identical to kikan shido, known as “between the desks instruction” (Clarke et al. 2007). During kikan shido, the teacher may give feedback to students or ask them

440

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

questions to support them in clarifying their thinking. In lessons that have been carefully and purposefully planned (as in lesson study), the teacher is also looking for solution strategies that map onto those anticipated – and not – by the teaching team. The main differences between these two ideas seem to lie in the degree to which teachers give students feedback (shido) as opposed to observing differences in their ideas ( jyunshi) (Doig et al. 2011). In fact, during the Japanese solving inequalities lesson available on timss.com, the teacher is engaging in kikan jyunshi and marking which anticipated solutions each student has generated. This record becomes helpful in situ when the third step of the teaching mathematics through problem-solving lesson begins, and it is also useful as a guide for looking for patterns in student thinking and discussing these patterns during the post-lesson discussion. The third step of a teaching mathematics through problem-solving lesson is neriage. Neriage means literally “kneading up” or “polishing up” (Shimizu 1999, p. 110; Takahashi 2011). In a teaching context, it refers to “whole class discussions” in which “students compare and contrast different strategies and build consensus” (Inoue 2011; see also Fernandez and Yoshida 2004; Shimizu 1999). Neriage is considered the most crucial aspect of a teaching mathematics through problemsolving lesson (Takahashi 2011) as these are the moments where the students’ initial ideas are compared with one another, such that careful listening and sharing of thinking by students are absolutely necessary for the lesson to succeed. Neriage is also very difficult to enact, as multiple solution strategies may help students arrive at the same correct answer, and yet each strategy is not equally useful for connecting to other generative means of developing students’ mathematical thinking (Fujii 2016). Typically, in Japanese problem-solving lessons, these sharing, listening, comparing, and contrasting are aided by careful presentation of ideas on the board, known as bansho (i.e., Kuehnert et al. 2018; Yoshida 2005). Bansho is an intentional orchestration of board writing to organize students’ thoughts, keep a public record of the flow of the lesson, and help students build connections to discover new ideas (Fernandez and Yoshida 2004). This orchestration of the board is planned carefully by the lesson study team, noted by the term bansho keikaku (Ermeling 2015). A written bansho keikaku is one hallmark of a well-planned research lesson (Yoshida 2005). In teaching mathematics through problem-solving lessons, the segments of the board often correspond to the lesson steps and can be constructed by the teacher or emerge directly from students’ work (Kotsopoulos and Lee 2012). Bansho’s significance as a tool for supporting student learning is substantial in its own right, but the teacher’s ability to conduct bansho well is dependent upon the type of task the students have worked on in prior segments of the lesson, as well as the range of student ideas the task brought forward. During the hatsumon phase, the problem is presented on the left side of the board. As individual or small group ideas are presented during neriage, the middle segment of the board displays their thinking. The final lesson phase, matome, is recorded on the left. Notice that the board becomes a tool to unify lesson segments. Recently, the resulting board has been used for analysis of lessons to improve the quality of lesson observations and the

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

441

analysis of lesson enactment and student learning after the lesson concludes (Tan et al. 2018). The use of the board as a lesson record may be traditional in Japanese contexts, but it stands in sharp contrast to current classroom practices driven by interactive whiteboards or historical use of overhead projectors in the United States. When the flow of the lesson is recorded on the board, the main points and ideas for the students are accessible and can be compared to one another (Yoshida 1999). When students make comments about comparisons and connections between board segments, this provides evidence of their attention to the teacher and may help other students draw similar connections (Tan et al. 2018). When these other, more modern tools are used, only particular segments of ideas are visible to learners at any given time, requiring them to recall previously displayed information and/or track between the board and their notes to make connections between ideas as the lesson unfolds. Teaching mathematics through problem-solving has been refined over time via lesson study. Its four distinctive yet interrelated steps support the development of lessons and units that are coherent and student-centered yet also allow for a known grain size with which to improve teaching. Other scholars have noted that there is an unsolved problem of knowing the scale, or grain size, that needs to be applied when aiming to better design curriculum and to adequately support teacher and student learning, especially to advance an equitable science teaching agenda (Windschitl and Calabrese Barton 2016). Each step of the teaching through problem-solving framework can be studied carefully, yet, since the steps are interdependent, studying one in great depth increases the likelihood of improving the others. For example, multiple lesson study cycles can focus teachers’ attention on refining hatsumon. Such attention would allow them to improve the quality of problem posing. Improving the quality of hatsumon is likely to improve students’ interest in attempting to solve the problem, which in turn impacts the quality of neriage. Also, having clearly defined grain sizes for lessons, as shown in the teaching mathematics through problem solving structure, helps focus teachers’ aims for study and improvement. This increases the likelihood that learning from the research lesson will transfer to other lessons – these grain sizes create a structure for teacher enactment that can be practiced and refined over time. Using lesson study to improve a specified format for teaching, like teaching mathematics through problem solving, helps place boundaries around teachers’ work during lesson study, improve the quality of its focus, while also improving the community’s understanding of the teaching format itself. The ideas about teaching mathematics through problem-solving are applicable to science and will be addressed next.

Lesson Study and Science Teaching Reports of lesson study conducted in science teaching contexts pale in frequency as compared to mathematics, yet there are increasing numbers of examples in the literature. Science teacher educators have used variances of lesson study in their methods courses for future teachers (Akerson et al. 2017; Carrier 2011;

442

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

Chandler-Olcott et al. 2018; Juhler 2016; Marble 2007). Science lesson study has explored means to make science lessons more accessible for students with learning disabilities (Mutch-Jones et al. 2012). There have been science research lessons in higher education with graduate teaching assistants (Dotger 2011; Dotger et al. 2012a) and in K-12 settings (Bravo and Cofré 2016; Dotger 2015; Dotger and McQuitty 2014; Dotger et al. 2012b; Dotger and Walsh 2015; Lee Bae et al. 2016; Nilsson 2014). Preliminary research is underway to examine tools and routines that may be shared across mathematics and science lessons, which could be of particular use for elementary teachers since they teach both subjects (Dotger and Friedkin 2019). As an example, board writing has been used in both subjects to link students’ individual work in their writing to whole class sensemaking discussions. Other research has investigated unique characteristics of board work in science lessons, where board structures for engaging students in using multiple forms of evidence to support a claim differ from lessons where students are summarizing learning over the span of a unit or amending a tentative model considering new evidence (Dotger et al. 2017). This research has been conducted in the context of large, public research lesson conferences, where new instructional methods were tested and many teachers observed the research lessons to build widespread, shared regional understanding of student thinking supported by knowledgeable others in science education and in lesson study (Dotger 2018).

Lesson Study and Implications for Equitable Science Learning Providing all students with an equitable science education should include improving students’ opportunity to learn (Tate 2001), since “the ways in which science teachers work with students and their ideas mediate opportunities to learn more powerfully than any other part of the schooling ecology” (Windschitl and Calabrese Barton 2016). Yet, in the elementary years, science learning opportunities are sparse, as only 21% of elementary teachers report teaching science most days of the week, every week of the year (Plumley 2019). This is in part due to the emphasis on reading and mathematics instruction. On average, elementary teachers report spending 87 min per day on reading and language arts, 58 min per day on mathematics, and 20 min per day on science. Only social studies content receives fewer minutes than science – an average of 17 min per day (Plumley 2019). Elementary science teachers are 94% female and 88% identify as White; 1/3 of them report five or fewer years of experience teaching science (Plumley 2019). More than 3/4 of elementary teachers agree that “students should be given definitions for new vocabulary at the beginning of instruction about an idea” (Plumley 2019, p. 9). Approximately 24% of elementary teachers have not participated in science-focused professional development across their careers; 2/3 have not spent more than 6 h in science-focused professional development over the last 3 years (Plumley 2019). Approximately 45% of elementary teachers report using instructional materials published in 2009 or earlier (Plumley 2019), which means there is no chance their materials were designed to meet the goals of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). In summary, the

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

443

opportunity for students to learn science in elementary schools is limited by teachers’ opportunities to expand their knowledge of science, their acknowledgement of their White identities and the potential impacts of those identities on their students’ learning, and their access to high-quality instructional materials. When elementary teachers participate in science-focused professional development, more than half reported being able to work closely with other teachers from their school, fewer than half were able to experience lessons as their students would (Plumley 2019). Approximately 38% engaged in science investigations, 31% studied classroom artifacts like student work or video of classroom instruction, 30% returned to talk about their practices after trying them in the classroom, and only 23% had opportunities to rehearse instructional practices during professional development (Plumley 2019). Each of these activities would occur for teachers participating in lesson study. Lesson study can provide elementary teachers with an equitable opportunity to learn themselves, increasing the likelihood they could provide more equitable opportunities for their students. In secondary schools, students’ opportunities to be in science classes are not guaranteed, especially for students of color, even when they attend STEM-focused high schools. In a careful analysis of opportunity and outcome among five Chicago high schools, researchers found a community college pathway and career focus in four of the five schools that served communities of color and partnerships with elite private colleges at the one high school within a white community (Morales-Doyle and Gustein 2019). While there is nothing inherently wrong with a collegiate or career pathway for high school students, the differential opportunities for students correlated with their race is undeniable and unjust. Similarly, the approximately 5000 US high schools whose enrollments comprise 75% or more Black or Latinx students offer fewer courses in mathematics and science, particularly for calculus and physics (US DOE, Office for Civil Rights 2018). While this statistic could be interpreted as only relevant for calculus and physics alone, it is instead an indicator of a systems-level problem since the lack of opportunity at the terminus of the high school curriculum is also an indicator of a lack of opportunity to arrive there. Opportunity to learn may manifest as whether a student has access to content. However, it can also manifest as whether or not a student has an opportunity to have access to the practices, ideas, discourse patterns, and norms of a discipline that would give them agency and help them build a positive identity as a member of its community and/or as someone with the ability to shape themselves into a more inclusive, critical, and justice-seeking advocate. Researchers have sought to advance the agenda of equity through ambitious teaching practices, which foreground the participation and learning of every single student in a classroom (Windschitl and Calabrese Barton 2016). Notably, these same authors suggest that these ambitious teaching practices need to be “refined over time” – language that connects ambitious practices to work such as lesson study (Windschitl and Calabrese Barton 2016, p. 1099). Advancing an equity agenda means that teachers must not only recognize intellectually but legitimize in their daily classroom instruction that their students are already sensemakers. This sensemaking capacity of their students must be deepened and connected to the

444

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

ideas of their peers and science while also providing them the tools to critique and make change occur with the goal of advancing justice. Each phase of lesson study has implications for the design of the pathway teachers will guide students along to reach an outcome (curriculum) and the resources they deploy along the way (instructional materials) (Remillard and Heck 2014). Recall that lesson study’s precursors – object and model lessons – revealed challenges for teachers’ use of existing lesson examples; this continues to plague teaching and learning and is highly relevant in modern lesson study (Chokshi and Fernandez 2004). Revised and updated learning standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013), require alterations to both the curriculum and instructional materials, further necessitating additional study and change within the classroom. As teachers engage in a lesson study cycle, kyouzai kenkyuu may reveal shortcomings in their standard curriculum and available materials. They may find inequity embedded within the materials (Burgess 2020). They may find that the standards fail to acknowledge the ways that science has caused harm to socially or economically disenfranchised communities. For example, in high school chemistry, little attention is given to the notion of chemical risk within communities, especially the differential risk and benefit to the use of chemicals (Morales-Doyle and Gustein 2019). If one of the aims of schooling is equity for our students and the communities they live within, school chemistry should study the chemists who contributed to the formulation and use of tetraethyl lead and chlorofluorocarbons (Morales-Doyle and Gustein 2019) – two substances whose widespread harm has disproportionately impacted communities of color. Chemical risk, as well as the negative outcomes of contaminants, is not adequately addressed in either the pathways for students’ chemistry learning, including the NGSS, or the mainstream instructional tools used along the path. During kyouzai kenkyuu, teachers need to study an array of resources to help them build an instructional vision, evaluate standards, identify and compare instructional materials, and read research that is relevant to their content and their research theme. While not conducted during a formal lesson study cycle, Morales-Doyle’s project (2017, 2018) for designing a high school chemistry unit demonstrates what a justice orientation for students can look like during the study and subsequent alteration of instructional materials while advancing an equity agenda and maintaining high cognitive demand for students. During kyouzai kenkyuu, teachers can ask themselves how their students’ interests are visible in the resources they are consulting. They can wonder about how students’ existing skills and language resources can be leveraged to help them learn new ideas and about how to support students in interacting in ways that support the development of an appropriately challenging and encouraging participatory community. They can connect students interests and skills to specific, intentional pedagogical moves in the lesson plan and enactment and use the research lesson as an opportunity to determine how well those moves worked for supporting student learning, agency, and identity as a knowledge producer in the discipline. During this portion of lesson study, teachers can be challenged to evaluate how inequities are embedded within their curriculum and correct them.

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

445

There are additional equity issues that can arise during kyouzai kenkyuu. Changes to instructional materials may be needed if the team determines that students need to learn foundational ideas. Overreliance, however, on a foundational perspective can lead to deficit orientations toward students and impede teachers’ use of core instructional practices to support student sensemaking (Windschitl and Calabrese Barton 2016). Conversely, instructional materials may need to be altered if students have had prior experiences with the unit phenomena. There are other legitimate reasons for teachers adjusting their instructional materials. Some research has made clear which types of adjustments teachers make to instructional materials (McNeil et al. 2018), but little is known about the reasons these teachers made the adjustments or how representative these adjustments and rationales are among science teachers. The purpose of lesson study is neither to deploy instructional materials as written nor to write them anew but rather to refine the collective judgments about what to use, when, why, and how. Research demonstrates clearly that teachers are likely to edit the instructional materials available to them. While debates about the use of existing curriculum, standards, fidelity of implementation, the deployment of core practices, and teacher subjectivity continue, what is lost is a means to identify the grain size with which instructional materials and associated curriculum are edited, enacted, rejected, or replaced (Windschitl and Calabrese Barton 2016). Consider, as a metaphor, the phi scale in the earth sciences. This scale classifies earth materials by size from colloids to boulders. What if a scale such as this were applied to instructional materials, curriculum, standards, and teachers’ classroom practices? What would constitute the largest grain size of change within classrooms? Beyond? When focused on an antiracist science agenda, edits to school structures that give all students better access to science, improve all students’ identities as science learners, and empower them to critique science when it fails to address justice and equity are needed. Improvements need to occur on a multitude of scales, and clarity about this “grain size” problem could help scholars and teachers talk with each other more clearly and move the equity agenda forward. It seems that different amounts of change might have different impacts on student learning outcomes. As a case example, consider the well-known lesson study video and scholarship associated with a mathematics lesson entitled “How Many Seats” (Lewis et al. 2006). The video highlights one team over the course of a 10-day institute that used lesson study to investigate developing students’ ideas of algebra. Six White women collaborated on the team, one of whom was a mathematics coach within the district where the teachers worked. During kyouzai kenkyuu, the team discussed a mathematical problem and figured out how to solve it. During the first enactment of the research lesson, one teacher, Linda, led students through the problem and the associated “input-output chart.” By the end of the lesson, most students correctly completed the chart, but few could name the pattern between the input and the output. Importantly for the learning process, some students used the triangular “table” manipulatives to create visual patterns unrelated to the problem. During the post-lesson discussion, the teachers were disappointed that students did not identify the pattern, and they noticed students’ overreliance on the chart. One

446

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

teacher pointed out a student’s use of the manipulatives to figure out how many seats would fit around a row of twenty tables – a quantity well beyond the original expectations of the team. More importantly than the quantity, however, was that the student’s method of counting the seats pointed out to this teacher a connection between the manipulatives and the mathematical formula that represented the problem at hand. As a result of their observations and the post-lesson discussion, the team made several edits to the design of their lesson and retaught their research lesson to a new group of students within a few days. The teachers altered the problem introduction by asking students to describe multiple methods of counting the seats around a 12-table row on the board. The chart from the original lesson was replaced with a system whereby each student was given a unique number of tables and had to determine the associated number of seats. In groups of four, students then talked with each other to name the pattern between the number of tables and seats and represent their ideas on a collectively accessible sheet of large paper. In this second lesson, all the papers showed that the students were able, within their groups, to identify the pattern between the tables and seats. The teachers held a second postlesson discussion and later summarized their learning across the cycle. When contrasting these two designs and implementations of this lesson, how might these edits be described, especially considering the concerns regarding grain size? The fundamental problem in front of the students remained the same. However, teachers changed the format through which students recorded their thinking, altered the number of tables given to students to avoid the one-increment increase on the original chart that led students to ignore the manipulatives, and used the large paper to encourage discourse between students and make the discourse necessary to find the pattern. Without having a language for describing these kinds of edits, the field is left without a guide for clear communication about how, when, why, or the degree to alter materials to improve student learning outcomes. This limits collective abilities to discuss the edits necessary to better address goals for equity and to consider the aspects of tasks that might hold across contexts and those that might need to be altered to better meet the contexts in another space. Returning to the lesson study process, the written research proposal serves several functions. It links the team’s kyouzai kenkyuu with the enactment of the research lesson. It also documents for colleagues who read the proposal the way the standards and research impacted particular instructional moves they made in the lesson while also inviting lesson observers to gather data that will assist them in evaluating their research theme. In fact, the creation and sharing of the lesson research proposal is a move toward advancing equity in a school. When teachers share their learning about the connection between their own instructional practices and the learning of the students in the school, they increase the likelihood that colleagues might take up and try similar instructional practices. Over time and with the continued support of additional lesson study cycles, teams can then make high-leverage practices more available to more students, improving the opportunity to learn across the school. Live research lessons are public, at least in the sense that they are attended at minimum by the other members of the research team. Depending on the goal of the

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

447

research lesson and the knowledge of the community about the purpose of lesson study and the role of the research lesson, research lessons can also be observed by additional personnel beyond the research team. These additional observers get the privilege of learning from the intention undergirding their colleagues’ plan, as well as the opportunity to observe students’ responses to the lesson carefully and closely. This encourages observers to hone their sensibility for how students’ reason, share their thinking, and listen to one another. Often, research lessons are intentionally aimed at solving a vexing problem in teaching, so observing as students’ reason about a challenging problem or practice the kinds of discourse associated with equitable instruction can expand their own thinking about what is possible in their classrooms and leverage that kind of discourse in their own teaching. Since the goal of the public research lesson is to test the design hypothesis associated with the research theme, when these themes articulate equity, the lesson should include scaffolds and tools intentionally designed and strategically deployed so that every student in the class advances their knowledge or skill and the agency of students as learners and knowledge producers of science is further developed. Having multiple observers in the room, especially when they are skilled in attending to students’ thinking, improves the likelihood that students’ experiences in the lesson will be understood by multiple members of the teaching community. This is also a time to link the purpose of observations to anti-racist pedagogies. Considering the opening anecdote, an observer of this student should wonder why she is characterized as angry and look for the moment in the lesson where she connects with peers and the content. They should look for the way she interacts with her peers, and they with her, taking careful notes about the inclusive interactions so that they can continue to be capitalized upon in future lessons. There is an abundant array of possible questions that could guide observers during a research lesson. Observers should make note of students tsubuyaki – the under the breath exclamations made by students that may indicate understanding, frustration, confusion, insight, or uncertainty. Observers should also note body language and the interplay between students – who talks to whom? In what order? Does the same student initiate conversation each time? If a student’s idea is taken up by a peer or the teacher, how do the other students in the group handle that, especially if they had a similar idea or disagree? Observers should look for any moments that a student “checks out” of the lesson and carefully describe the students’ actions that led to that inference, as well as what may have happened in the classroom when the student checks back in. They need to note how other students responded to that change in attention. While all this is going on, they should also record the ideas the student expressed during the lesson, including any points at which the student had a conceptual breakthrough or struggled. Observers need to record students’ partial ideas and how these were taken up by peers or by the teacher. This range of questions and possible observations means that the observer will have a great deal of data to communicate to the team about how a small set of students experienced the lesson. Multiple observers enhance the data set and illuminate the complex variance that can emerge among students.

448

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

Post-lesson discussions provide lesson observers with the chance to hear from the person teaching the lesson and from the other members of the research team who were observers. Their points of view inform how the observers might interpret what they noticed on their own. Additionally, observers share their notes back with the teaching team. Since observers tend to focus their attention on only one or two students at a time, depending on which students they attend to, they can have very different interpretations of how the lesson met the student learning goals the team was aiming for. To illustrate, imagine observing a learner who experienced very little challenge during the lesson and who met the lesson goals easily. This may lead the observer to think the lesson lacked cognitive demand or insufficiently accounted for this students’ prior knowledge. Another observer, however, may have witnessed a student sufficiently challenged during the lesson, communicate their ideas clearly with a peer, and collaboratively overcome the challenge to meet the lesson goal. For this student, the lesson may have been ideally suitable. A third observer could have observed a student who struggled to the point of visible and audible frustration, withdrawing during the lesson as evidenced by nonverbals and body language. Perhaps this student did not complete the lesson activity or withdrew from a group when their repeated attempts to contribute ideas were not taken up by peers or the teacher (Burgess 2020). These three observers would have different data to share with the research team. Together, they would be able to better construct a description of the lesson for the whole class. The research team could evaluate these observations considering their research theme and propose potential changes to future instruction that might lead to more equitable learning outcomes for the students. Everyone who participates in a well-mediated post-lesson discussion learns. Teachers begin to contemplate the range of events that occur in their own classrooms while they are teaching and often feel humbled by the array of events they miss and student comments they do not hear. This humility provides them a time to listen to one another, much the way they want other students in the lessons to listen to one another. Observers may also recognize student ideas that have arisen in their own classroom or see student-to-student interactions that they want to make cognitively challenging while simultaneously encouraging and supportive. Further, post-lesson discussions should invite a final commentator. The final commentator should have expertise in some aspect of the team’s research theme and/or content focus. For example, if the research lesson were a second-grade lesson about sound, a wellqualified final commentator should be prepared to connect the observations of the children to research about their learning, point out opportunities to improve the equity during the lesson, or address some students’ ideas that came up during the lesson and need more development. If the lesson observers include teachers across the grade span, the final commentator should also be able to discuss how the sound objectives in the unit will expand to other grade levels and perhaps even other areas of science not often considered connected to sound (particles or earthquakes, as two examples). They should assist teachers in attending to their goals for equity and encourage further inquiry during additional lesson study cycles. In the following vignette, we provide an illustration of how this work can take shape within the current school paradigm.

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

449

Vignette: The Landforms Example Despite the limited work in this area, we have experience using lesson study to advance the goals of the NGSS and provide students with equitable opportunities to learn science. In this lesson study cycle, a team of six 4th-grade teachers and a language learning specialist worked with Sharon to plan a lesson from a science instructional unit adopted by a local urban school district. The original instructional unit included a teacher guide of several hundred pages which suggested that a minimum of 9 weeks (45 days) of instruction be devoted to the implementation of the full unit. However, the schedule for implementation of the unit designed by the district allotted only 21 instructional days to complete the unit. Additionally, the lesson plans within the teacher guide assumed that the daily amount of time allotted to science would be at least 40 min. While the daily schedule for the school allotted this same amount of time, it was cut a few minutes short each day by students needing to transition in and out of the classroom at the beginning and end of the allotted time for science. These structural realities created constraints for the teachers’ implementation of the unit. They had to make choices about which unit elements to keep, as they understood that they could not simply teach science twice as fast as other subjects. Thus, when our lesson study work began, their selection of the research lesson focus was very influenced by these constraints. Nevertheless, the teachers wanted to help their students improve their scientific discourse and science notebook writing. The research lesson was embedded in a series of lessons aimed to help students use topographic maps to study changes to Earth’s surface. As teachers designed their research proposal, they focused their kyouzai kenkyuu on the instructional materials and the ways those materials brought NGSS standard 4-ESS2-2 to life. They recognized the focal scientific practice of having students analyze and interpret data as identified in the standard. They refined their understanding of how the lesson materials were reflective of large-scale system interactions in earth science and studied the cross-cutting concept of patterns. As they wrote in their research lesson proposal, Maps and other representations, like those featured in our research lesson, help students to recognize patterns in these features and their locations. Prior to the research lesson, teachers taught ten lessons that explored soil types, physical and chemical weathering, erosion of soils by water, and building of sediment deposits over time, and they built a topographic map of a mountain in California. In the teacher guide, the original lesson asked students to construct a profile of this mountain by following a series of steps. In doing so, the students would build the profile by plotting the distance from one side of the mountain along the x-axis against the height of the mountain along the y-axis. We practiced this task as a lesson study group and it was rapidly evident that the students had not yet had the opportunity to plot any points on a coordinate plane. In fact, the CCSS for mathematics asked students to plot points on a line in third and fourth grade. Students were expected to learn to plot points on a coordinate plane as fifth graders and to do so in the context of studying mathematical patterns. The teachers were careful to note that students could learn to plot points on a coordinate plane, but

450

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

learning about the core ideas of the NGSS standard did not yet require it. Further, any time taken to teach them how to do this to implement the lesson as written would only cause the teachers to have to make even deeper cuts to the unit than they were already making. With this realization, the team determined that the purpose of students learning about a landform’s profile was ultimately to visualize the slope of sides of the landform. Through conversation, the teachers came to understand the profile like the silhouette of a mountainside. With that idea, they continued to wonder if there was a way to use a flashlight to let a 3D model of a mountain cast a shadow. The edges of the shadow would be a representation of the profile. This shadow idea led them to realize they had the opportunity for students to make connections between 3D representations, such as the one students would study in the preceding lesson, along with profiles and topographic maps. However, the instructional unit only provided one 3D model of one landform and one topographic map for that landform. Therefore, the teachers decided we would need more landform examples and we had to figure out how to make the shadow casting workable in the lesson. Ultimately, the team found topographic maps of five other landforms. To try and increase the likelihood that students might have familiarity with at least one of them, we selected at least one landform located in New York. We also looked for landforms that would be distinctly different from one another, varying their slope and height. Additionally, we made the copies of the topographic maps larger than the 3D models, essentially so that students could not match them by only fitting the 3D model in the outermost contour line. The goal of the research lesson was for students to study six three-dimensional models of landforms, topographic maps, and profiles and to articulate patterns in how these representations showed landform features. During the research lesson, the students worked in pairs or groups of three. Each group was given a flashlight, a 3D model, and a box with paper taped to the side. The teacher showed them how they could use the flashlight to cast a shadow of the 3D model on the paper. When they finished tracing the profile, the profiles were collected. Students were then challenged to match the 3D models back to the profiles (as they were mixed up at this point) and explain how they knew when they found a match. Then, the students were given topographic maps and asked to match these to the 3D models and profiles. This was the point in the lesson where students began to struggle more. In their science notebooks, they were able to explain how the profile was made and how it was like the 3D model. However, very few students mentioned the topographic maps in their writing. We interpreted this to mean that students would need more opportunities to work with topographic maps. The teachers felt that if the students had more opportunities with the maps, they would be able to incorporate them into their writing and talk. In developing their agency, these teachers found a way to alter the instructional materials in a manner that made the idea of a profile more accessible to students while simultaneously maintaining a higher cognitive demand by introducing additional landforms. Given the timeframe they had to guide their unit implementation, they found a way to provide students with some access to the idea, increasing the students’ opportunity to learn. As a result, students, whose identities are typically

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

451

ignored within standards-aligned curriculum materials (Burgess 2020), were provided a space to become agentic knowledge producers, shifting the dominant narratives of who can “learn” and “do” science. Collectively, the teachers acknowledged that without the lesson study, they would have skipped the lessons about profiles entirely. Additionally, they felt that they understood how profiles could be useful tools for helping students think about landforms and admitted that their own prior learning opportunities had not made that evident to them. Finally, they felt more certain about how to arrange science notebook entries around focal questions and students’ observations, even though they continued to have questions about how to implement their new ideas with other science lessons.

Summary Lesson study engages teachers in a wide range of practices – careful study of curriculum, research, instructional materials, and their students – which leads to the public enactment of a research lesson that allows the teachers to test their ideas in live time. This culminates in a public discussion of the lesson outcomes. Each component of the lesson study process is relatively simple, but taken together, these components provide a comprehensive opportunity for teachers to hypothesize about, test, and interrogate their practice. Opportunities to learn science must improve in US schools, and doing such will require systematic, iterative, and consistent attention from teachers. From large-scale issues about the frequency of science learning opportunities in elementary school and the course offerings in high schools to the within-classroom moments described in the opening anecdote, there are a multitude of areas within the schooling system that need to improve for students. Teachers may not control the structures that influence the types of classes offered at their schools nor the schedule set by administrators, but they can control how they listen to their students and honor their funds of knowledge and humanity. Teachers can address the inequities embedded within the curriculum and instructional materials and can work with colleagues to learn about the shortcomings in standards. Through high-quality science instruction, teachers have the power to improve students’ self-determination. In this age of equity-driven standards, lesson study, throughout its multifaceted approach to instruction and professional development, can further refine and share these practices.

References Akerson VL, Pongsanon K, Rogers MAP, Carter I, Galindo E (2017) Exploring the use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching nature of science. Int J Sci Math Educ 15(2):293–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-0159690-x

452

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

Akiba M (2016) Traveling teacher professional development model. In: Akiba MF, Akiba M (eds) The global and the local: new perspectives in comparative education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam, pp 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-654-5_5 Akiba M, LeTendre GK, Scribner JP (2007) Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educ Res 36(7):369–387. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X07308739 Alim HS, Paris D (2017) What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter. Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world, pp. 1–21 Bae CL, Hayes KN, Seitz J, O’Connor D, DiStefano R (2016) A coding tool for examining the substance of teacher professional learning and change with example cases from middle school science lesson study. Teaching and teacher education, 60, pp. 164–178 Becker JP, Silver EA, Kantowski MG, Travers KJ, Wilson JW (1990) Some observations of mathematics teaching in Japanese elementary and junior high schools. Arith Teach 38(2): 12–12. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.38.2.0012 Bravo P, Cofré H (2016) Developing biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through learning study: the case of teaching human evolution. Int J Sci Educ 38(16):2500–2527. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1249983 Brown B (2019) Science in the city: culturally relevant STEM education. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA Burgess T (2020) “Because I did what she told me to do.” Understanding the identity work of elementary students of color in the science classroom and how a teacher’s positionality impacts student learning. Dissertation, Syracuse University Butler T (2018) Black girl cartography: Black girlhood and place-making in education research. Rev Res Educ 42:28–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18762114 Cai J, Nie B (2007) Problem solving in Chinese mathematics education: research and practice. ZDM 39(5–6):459–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0042-3 Carrier SJ (2011) Implementing and integrating effective teaching strategies including features of lesson study in an elementary science methods course. Teach Educ 46(2):145–160. https://doi. org/10.1080/08878730.2011.552666 Chandler-Olcott K, Dotger S, Waymouth H, Crosby M, Lahr M, Hinchman K, Newvine K, Nieroda J (2018) Teacher candidates learn to enact curriculum in a partnership-sponsored literacy enrichment program for youth. New Educ 14(3):192–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688x. 2017.1407852 Chokshi S, Fernandez C (2004) Challenges to importing Japanese lesson study: concerns, misconceptions, and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan 85(7):520–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 003172170408500710 Clarke D, Mesiti C, O’Keefe C, Xu LH, Jablonka E, Mok IAC, Shimuzu Y (2007) Addressing the challenge of legitimate international comparisons of classroom practice. Int J Educ Res 46(5): 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.10.009 Desimone LM (2009) Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educ Res 38(3):181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189x08331140 Doig B, Groves S, Fujii T (2011) The critical role of task development in lesson study. In: Hart LC, Alston A, Murata A (eds) Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9941-9_15 Dotger S (2011) Exploring and developing graduate teaching assistants’ pedagogies via lesson study. Teach High Educ 16(2):157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.507304 Dotger S (2015) Methodological understandings from elementary science lesson study facilitation and research. J Sci Teach Educ 26(4):349–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9427-2 Dotger S (2018) Driving systemic change through large scale research lessons. Paper presented at the World Association for Lesson Study Twelfth International Conference, Beijing, China Dotger S, Friedkin S (2019) Analysis of research lessons to identify relationships between interdisciplinary instructional routines. Paper presented at the World Association of Lesson Study Meeting, Amsterdam

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

453

Dotger S, McQuitty V (2014) Describing teachers’ operative systems: a case study. Elem Sch J 115(1):73–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/676945 Dotger S, Walsh D (2015) Elementary art & science: observational drawing in lesson study. Int J Lesson Learn Stud 4(1):26–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls-05-2014-0013 Dotger S, Barry D, Wiles J, Benevento E, Brzozowski F, Hurtado-Gonzales JL, Jacobs N, Royse E, Ruppel R, Sen D, Synder J, Stokes R, Wisner E (2012a) Developing graduate students’ knowledge of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium through lesson study. J Coll Sci Teach 42(1):20–24 Dotger S, Moquin FK, Hammond K (2012b) Lesson study as a mechanism for assessing student learning. Educator’s Voice 5:22–31 Dotger S, Whisher-Hehl J, Moquin K (2017) How is science lesson study different from mathematics lesson study in the United States? Coaches perspectives. Presentation at the World Association for Lesson Study Eleventh International Conference, Nagoya, Japan Duschl RA, Osborne J (2002) Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Stud Sci Educ 38(1):39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187 Ermeling B (2015) Lessons learned from a chalkboard: slow and steady technology integration. Teach Coll Rec, April 13, 2015. https://www.tcrecord.org. ID number 17931 Evans-Winters VE, Esposito J (2010) Other people’s daughters: critical race feminism and Black girls’ education. Educ Found 24:11–24 Fernandez C, Yoshida M (2004) Lesson study: a case of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based teacher development. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah Fujii T (2014) Understanding the concept of variable through whole-class discussions: the community of inquiry from a Japanese perspective. In: Leung FKS, Park K, Holton D, Clarke D (eds) Algebra teaching around the world. Sense, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-946209-707-0_8 Fujii T (2016) Designing and adapting tasks in lesson planning: a critical process of lesson study. ZDM 48:411–423 Fujii T (2018) Lesson study and teaching mathematics through problem solving: the two wheels of a cart. In: Mathematics lesson study around the world. Springer, Cham, pp 1–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-75696-7_1 Gibbons LK, Cobb P (2016) Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. The Elementary School Journal 117(2):237–260 Huang R, Takahashi A, da Ponte JP (2019) Theory and practice of lesson study in mathematics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4 Inoue N (2011) Zen and the art of neriage: facilitating consensus building in mathematics inquiry lessons through lesson study. J Math Teach Educ 14(1):5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857010-9150-z Jones P, Coxford AJ (1970) Mathematics in the evolving schools. In M. DeVault, J. Devlin, J. Forbes, A. Hess, J. Payne, & L. D. Nelson (Eds.), A history of mathematics education in the United States and Canada (pp. 1–67). Washington, D.C.: NCTM Juhler MV (2016) The use of lesson study combined with content representation in the planning of physics lessons during field practice to develop pedagogical content knowledge. J Sci Teach Educ 27(5):533–553. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.2433 Kotsopoulos D, Lee J (2012) An analysis of math congress in an eighth-grade classroom. Math Think Learn 14(3):181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2012.682958 Kuehnert ERA, Eddy CM, Miller D, Pratt SS, Senawongsa C (2018) Bansho: visually sequencing mathematical ideas. Teach Child Math 24(6):362–369. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.24. 6.0362 Le PT, Matias CE (2019) Towards a truer multicultural science education: how whiteness impacts science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:15–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9854-9 Lewis JM (2019) Lesson study for preservice teachers. In: Huang R, Takahashi A, da Ponte JP (eds) Theory and practice of lesson study in mathematics: an international perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_24 Lewis CC, Hurd J (2011) Lesson study step by step: how teacher learning communities improve instruction. Heinemann

454

S. Dotger and T. Burgess

Lewis CC, Lee C (2017) The global spread of lesson study. In: International handbook of teacher quality and policy, pp 185–203. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315710068-13 Lewis CC, Tshuchida I (1998) A lesson is like a slowly flowing river. Am Educ 22(4):12–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/136548029900200117 Lewis CC, Perry R, Murata A (2006) How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educ Res 35(3):3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035003003 Lewis CC, Friedkin S, Emerson K, Henn L, Goldsmith L (2019) How does lesson study work? Toward a theory of lesson study process and impact. In: Huang R, Takahashi A, da Ponte JP (eds) Theory and practice of lesson study in mathematics: an international perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 13–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_2 Liljedahl P, Santos-Trigo M (2019) Mathematical problem solving. ICME-13 Monographs. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10472-6 Makinae N (2019) The origin of lesson study in Japan. In: Huang R, Takahashi A, da Ponte JP (eds) Theory and practice of lesson study in mathematics: an international perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_9 Marble S (2007) Inquiring into teaching: lesson study in elementary science methods. J Sci Teach Educ 18(6):935–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9071-6 McNeil KL, Marco-Bujosa LM, Gonzalez-Howard M, Loper S (2018) Teachers’ enactments of curriculum: fidelity to procedure versus fidelity to goal for scientific argumentation. Int J Sci Educ 40(12):1455–1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1482508 Morales-Doyle D (2017) Justice-centered science pedagogy: a catalyst for academic achievement and social transformation. Sci Educ 101:1034–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21305 Morales-Doyle D (2018) Students as curriculum critics: standpoints with respect to relevance, goals, and science. J Res Sci Teach 55:749–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21438 Morales-Doyle D, Gustein ER (2019) Racial capitalism and STEM education in Chicago Public Schools. Race Ethn Educ 22(4):525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1592840 Morris M (2016) Pushout: the criminalization of black girls in schools. The New Press, New York Muhammad GE, Haddix M (2016) Centering Black girls’ literacies: a review of literature on the multiple ways of knowing of black girls. Engl Educ 48(4):299–336. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 26492572 Mutch-Jones K, Puttick G, Minner D (2012) Lesson study for accessible science: building expertise to improve practice in inclusive science classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 49(8):1012–1034. https:// doi.org/10.1002/tea.21034 NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for States, by States. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290 Nilsson P (2014) When teaching makes a difference: developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through learning study. Int J Sci Educ 36(11):1794–1814. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09500693.2013.879621 Picower B (2009) The unexamined whiteness of teaching: how White teachers maintain and enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethn Educ 12(2):197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13613320902995475 Plumley CL (2019) 2018 NSSME+: status of elementary school science. Horizon Research, Inc, Chapel Hill Polya G (1945) How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (No. 246). Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press Remillard JT, Heck D (2014) Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM 46:705–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0600-4 Schmidt W, McKnight C (2015) Inequality for all: The challenge of unequal opportunity in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press Seleznyov S (2018) Lesson study: an exploration of its translation beyond Japan. Int J Lesson Learn Stud 7(3):217–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls-04-2018-0020 Sheldon E (1871) A manual of elementary instruction for the use of public and private schools and normal classes; containing a graduated course of object lessons for training the senses and developing the faculties of children. Scribner, New York

17

Lesson Study: A Multifaceted Approach to Improving Multicultural Science. . .

455

Shimizu Y (1999) Aspects of mathematics teacher education in Japan: focusing on teachers’ roles. J Math Teach Educ 2(1):107–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009960710624 Shimizu Y (2008) Exploring Japanese teachers’ conception of mathematics lesson structure: Similarities and differences between pre-service and in-service teachers’ lesson plans. ZDM, 40(6), pp. 941–950 Sims R (2019) Japanese political history since the Meiji restoration, 1868–2000. New York, NY: Palgrave Stigler J, Hiebert J (1999) The teaching gap. Simon & Schuster, New York Stigler JW, Gonzales P, Kawanaka T, Knoll S, Serrano A (1999) The TIMSS videotape classroom study: methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction on Germany, Japan, and the United States. US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office Stigler J, Gallimore R, Hiebert J (2000) Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educ Psychol 35(2): 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3502_3 Susanta A (2013) Professional learning for teaching mathematics through problem solving in Indonesian primary schools. Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University Takahashi A (2006) Characteristics of Japanese mathematics lessons. Tsukuba J Educ Study Math 25:37–44 Takahashi A (2011) The Japanese approach to developing expertise in using the textbook to teach mathematics. In: Expertise in mathematics instruction. Springer, Boston, pp 197–219. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7707-6_10 Takahashi A, McDougal T (2016) Collaborative lesson research: maximizing the impact of lesson study. ZDM 48(4):513–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0752-x Takahashi A, McDougal T (2019) Using school-wide collaborative lesson research to implement standards and improve student learning: models. In: Huang R, Takahashi A, da Ponte JP (eds) Theory and practice of lesson study in mathematics: an international perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_14 Tan S, Fukaya K, Nozaki S (2018) Development of bansho (board writing) analysis as a research method to improve observation and analysis of instruction in lesson study. Int J Lesson Learn Stud 7(3):230–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls-02-2018-0011 Tate W (2001) Science education as a civil right: urban schools and opportunity-to-learn considerations. J Res Sci Teach 38(9):1015–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1045 Tsujimoto M (2017) Formation and growth of an education-based society 1600 to 1868. In: Tsujimoto M, Yamasaki Y (eds) The history of education in Japan (1600–2000). Routledge, New York, pp 5–33. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646688-2 United States Department of Education (2018) 2015–2016 Civil Rights Data Collection: STEM course taking. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/stem-course-taking.pdf Watanabe T, Takahashi A, Yoshida M (2008) Kyozaikenkyu: a critical step for conducting effective lesson study and beyond. Inq Math Teach Educ 5:131–142 Windschitl M, Calabrese Barton A (2016) Rigor and equity by design: locating a set of core teaching practices for the science education community. In: Handbook of research on teaching, pp 1099–1158. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_18 Windschitl M, Thompson J, Braaten M (2018) Ambitious science teaching. Harvard Education Press, Boston Yokosuka K (1990) Jugyokenkyu yougo daijiten. (Dictionary of lesson study terms.) Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Shoseki Yoshida M (1999) Lesson study: an ethnographic investigation of school-based teacher development in Japan. Dissertation Yoshida M (2005) Using lesson study to develop effective blackboard practice. In: Wang-Iverson P, Yoshida M (eds) Building our understanding of lesson study. Research for Better Schools, Philadelphia, pp 93–100

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and Underrepresented Populations in Rural Areas

18

Rhea Miles, Leonard Annetta, Shawn Moore, and Gera Miles

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of a Rural School Community in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Technology Education Mathematics (STEM) Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualified Teachers in Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional Development Through Rural Systemic Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Enrichment for Students in Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional Development Using Technology and Internet in Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology and Digital Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internet and Broadband Deserts in Rural Areas: Lack of Internet Service Provider Competition in Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BYOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology, Internet, and Distance Learning in Rural Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cognitive Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student-Centered Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sociocultural Aspects in the Rural United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students of Immigrant Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcing Self-Efficacy in Rural Students to Motivate Them Toward Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thoughts for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

458 460 461 462 463 464 466 468 468 469 470 472 472 475 475 476 480 481

Abstract

This chapter provides recommendations designed to help science educators teaching in rural areas, particularly the United States, in developing strategies to incorporate multicultural perspectives in their science lessons which include Bank’s framework of multicultural education. Bank’s ((2016) Multicultural education: characteristics and goals. In: Banks JA, Banks CAMG (eds) Multicultural R. Miles (*) · L. Annetta · S. Moore · G. Miles East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_23

457

458

R. Miles et al.

education: issues and perspectives, 9th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 2–23) framework of multicultural education involves addressing concepts of content integration knowledge, construction process, equity pedagogy, prejudice reduction, and empowerment of school culture. Teachers and students in rural communities have many challenges that could limit multicultural high-quality science instruction. While teacher professional development opportunities such as inquiry, culturally relevant instruction, and rural systemic initiatives are essential to alleviating these issues, especially if their students are from immigrant worker families, other issues can also curb the effectiveness of teacher instruction. For example, often, these rurally defined areas have a shortage of qualified teachers and limited technological resources and Internet availability; these areas are known as broadband deserts and lack Internet service providers. Strategies that include bring your own devices (BYOD), encouraging students to participate in science enrichment programs, implementing student-centered lessons based on their own cultural experiences to bolster their self-efficacy toward science-related careers, and creating access to Science Technology Education Mathematics (STEM) centers are ways to solve some of the problems students and teachers in these communities face daily. Keywords

Rural science education · Science teacher education · Students of immigrant families · STEM centers · Professional development in rural areas

Introduction The educator’s responsibility is to facilitate instruction for the many different students in their classes who are from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Atwater et al. 2013; Atwater 2017). The science teacher, specifically, must acknowledge students’ diversity and realize that not all students learn the same or share the same cultural experience as their teacher (Hudley and Mallinson 2017; Rodriguez and Morrison 2019). Therefore, the science instructor has to implement science lessons from multiple perspectives to assist culturally and ethnically diverse students to understand better their community and their world (Gay 2002; Saathoff 2017). Multicultural science education is also dependent on culturally responsive pedagogy. This teaching method values student ways of thinking and allows them to connect science content and practices to everyday life (Azam and Goodnough 2018; Finkel 2018; Wright et al. 2017). The goals of science education are to develop student science identities, motivate student interests in science, improve academic achievement in science, and seek out equity in learning science, all of which can be accomplished via a multicultural science education curriculum. Additionally, the foundation of multicultural science education needs to address Bank’s (2016) framework of multicultural education dimensions through important concepts such as content integration knowledge, construction process, equity

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

459

pedagogy, prejudice reduction, and the empowerment of school culture. The dimension related to content integration for a multicultural classroom involves student culture, such as the Latinx and African American culture that could be integrated into the science curriculum. The next dimension of knowledge construction consists of the teacher assisting students with the investigation of assumptions about student culture, which can be framed around the role of science as part of the culture. The equity pedagogy dimension explores techniques to assist diverse students in improving academic achievement in a discipline that includes science. Another dimension of multicultural education is empowering school culture and social structure. This dimension examines the school structure to make it more equitable and focuses on tracking student disparities in science achievement, sports, and teacher ethnicity. Finally, the dimension of prejudice reduction incorporates the process of reducing prejudice in society. Thus, the intention of multicultural science education is not to impede knowledge, but to be free of prejudice and not limit scientific knowledge from one monocultural lens. Markedly, in the rural science classroom, these five dimensions of multicultural education in this chapter can be addressed by the availability of science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) centers, teacher professional development, implementation of inquiry and culturally relevant instruction, access to technology and digital platforms, and awareness of students of immigrant families. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics states the science and engineering workforce is the largest and fastest-growing economic sector globally, which impacts global competitiveness. Historically, the United States has been the leader in producing engineers working in the global economy. However, since 2004 China has surpassed the United States in information technology exports, and it has been estimated to equal the US economy by 2041 (National Science Board and National Science Foundation (NSF) 2020). Tapping into the talent pool of underrepresented and underserved groups is a strategy to increase the number of individuals pursuing a degree that will allow them to become part of the scientific workforce. This pool of underrepresented and underserved groups includes women, ethnic minorities, and students from rural communities. There are many challenges for students in rural areas that impede their ability to stay in the educational pipeline to become active members of a science-related workforce. Problems include limited access to resources (i.e., broadband Internet or qualified teachers) and geographic isolation. Additionally, there is a lack of teacher professional development opportunities for teachers to improve their teaching in rural area school districts. Accessing teacher professional development is a challenge due to geographic distance between the rural school district and nearby colleges or universities. All the aforementioned factors affect the educational experiences and interests to pursue scientific careers for students in rural areas. The purpose of this chapter is to provide recommendations for how to integrate multicultural science instruction for students in regions described as rural communities in the United States (US) despite the limited access to previously mentioned resources. Curriculum reform efforts exist in many states that consider the culture and socioeconomic status of the student population of school districts, and teachers’

460

R. Miles et al.

professional development needs to improve the science education instruction (Seeberg et al. 1998). Teacher professional development should include opportunities to provide high-quality science instruction especially for rural areas with limited technological resources and Internet availability. Strategies should also include improving the science education of students of immigrant workers in rural communities and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Centers to benefit science teachers and the students they serve specifically in these regions.

Description of a Rural School Community in the United States Total scholastic expenditures used for student development in US rural areas are far less than that spent by schools in urban cities. In 2018, it was reported that funding per pupil in the states of West Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, where the majority of rural school districts exist, are ranked in the bottom half nationally for K-12 school spending (Public Schools First NC organization 2018). Regions in parts of California, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi, Alaska, Hawaii, and Missouri also have rural areas and student populations. Rural school districts are diverse in terms of socioeconomic status, religion, and home language (Salciccioli 2019; Tomlinson 2020). Rural school districts are also physically a long distance from urban areas and have populations of 2,500 to 50,000 people, and many have nearby landscapes used for farmland (National Council on Disability 1995; Holder 2017). Many local rural residents are employed by the school system, and many rural schools host events considered essential to the community such as health clinics, job fairs, family, and sporting events (AASA et al. 2017; Tomlinson 2020). Nearly one in five students attend a school classified as rural (AASA et al. 2017; Lavalley 2018; Tomlinson 2020). Approximately, 64% of students in rural areas live below the poverty line as compared to less than 50% of students in urban areas living in poverty, with many rural students qualifying for free or reduced lunch (Lavalley 2018). Along with these challenges, one in nine students have changed residence in the last year, and there is often a high demand for teachers in these rural areas (National Council on Disability 1995; Kassam et al. 2017; Lavalley 2018; Showalter et al. 2018–2019). Financial constraints and physical distance from colleges also prevent many rural students from attending college (Lavalley 2018). Geographic isolation remains a challenge for rural school districts to gain access to educational resources. It has been reported that the educational experience for students in rural communities is perceived as substandard when compared to students in urban centers, and some researchers reported that one contribution to this perception is geography (Bajema et al. 2002; Peterson et al. 2015). One way for rural school districts to decrease the distance between them and areas with more resources is through establishing partnerships and outreach opportunities. Rural underserved remote regions are sometimes referred to as “education deserts” due to there is either zero or only one public broad access college nearby (Hillman 2016). As reported by Yore, Shymansky, Annetta, and Everett (2011), it is essential for science teachers to

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

461

have access to community centers or centralized school locations where the Internet is available to meet and learn together as established at STEM centers.

Science Technology Education Mathematics (STEM) Centers In the 1980s and into the 1990s, there was a US national movement to create Science Education Centers. Federal and state money for research and development about teachers, student learning, and curriculum was abundant. An example of a STEM center is the Center for STEM Education which began in 1984 as part of the North Carolina Mathematics Science Education Network (NC-MSEN). The mission of this STEM center, formally named the Center for STEM Education, is to: 1. Improve the quality and quantity of K-12 teachers of science and mathematics 2. Provide strong experiences in science and mathematics for all K-16 students while increasing the number of graduates pursuing careers in STEM disciplines 3. Create a supportive environment for multidisciplinary research, evaluation, and assessment while bridging the gap between educators and STEM professionals 4. Encourage community engagement that leads to increased university partnerships with school districts, business and industry, and the community STEM Education centers’ missions and classifications have evolved in many ways, with influential variables such as service population, institutional mission fit, location, and funding sources. The 2016 joint report by the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD) and the Network of STEM Education Centers (NSEC) has categorized centers as Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) and STEM Education Centers (SECs) in the following manner: • CTLs generally promote and support educational development across an institution such as a college or university regarding instructional practice, assessment, and use of technology and professional development. • SECs have become hubs of university-based initiatives for undergraduate STEM education, STEM teacher professional development and resource support, and community outreach in rural areas (PODs and NSEC 2016). As state funding appropriations for school districts in rural areas tend to be less than for those in metropolitan districts, access to STEM resources is regularly a challenge. A Center for STEM Education can address financial challenges by establishing STEM Education Resource Libraries (SERL), which are physical spaces housing STEM-related pieces of equipment and various supplies. For example, a SERL contains books, curriculum materials, equipment and supplies from magnets, calculators, rulers, Vernier products, and many other materials that can be useful within the classroom. The SERL allows stakeholders (primarily teachers and pre-service teachers) in a region access to STEM materials not in a school budget. These materials can be loaned out to K-12 teachers in a rural area service region, at

462

R. Miles et al.

no charge, to support classroom needs. This service can be enhanced by a formal network among higher education institutions and rural school districts which provide a platform for regional leaders to present opportunities, support needs, and provide a showcase for SERL resources. Unfortunately, teachers in rural areas are more likely to not have the administrative support, experience, supplies, training, pedagogical skills, or graduate degrees in science education as their teacher counterparts in urban areas, which include innercity schools in urban areas, who have access to nearby colleges and universities (Oliver 2010; Sandholtz and Ringstaff 2013). Rural science educators need the time and resources to enhance instruction and learn to infuse the evolution of scientific advances into teaching science to diverse populations to promote learning (Sandholtz and Ringstaff 2013). According to Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal (2013), formal education networks, like a STEM center, can be built to advance projects, impact culture, provide mentoring, and develop “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991) For example, some STEM centers provide College Board Certified Advanced Placement (AP) Summer Institutes to provide teacher professional development to offer AP courses. These AP courses can better prepare students for college. Traditionally, rural school districts have very limited or no course offerings for students to access AP courses due to financial constraints (Handwerk et al. 2008; Buffington 2019). College Board offers financial aid via rural scholarships known as the AP Rural Fellowship, for teachers to attend this professional development.

Qualified Teachers in Rural Areas Eighty percent of instructors from rural areas teach near where they were born and raised (Lavalley 2018). Lavalley also indicates that many of these teachers are less qualified to teach subjects such as science than their urban counterparts. Additionally, rural school administrators are more likely to have difficulty hiring qualified science teachers and are faced with higher turnover rates of teachers than in non-rural areas. Meghan Lavalley (2018) also reported a superintendent of a rural school district reported a hesitancy to firing poorly performing teachers due to the challenge of trying to replace them. The science education of students living in rural areas has been negatively affected by a shortage of qualified science teachers resulting in low scores on science achievement tests and poor preparation for college or university academic work. The COVID-19 pandemic further impacted recruitment of qualified science teachers to rural school districts when some schools stopped operating or hiring new teachers. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, teacher salaries in rural areas were far less than in more metropolitan areas which made it hard for rural school district to recruit and retain educators (Tomlinson 2020). There was a reported shortage of science teachers in the rural United States. Science teachers in rural school districts are expected to be good neighbors, church members, and leaders in the community, and these expectations may cause a teacher to leave instead of staying in their

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

463

profession. Several programs exist across the United States aimed at recruiting and retaining science teachers in rural regions, but parental beliefs may also impede the need for science educators. It was reported that a common belief of rural parents is that science education is only important for students planning to major in STEM in college, and this limited parental support is a concern (Showalter et al. 2015–2016; Harris and Hodges 2018). However, retention of qualified science teachers in rural areas can increase with economic funding, administrative support of principals, positive collaboration with other teachers, and professional development opportunities (Tomlinson 2020). There are also federally supported programs with goals to advance STEM teaching which can address the need for qualified teachers in rural areas. For example, the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program is a long-standing National Science Foundation program with a primary goal of preparing STEM teachers at the highest levels possible. As part of the 2010 America COMPETES Act, this program supports STEM majors and post-baccalaureate students who have committed to teaching in the K12 arena. The Noyce, as it has been referred to, aims to recruit teachers exhibiting strong STEM backgrounds who may not have initially considered a career in education (AAAS 2012).

Professional Development Through Rural Systemic Initiatives With a shortage of qualified science teachers, there were several rural systemic initiative programs established. These rural systemic initiatives provided professional development to local teachers and science educators foreign to the rural community. Rural systemic initiatives were established in Alaska and on some Native American reservations in the United States that focused on improving the mathematics and science education of the students in rural communities. Science teachers in Alaska were provided guidelines on how to integrate local culture into science instructions. In addition, on reservations, teachers were encouraged to incorporate the contributions of Native Americans to contemporary medicine, meteorology, and biology into their science instruction. Tribal rural communities are the poorest of regions in the United States, but Native American people are full of a wealth of scientific related information. Tribal rural systemic initiatives involved teachers consulting with tribal scientists, doctors, and nurses to make science relevant to the local students. One science teacher at a Native American reservation taught her class ecology by drawing and examining under the microscope the many species of flies indigenous to the area. These students also learned about the food chain by observing how the salmon population affected the bald eagle population. There were several other rural systemic initiatives in the United States. Students native to the islands of Hawaii also learned science through the spawning of fish and when to and not to fish in their local school area. Science kits such as FOSS kits were a key part of the science instruction for teachers in a rural systemic initiative in West Virginia. Furthermore, teachers in the rural coastal regions of Virginia and North Carolina relied on professional development provided by their respective state

464

R. Miles et al.

departments and higher education faculty to assist with their training to enhance science instruction. The Texas rural systemic initiative involved encouraging students and their families, many of whom were immigrants, to participate in “science nights” which included science informational sessions related to health and culture. In Missouri the Ozark rural initiative involved teachers having students study science via information related to the George Washington Carver monument in the national park in Missouri (Boyer 2006). Teachers in California also participated in professional development sessions to improve science teaching. Science and mathematics teachers from rural and urban areas in this state met virtually via Google classroom and during face-to-face sessions to develop mathematics and science lesson units to integrate into classroom instruction. A group of Californian mathematics and science teachers from nine rural counties in the state also attended a symposium at which a keynote speaker presented virtually. Attendees had the option to meet in face-to-face groups or participate virtually in online breakout rooms. Teachers reported that their participation was meaningful and shifted their beliefs about what they could implement related to hands-on STEM activities. In another rural region in California, teachers led fellow teachers in a “teachers train the teachers” format of professional development. Different groups of teachers shared and brainstormed ideas on how to successfully provide science instruction to their rural students. These professional development sessions resulted in positive outcomes because they were organized, facilitated by university faculty, presented with a face to face or virtual option and easy to replicate by teachers who were not in attendance. Most importantly, the science educators had access to high-quality grant-funded professional development which also advanced their science self-identity (Salciccioli 2019).

Science Enrichment for Students in Rural Areas Professional development for science educators in rural communities should incorporate how to design lesson plans to address the employment needs of local STEM businesses. Unfortunately, teachers in rural areas have limited resources to implement formal science education curricula to increase interests and academic performance in science to best prepare students for the demands of science-related occupations (Harris and Hodges 2018). Grant-funded informal science enrichment programs which occur outside of the regular school hours allow students access to science course content and concepts related to computer science, science, health sciences, and engineering (AASA et al. 2017). Science enrichment programs often embrace placed-based instruction which incorporates local resources, history, and nature (Lavalley 2018), and problem-based learning in which students engage in investigations focused on real-life problems related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These enrichment programs have also been created to establish learning environments outside of traditional school classrooms to motivate students to fill employment voids in STEM-related fields. Science enrichment programs include after school sessions and summer camps designed to enhance the

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

465

scientific literacy and STEM careers awareness especially for learners from underrepresented groups which include rural students. There are long-standing successful enrichment STEM programs that have been models for pipeline programs across the country; from rural to urban. For example, the Minority Engineering Program (MEP), developed in 1973 by engineering professor Ray Landis at California State University-Northridge, has become a long-standing and widely replicated STEM program that aims to encourage minority students to pursue engineering degrees (Tsui 2007). Science enrichment programs have assisted students to increase content and conceptual science-related knowledge fundamental to engineering. These programs have also exposed students to science and engineering-related occupations through hands-on applications. Several programs in the United States have promoted “Engineering Week” activities and targeted African American and Latinx communities to participate. In one research study, students designed containers to study aerodynamics and other engineeringrelated concepts. Their teachers were also encouraged to include science enrichment curricula into their classroom lessons (Elam et al. 2012). There are also examples of business and industry partnerships with education agencies or with students directly to provide opportunities for STEM academic enrichment and employee engagement. The Boeing Company also partnered with Children’s Defense Fund Freedom Program to address racial inequities by providing STEM education designed to increase the STEM talent pool and immerse African American students in STEM fields of study (Gardner 2021). In North Carolina, local STEM company employees in rural school districts worked together with teachers and students on planning science investigations organized around real employee problems which could be solved using scientific concepts and content. The meetings between teachers, students, and businesses representatives occurred after school and on weekends to increase student interests to pursue careers in STEM (Miles et al. 2015). School teachers and students formed partnerships with business representatives to improve student learning and awareness about how science and mathematics is relevant to everyday workplace experiences. Medical schools and residency programs have also created enrichment programs for students from rural backgrounds to complete their medical residence in rural regions because people in rural regions need physicians. It has become a sociocultural normal for patients in rural areas to travel 70 or more miles to seek medical treatment. Approximately, 20% of the US population lives in a rural community; however less than 11% of all US physicians practice medicine in a rural school district. According to Peter Jaret (2020), medical rotations in small rural communities should be a part of medical training for all medical students. It has been reported that medical training in remote underserved regions has developed skills and experiences which caused fewer students to want to leave the profession. In rural West Virginia an enrichment program was designed to inspire high school students to also seek employment in health-related careers in pharmacology, osteopathy, and general medicine (Hamrick et al. 2019). Another program in a rural Appalachia community in West Virginia also encouraged high school students to pursue careers in health sciences. These students reported that participation in the out

466

R. Miles et al.

of school field trips influenced their STEM occupational decisions (Brigandi et al. 2020). These rural students would not have had the field trip experiences had it not been for participation in the science enrichment program. Students from underrepresented groups, particularly African Americans, have been encouraged to pursue science-related careers for decades, and it is a science teacher’s pedagogic concern to steer students in rural communities toward STEM interests. Science enrichment programs have presented science in an interesting and culturally relevant environment. In addition to classroom experiences, successful science enrichments programs often involve parents, friends, tutors, and role models to increase student awareness about job opportunities in science. African American students in rural North Carolina participated in a science enrichment program to increase students’ motivation to seek employment in the scientific workforce. Miles and Stapleton (2004) found that after African American students participated in a science enrichment program, they expressed interests in enrolling in future science classes and interests in engineering, computer science, medicine, science teaching, and pharmacy vocations. Furthermore, although their parents were influential in their career choice, parents discouraged their children from earning a degree in science education, despite the need for science teachers.

Professional Development Using Technology and Internet in Rural Areas Professional development in teacher education is an age-old process that allows practicing teachers to synergize with researchers to invoke the newest teaching strategies to help students learn. In rural settings, access to these researchers and new techniques and methods are often limited because of the dislocation from the research hub at universities or large urban areas. The advent of innovative technologies has promised to bridge the gap between land areas to provide rural schools with real-time access to experts around the world. In 2015, over 60% of the world population did not have Internet access, and most of these people lived in remote and rural settings (Ericsson 2019). However, by the end of 2025, it is expected that 5G broadband will have 2.6 billion subscriptions covering up to 65 percent of the world’s population and generating 45 percent of the world’s total mobile data traffic, making it the fastest developing mobile communication technology to have ever been rolled out on a global scale (Ericsson 2019). With the addition of mobile 5G, more people should have Internet access, making it even more important for students in remote and rural areas to be able to use the Internet to bridge gaps in their learning at home and in the classroom. When technology is the focus of bridging the learning gap, many variables have to be considered before implementation. First, a systemic plan needs to be in a place that includes administrators at the central office of a school system, down through the principal, to the teacher, and finally to the student and community. That plan must include a comprehensive understanding of the technology available and the ability to

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

467

connect those technologies over the World Wide Web. Furthermore, funding, available technology, and connectivity all must be central to the plan. Data-driven decisions must also include an understanding of previous research with an eye on new, cutting-edge research. New educational technology does not necessarily ensure teacher understanding or student learning. This is why we take the position that a technology-oriented teacher professional development program is critical before any new technology is introduced to the curriculum (Tyler-Wood et al. 2018). One way to plan for professional development is to ask teachers and students what they see as missing from their instructional repertoire. Dawn Treat (2014) focused on elementary school teachers in a rural elementary school and gathered their thoughts and input on what they believed to be the challenges of integrating instructional technology into their classrooms. It became clear their integration of technology pertained to their beliefs concerning, availability of technology, convenience, inconvenience, assessments, frequency of use, and subject area (Treat 2014). To this end, Howley, Wood, and Hough (2011) surveyed over 500 third-grade teachers inquiring their thoughts on technology integration and its impact in the rural elementary schools in which they taught. Comparing rural with non-rural teachers revealed that rural teachers had more positive attitudes toward technology integration. Regression results showed that attitudes, teachers’ preparation for using technology, and the availability of technology had significant positive associations with technology integration, whereas the schools’ remoteness and socioeconomic status did not have significant associations. Notably and in contrast to some recent reports, responses from some rural teachers indicated that their access to instructional technology continues to be limited and that their preparation for using technology has been inadequate to support the engagement of students with sophisticated technology applications (Howley et al. 2011). A case study in rural Pennsylvania illuminated the challenges faced by rural principals and superintendents who wanted to integrate innovative technologies into their curriculum but lacked certain financial and human capital resources (Kotok and Kryst 2017). Compared to larger school districts where funding allocations for technology may be readily accessible, rural districts have unique needs and may have to rely on alternate funding for instructional technology (Sundeen and Sundeen 2013). Often in rural areas, the tax base creates a funding deficit where schools suffer in infrastructure, pay scale, and materials. Integrating instructional technology into classrooms has the potential to transform education and student learning; however access to technology is not equally available to all districts or schools. Due to a lack of funding, it has become critical to identify the most cost-effective resources available in a cost-effective manner. One of the critical issues for obtaining instructional technology is to identify the most cost-effective resources available. For example, in a study of teachers and students in 145 rural Chilean schools, teachers served as facilitators of technology. Instead of teaching students how to explicitly use instructional technology, these teachers bolstered student self-esteem with high expectations, gave them unequivocal access to new technology, and reinforced the skills the students already had, all of which allowed them to learn more efficiently in the classroom. This study contributed to a better understanding of the new role that

468

R. Miles et al.

teachers and schools play in rural areas in terms of social and symbolic integration (Salinas and Sánchez 2009). In 2017 it was further reported that when students in rural public schools have access to new technologies and who have teachers who know how to use it, then their academic performance increased (AASA et al. 2017).

Technology and Digital Platforms Internet and Broadband Deserts in Rural Areas: Lack of Internet Service Provider Competition in Rural Areas A common theme in discussions of rural schools and the role technology plays in those schools is the notion of the Internet and broadband availability. Annetta, Keaton, Shapiro, and Burch (2018) referred to these remote locations lacking connectivity as the Internet and Broadband Deserts (IBD). These deserts speak to the areas of rural communities that not only have limited high-speed Internet but also lack cellular broadband technologies (Buffington 2019). Not uncommon in rural areas is a lack of competition for consumers concerning the Internet and mobile service providers. Satellite Internet is expensive but often is the only means for many users to connect to the Internet in a high-speed manner, despite it being slower than cable Internet. As schools move toward a bring your own device (BYOD) curriculum, discussed later in this chapter, the IBD deserts are becoming left behind in the new curriculum approach of BYOD. In rural areas in North Carolina, there is rarely more than one broadband provider. Connecting to the Internet is increasingly critical in today’s schools. Placed within the context of rural teaching and learning and the use of new technologies in rural locales in Canada, Barber (2013) found that even beyond connectivity issues lay requirements for consistent and extensive support for both students and teachers when using any Internet-connected technology. This adds another layer of complexity to instructional technology integration in rural settings. Finding “hometown” expertise in technology maintenance and network engineering is often difficult, and without it, technologies are not used, and students are not exposed to the latest instruction. Beyond the Internet connectivity issues already mentioned, rural communities do not often have even the basic components needed for instructional technology such as high bandwidth to schools, updated computers, teacher professional development on the latest technologies, and teacher practices. A teacher empowerment project conducted in Black rural schools in the North-West province of South Africa suggested that there exist challenges more westernized countries do not even consider. Results indicated that in both South Africa and the United States, mutual challenges exist regarding Internet access, limited technical support, and learners not having computers at home. However, beyond these common shortcomings, there is limited electricity, a shortage of textbooks, and insufficient software in North-West South Africa (Govender et al. 2012). One successful model for overcoming these challenges was also found in South Africa. In April 2008, an interactive information

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

469

communication technology (ICT) system was established in Mpumalanga, South Africa. The system implemented SMART boards and collaboration between a leading school and several remote, disadvantaged schools with a focus on improving the teaching of science and mathematics for Grade 12 learners. Through this cascading model of leadership, it was found that technology use increased, as did the communication and motivation of teachers using technology. Students were found to have significantly increased both their mathematics and science content knowledge. The model of having a lead school mentor in smaller disadvantaged schools proved successful in this project and could be a model incorporated by others in similar locations (Mihai 2017).

BYOD A more recent trend with instructional technology implementation has been the “bring your own Device” (BYOD) phenomenon. BYOD is a form of technology implementation where learners bring their personal computing power to an educational setting such as a classroom, after-school program, or summer educational programs. As personalized learning experiences become more mainstream, underserved regions of the world will begin to be exposed to the same professional development as teachers and learners in less isolated areas. The idea behind BYOD is that students are now bringing more computing power and more contemporary technology through mobile devices than schools can afford or maintain. Keeping up with the rapid evolution of technology is near impossible, and, with decreasing funds to schools, BYOD seems to be a consideration worth exploring further. With the addition of BYOD, the notions of professional development and connectivity are still important to keep in mind before moving too far into this newly developing experience. Educating in the twenty-first century is exciting and challenging, especially when considering technology’s role in education. Implemented BYOD programs have offered solutions to problems by empowering students and teachers to utilize technology in a way that they are already familiar. In rural Pennsylvania, a case study was conducted to provide an in-depth look at the perceptions and uses of a BYOD program by 10th grade students and their teachers. Results of the study identified a distinct difference between Digital Natives, those who have lived their entire life surrounded by computer and mobile technology, and Digital Immigrants, those who have acquired familiarity with digital systems as an adult. Students are requesting to use the tools they have known since birth, while teachers are looking for guidance and professional development on how to use these tools effectively and efficiently. Despite the differences of the target groups, BYOD programming, along with professional development and structured guidelines, may be one method to assist today’s teachers in preparing twenty-first-century students for jobs that have not yet been created (Carey 2013). An important consideration with BYOD requires policies and procedures as to the appropriate times to use technological devices in school. In a rural high school in

470

R. Miles et al.

Georgia, a phenomenological study explored the experiences and perceptions of faculty members who recently implemented BYOD. This study indicated that a lack of adequate faculty preparation for BYOD contributed to the difficulty in managing the transition during the first year of mandatory implementation. The re-evaluation and changes in BYOD policy between year one and year two empowered the participants to adapt to BYOD through a process of trial and error and ongoing adjustments (Arnold 2015). Further, in Tanzania, BYOD applications in school have suggested other considerations. Although most students had access to a mobile phone, they were not permitted to bring them to school. Few teachers could see a positive use for mobile technology in the curriculum. There is still a need for pedagogical resources to support the introduction of mobile technology into classrooms, but it is equally crucial that any such introduction is made through a process of engagement with the concerns of students, teachers, and the wider community with frank discussion about both the dangers and the potential benefits of using mobile phones in learning (Joyce-Gibbons et al. 2018). There is an intertwined web of technology integration, teacher and administrator professional development, the need for technological educational materials, and issues with connectivity. BYOD can be seen as another tool in the belt of an informed and prepared teacher. Policies for when personal devices can be used in schools and education on security and the potential online dangers are crucial to articulate and implement before BYOD becomes a reality. Moreover, schools in rural areas need to not only address connectivity but also bandwidth. Almost all schools in the United States are connected to the Internet, but rural schools are often connected to low bandwidth nodes that provide slow, unstable connections to the outside world. Although technology has proven to be engaging and often suggested for increased learning and motivation, rural communities need funding and access to experts in instructional technology before there is equity for those students in science education.

Technology, Internet, and Distance Learning in Rural Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic forced educators to rethink how to operate daily. The COVID-19 pandemic spotlighted “technology deserts” with higher luminosity. When illnesses and deaths from the COVID-19 virus were declared a global pandemic, the move to online education was a radical departure from business-asusual for most K-12 teachers. As of July 2020, 98.6% of learners globally were affected by the COVID-19 virus, representing 1.725 billion children and youth from pre-primary to higher education in 200 countries (United Nations 2020). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were 23 million people in the United States without reliable Internet service, and 68% of these people lived in areas classified as rural. When the school closures occurred in the spring 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, rural school districts were more likely than urban districts to not have reliable Internet hotpots or devices. Nearly one-third of parents living in

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

471

rural areas reported needing public Wi-Fi for their children to complete schoolwork (Tomlinson 2020). Many schools lacked adequate plans for handling instruction during such an event (Rebmann et al. 2012; Uscher-Pines et al. 2018). Unfortunately, teachers in rural areas had limited Internet connectivity at their homes. Therefore, 25% of teachers employed in rural schools were not required to provide online instruction or monitor students’ academic progress compared to over 50% of urban teachers who provided online instruction and monitored students’ academic progress (Tomlinson 2020). Teacher preparation programs were also realized as not effective at developing online teaching skills (Graziano and Bryans-Bongey 2018; MooreAdams et al. 2016). Another realization was that underserved minority students in rural areas were in danger of falling academically behind because technology and Internet access was not robust and school systems did not have budgets to provide highquality teacher professional development in subjects such as science. In the United States, like many other countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, educators at all levels scrambled to figure out how to best teach and have all students learn from a distance. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the National School Board: Center for Public Education 2018 recommended that virtual teaching be established in rural school systems, but Internet connectivity issues be addressed (Lavalley 2018). However, by necessity, in April 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all school instruction in the United States moved to online or distance learning. The federal government developed a massive relief package with a large sum of money allocated to public schools to provide online and distance instruction, but the relief package included no funding for the federal e-rate programs, which was to support Internet connectivity for schools and libraries (Week 2020). Due to social distancing, Internet hubs such as libraries and cafés were closed and were often the only places where students in rural communities could connect online to receive an education. It was reported that many families did not participate in formal public education during the COVID-19 global pandemic because of little to no access to the Internet (Masih 2020). A study of a 14-week school closures during the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake in rural Pakistan resulted in students being almost 2 years behind their peers who attended school during the same time period and were unaffected by the earthquake (Spivak 2020). Research also suggested that students academically disadvantage from the earthquake did not return to school (Baker 2020). Fewer enrolled students, due to a catastrophic event like an earthquake or pandemic in the United States, can also result in lower federal and state budget allocations to school systems. These cascading events could potentially cause a school segregation where the line is drawn between those connected through technology and those who are not. Advocates for increased technological integration believe personalized learning will become a norm in K-12 schools through technology. Education will be revolutionized so that students stay home, work, and/or care for family members while still gaining a valued education (United States Office of Civil Rights 2021).

472

R. Miles et al.

More specifically, a revolution in science education will require a complete overhaul of teacher training in both pre-service and in-service teacher professional development. Training teachers to use technology to create structured face to face or virtual science classrooms, especially for younger students, will need to be at the forefront of any training in science education. Deploying pedagogy through technology will also require educational companies to think about how to integrate learning in chunks of information where students access online or manipulate work through challenges from asynchronous distance education. Platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet require high speed Internet bandwidth which are not always accessible in rural communities. These changes in rural education will require investments and student-centered educational research.

Cognitive Processes Student-Centered Instruction Science teachers in rural areas need to be familiar with pedagogical methods focused on student-centered learning, such as inquiry through PD experiences. Although science teachers are expected to teach multiple science subjects at school to many students in rural areas, science instruction should not be limited to a traditional teacher-centered lecture-style method of teaching students (Howley and Howley 2005; Goodpaster et al. 2012). As observed in rural South African physical science classrooms, hands-on instruction improved student learning and more actively engaged the students than teacher-centered modes of instruction or teacher lecture (Zenda 2017). In rural eastern North Carolina, students successfully designed science fair investigation related to their individual interests instead of having a science topic chosen for them by the teacher or the science instructor requiring them to conduct science fair experiments from a given list (Miles 2012). Science teaching methodologies should include kinesthetic, audio, and visual learning through active instruction. Oral communication between the teacher and student or student to student interactions via collaborative group work in a zone of proximal development (ZPD) can create experiences that improve learning in the science classroom. Through inquiry-based learning, the science teacher facilitates science instruction and assists students with discovering the nature of science through authentic experiences. In addition to providing inquiry-instruction experiences for students, it is important for a science educator to learn the discourse of the rural area where instruction is provided (Moje et al. 2001). There is a need for the science teacher and students to share a common experience known as a hybrid space. Hybrid space is a blend of social relevancy and colloquial language related to concepts being created in the classroom by a teacher, specifically, in this case, from a rural demographic region (McLaughlin 2014). For example, Angela Calabrese-Barton and Edna Tan (2009) findings revealed how a teacher transformed the classroom to resemble a kitchen so the students could better understand the concepts taught related to nutrition. Alfred

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

473

R. Schademan (2011) also observed that a group of African American males playing the card game “spades” demonstrated their ability and skills for memorizing and making observations. This is part of inquiry-based learning and therefore created a hybrid space for better understanding science. Thus, science teachers need to become familiar with local communication practices which can apply to both male and female students and incorporate them into the planning and implementation of any science lesson (McLaughlin 2014). This could reduce some of the language barriers and unspoken interactions between the teacher, students, and parents (Howley and Howley 2005). The cultural expression of students should also be considered during science instruction. Even though students in the rural United States may be living in geographically isolated areas, they need to realize that regional colloquialisms can be validated through scientific evidence. For example, in the rural southeastern part of the United States, it is often said that “collard greens are sweeter after the first frost.” This statement has been reported to be true. The collard plant stores the liquid after becoming frozen which ruptures the cell walls, and the stored sugar is released which makes the greens taste sweeter. Another comment said about tall people in the rural southeastern area of the United States is that a “person is as tall as a pine tree.” Some pine trees such as the Loblolly and Longleaf found in Georgia are documented as being the largest known pine trees in the southeastern region of the United States (Stapleton 2017). The cultural relevance of science instruction for students is also a component of a study conducted by Zimmerman and Weible (2017). Cultural relevance is a fundamental part of place-based instruction, which considers and incorporates aspects of anthropology, geography, ecology, and the history of a location when teaching students. The authors recorded information about students learning about the watershed in their local rural Appalachian community in the United States. It was noted that these students shared knowledge about the watershed in their rural area which differed from students in schools in urban or suburban districts who did not have, or were not aware of, this type of geological drainage basin. Student investigations included an examination of pH, dissolved oxygen, iron, and nitrates, and they learned that their data was different from students not living in their local community. These students discussed their observations with local experts and scientists to compare their findings to surrounding towns. They discovered how droughts affect potable water for families, especially those dependent on well water or families without indoor plumbing. Further, students learned the effect of water pollution on local wildlife and farming. After completion of the watershed unit, pre- and post qualitative data revealed that students developed a better understanding of ecological, biological, and chemical content and concepts. Not only do these findings suggest students can increase their understanding of environmental and human factors which affect a watershed, but, more importantly, by performing similar investigations in rural counties, students can gain knowledge about negative environmental effects such as water pollution when conducting an investigation in their local rural community (Eppley 2017; Zimmerman and Weible 2017).

474

R. Miles et al.

Through hands-on experience, guided by the concepts of place-based instruction, students can better understand what is happening in their community and how it is related to science (Eppley 2017). In summary, educators need to integrate cognitive diversity which involves the assimilation of experiences into teacher instruction for students. Uniquely, for students in rural areas, cognitive diversity can emerge from ecological and cultural relevance (Kassam et al. 2017). Cultural relevance can also include religious perspectives and approaches to scientific concepts and theories for students in rural communities, who are often more religious than their urban counterparts (Borgerding 2017). For example, providing instruction about biological origins can be difficult for some instructors who may feel uncomfortable with teaching the theory of evolution when it is contrary to their students’ or their own ingrained religious beliefs. However, to address this possible contention, a science teacher in the Lisa A. Borgerding (2017) study informed the students that both creationism and evolution are both “funds of knowledge.” Funds of knowledge allow a student’s home and regional experiences such as growing up on a farm to be a valued part of science learning. Additionally, the science teacher manages to serve as a tour guide in a neutral zone to acknowledge science as fact and religion as faith to engage students in a good discussion about both creationism and evolution. The goal was for the students to smoothly travel to a positive learning experience, despite culturally generated conflict that often place both creationism and evolution in opposition to one another. Making science education more relevant to students in rural areas can impact student interests in science and research advocates that science instruction should be related to the student culture (Avery 2013). While functional, a traditional pedagogical approach does not broaden student lives and understanding of science. The goal of science education is not only to focus on international contributions to science but also to the national and local customs and traditions in the specific rural school counties. This could include recognizing the different regional festivals that commend various types of local flora and fauna and integrating them into the science curriculum. For example, lessons in agricultural, animal, and horticultural sciences, combined with cultural studies, could be a way to help students understand the cultural significance of these social events and the science teachings that are inherently present in them. Authenticating what students have heard and experienced in the local community allows the teacher to attempt to build a bridge between the science content knowledge taught in the classroom and the backgrounds of the students (Moje et al. 2001). The teacher needs to know the whole student through their oral traditions and community festivities; otherwise, students may develop bicultural science understanding which could hinder scientific learning instead of developing student comprehension of science. As suggested via Vygotsky Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) instruction (Zenda 2017), students’ learning of science must transform via scaffolding to create a space conducive to learning. As described above, the science educator has to incorporate colloquial communication or relevant traditional beliefs of the rural area into scientific inquiry instruction to embrace the cultural richness and social dynamics of the local population (Howley and Howley 2005; McLaughlin

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

475

2014; Stapleton 2017). The focus on relevant regional concepts also assists science teachers to develop curriculum activities based on their students’ prior knowledge and experiences which is part of the science of learning and development principles of practice known as productive instructional strategies which motivate students to learn and thrive in their science education (Darling-Hammond et al. 2020). In spite of significant contributions to agricultural education and the farm industry by persons from rural areas, students growing up in rural communities are marginalized (Kassam et al. 2017). Past studies in the United States have indicated that students who were raised on agricultural farms were able to classify plants and understand how they produce their food at the same level of comprehension as students in larger school populations. Student rurality did not affect their science performance when they were compared with their peers who lived in more urban areas (Simpson and Marek 1988; Fan and Chen 1998). Student ruralness positively affected student achievement in science.

Sociocultural Aspects in the Rural United States Students of Immigrant Workers There are over half a million students of immigrants in the United States (American Immigration Council 2019; USA.gov 2019). Students of immigrant workers are faced with concerns when it comes to moving to the rural United States. Teachers need to be aware of their students’ parent employment as immigrant workers. There is a rise in the percentage of students whose parents are immigrant workers also known as a student not born in the United States for both the rural and urban areas. More specifically, challenges faced by students of immigrant workers in the United States include language barriers and discrimination from teachers (Torrez 2014; McNeely et al. 2017). McNeely et al. (2017) suggest that teaching students from immigrant families requires training on how to provide instruction to this population. Researchers advocate that pre-service and in-service teachers of these students learn a second language. US educators are trying their best to communicate with non-Englishspeaking students, but, unfortunately, most teachers are not bilingual. The immigrant seasonal agricultural worker often requires communication between the school and student, especially in rural areas of the United States which can best be achieved if the school staff is fluent in the language of the immigrant worker (Torrez 2014; McNeely et al. 2017). Science teachers should participate in professional development activities to address the unique needs of the growing number of immigrant students in the rural areas who have limited English proficiency or non-English proficiency known as English Language Learners (ELL) (Besterman et al. 2018). As F. Chris Curran and James Kitchin (2019) report, there is a growing number of ELL in rural schools. In their report, they noted that the majority of immigrant parents do not speak English at home which results in discontinuities between the cultural context of the students’

476

R. Miles et al.

home environment and the culture of science being taught in the classroom. For example, in the United States, Spanish-speaking students may confuse a state of a matter known as a gas with “gaseosa” which is a liquid soft drink. In short, misinterpretations in the classroom can create a gap in understanding between the teacher’s science instruction and the immigrant students’ ability to grasp important concepts. Professional development allows science teachers to collaborate with other science teachers and with teachers of other disciplines to learn strategies of instruction to integrate science content and concepts with subjects such as mathematics and language arts to improve science comprehension for students of immigrant workers (Lee et al. 2019; Sandholtz and Ringstaff 2013). For example, students could write about science experiences in science notebooks and include mathematical charts and graphs which also provide a visual interpretation of information. Additionally, Cory A. Buxton and Linda Caswell (2020) also report that in a multilingual secondary science classroom, the students and their teacher shared a common experience of playing soccer together to learn physical science by focusing on the spin of the soccer ball and the force needed to kick the ball with their foot. Often, science teachers are unaware of the hardships and lifestyles faced by students of immigrant workers. Miguel M. Licona (2013) also promotes scientific literacy via culturally responsive teaching. According to this researcher, the customs such as growing herbs to support a community health project for immigrant families can be incorporated into the science classroom instruction. Specifically, herbs and plants used to make medicinal salves and syrups to ease pain can be discussed and integrated into the science curricula. Additionally, a practice of having waterless composting toilets and developing a sewer system with limited water in some rural areas in the United States where immigrants live could be included as part of a lesson on recycling or environmental science instruction for these students of immigrant families to personally connect what is being taught in school to what they experience at home. Likewise, Leanne M. Avery (2013) and Karim-Aly S. Kassam, Leanne M. Avery, and Morgan L. Ruelle (2017) suggest that students living in a farming community should discuss topics like manure spreaders and dairy farming during science class instruction related to simple machines to make the instruction more relevant. The implementation of more applicable science lessons can make the subject matter more engaging and meaningful. Licona (2013) encourages teachers to have a positive disposition about teaching students of immigrant workers and implement strategies to assist student learning.

Reinforcing Self-Efficacy in Rural Students to Motivate Them Toward Science It is 1973 and a Black child, about 8 years old, sits on the floor doing his favorite activity in the world; he is drawing superheroes. The setting sunlight streams through the window defusing into a faint orange glow on the floor as he, once again, draws Spiderman, Batman, and Superman. He pauses for a moment and says to himself,

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

477

“I’ll think I’ll draw a Black Superhero this time!” Uncertain of this impulse, but his hand is filled with energy, he grabs his pencil to draw and pauses, but has a bewildered look and a hollow feeling in his stomach. At this early age he realizes something; he can’t draw a Black Superhero, because he’s never seen one before. The narrative above says a lot about representation and the need for it at a young age. Although it is shaped around a racialized story of identity and association, the idea of it can be applied to science education as well. This concept becomes even more important later in life. There is the need for a student to visualize a person, like himself or herself, in a science-related career; it is essential to building a person’s self-identity that feeds into self-esteem which becomes the foundation for selfefficacy. As David M. Merolla (2017) states in “Self-Efficacy and Academic Achievement,” “self-efficacy is linked to educational achievement because students who have higher levels of self-efficacy are more likely to engage in behaviors that are conducive to high achievement. These students believe that that their academic achievements will be rewarded and lead to a better future” (p. 381). Of course, without positive exemplar association, self-esteem can remain underdeveloped or unrealized, thereby harming the self-efficacy needed to achieve anything in life. Merolla (2017) further states that students with diminished level of self-efficacy have problems performing in school because “they believe that their own efforts are futile and that forces outside of their own control shape their outcomes. In turn, such students are less likely to engage in achievement enhancing behaviors” (p. 381). Although Merolla’s work was focused on urban environments, his ideas are important in how self-efficacy manifests itself in rural environments as well. Cultural and exemplar association drives students to become more aware of themselves and their own potential. Therefore, the absence of rural role models to connect culturally, ethnically, or socially can affect students’ sense of identity and weaken their selfesteem and thereby damage their self-efficacy toward their educational pursuits. To increase rural students’ belief in their abilities to achieve their future goals, it is important to provide stimuli that deliver positive reinforcement. Like the young Black child in the narrative above striving for a role model to draw and identify with, rural students involved in science studies should also be introduced to people who grew up in surroundings similar to theirs and achieved accomplishments in science disciplines. Effectively, rural schoolteachers can create and develop science-interest in their students by connecting them with people, both modern and historical, associated with rural life. Such connections can be grounded on geographic location, the demographics of a particular rural area, and the chosen exemplars’ cultural connections to the student in a particular rural region. The illustrative “Self-Esteem to lead to Self-Efficacy” (S.E.E.) template examples that follow show how teachers in different rural areas could introduce their students to scientists that have come from their rural region and made great accomplishments in their field. Factors such as location, ethnicity, and gender could be aspects of focus in some rural areas; however, the age of living exemplars and their contemporary relevance could also be important to increasing students’ self-esteem and future self-efficacy. Zora Neale Hurston and Fred Begay were the scientists chosen for the sample templates (Figs. 1 and 2). Although Hurston is known more for her literary work,

478

R. Miles et al.

Fig. 1 Zora Hurston. Note: Zora Neale Hurston. [Photo]. U.S. Library of Congress, Reproduction number LCUSZ62-62394, Washington, DC, USA. https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004672085/. Portrait of Zora Neale Hurston: Eatonville, Florida [Photo]. State Library and Archives of Florida, Tallahassee, FL, USA. www.floridamemory.com/items/show/33048. Welcome to Eatonville Sign. [Photo]. WESH Channel 2, Orlando, FL, USA. https://www.wesh.com/article/historic-images-ofeatonville/4329664. in the public domain

such as Their Eyes Were Watching God, many people are still unaware of her studies with Franz Boas (“The Father of Modern Anthropology”) and animus to study the cultural traditions and folklore of America and Haiti. She also came from a modest and rural background in Eatonville, Florida, one of the first municipalities in the United States that was run by African Americans (Hurston 1928). Although she had

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

479

Fig. 2 Fred Begay. Note. Sanchez, Leroy N. (2004). Promotional photo of Dr. Fred Begay distributed as part of a 2004 press release on the occasion of his election to the New York Academy of Sciences. [Photo]. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA. http://www.lanl. gov/news/photos/BegayFred.jpg in the public domain

a life that was fraught with highs and lows, she provides a good example to students of a person who, despite the odds stacked against her, would go on to be remembered as a great writer and ethnographer. Fred Begay, also called Clever Fox, is also a great exemplar for rural and Native American students. He was born on a reservation in Towaco, Colorado, into a family of Navajo and Ute people. Fred’s family was nomadic and practiced Navajo spiritual healing practices, which became an essential part in his love for science. Fred was the first Navajo nuclear physicist and did not see the disconnect between the spiritual and the scientific. As he stated in an interview, “Navajo religion and medicine is

480

R. Miles et al.

strongly based on nature [it] requires skill in abstract thinking. What we call religion, you call science. But whereas modern science is sort of impersonal, ours in spiritual” (Associated Press 1993, para. 3). Often rural beliefs, whether they be religious or holistic in formation, are often disregarded as important to understanding science. However, with Fred Begay, it was an indispensable aspect of his life study of understanding the different energies that power the universe. The S.E.E. templates are meant to be designed by rural teachers in respects to the needs of the students in their own regions. Such factors as regional culture, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status could be single or multiple features that a teacher could use to create S.E.E. templates. Teachers are encouraged to not just share the information about an exemplar but to do an experiment that is connected to the science field of the person they are studying. This scaffolding of regional features, the exemplar’s life, and studies, combined with an experiment centered around their discipline, will help the student to identify with the exemplar, retain information about him or her, and serve as a probe for their possible interest into a science-related field. The “Self-Esteem to Self-Efficacy” templates allow for selfidentification and exemplar visualization, important to the establishment of positive self-esteem, and the positive reinforcement needed to successfully achieve in science.

Thoughts for the Future Students from rural areas are underserved and underrepresented in the scientific labor force. Particularly, students of immigrant worker families in rural communities may have access to fewer resources, such as technology, Internet, and qualified science teachers. However, a STEM center can supply services to teachers to improve science instruction in rural regions. Educators providing instruction in rural school districts, therefore, need professional development and resources for the student populations they serve. This can also occur via rural systemic initiatives to improve the science education of students in rural areas. PD is needed for science teachers to integrate technology into instruction in rural communities, develop scaffolding strategies, incorporate student cooperative groups, and implement culturally relevant hands-on science activities, especially for students of immigrant workers who are most likely ELL (Irby et al. 2018). Successful student learning outcomes rely on teacher participation in professional development opportunities in science education; Technology, and access to it in rural areas, can assist teachers to provide high-quality instruction (Howley and Howley 2005). PD can include virtual coaching, interactive sessions, classroom observations using GoPro cameras, telephone conversations, and video conferences through WebEx or Zoom during real-time for the teacher and the person(s) providing the PD to analyze (Lee et al. 2018). For example, Internet services available in the rural areas of the United States can allow a science educator to enroll in online distance education PD programs or sessions to learn how to better provide science instruction to students in the rural areas and learn how to integrate technology into the

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

481

classroom which can increase students test scores in science (Annetta and Shymansky 2008; Blanchard et al. 2016). The community experience of poverty, which often defines the rural identity of students in rural regions, does not mean that these students are less capable of academic success. Science teachers should not allow this perception of low socioeconomic status to affect rural students’ science education. The low socioeconomic status and residential instability of students of immigrant worker families do not negate familiarity with science topics via some student experiences (Schaftt and Jackson 2010). Additionally, language barriers can be overcome if the science teacher is willing to learn a second language. Rural students need to participate in science enrichment programs and instruction which helps to positively reinforce their self-efficacy to succeed in science learning. Most importantly, the science teacher has to be willing to incorporate strategies and suggestions as described in this chapter via lessons to achieve a multicultural science education in a rural area.

References American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (2012) Building a global knowledge society: science communication and collaboration AAAS annual report 2012. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AR_2012.pdf American Association of School Administration (AASA), The School Superintendents Association, The Rural School and Community Trust (2017) Leveling the playing field. Retrieved from https://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/Resources/AASA_Rural_Equity_ Report_FINAL.pdf American Immigration Council (2019) American heritage awards forum: There is nothing more powerful than a story. Retrieved from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org Annetta L, Shymansky JA (2008) A comparison of rural elementary school teacher attitudes toward three modes of distance education for science professional development. J Sci Teach Educ 19(3):255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9089-4 Annetta LA, Keaton W, Shapiro M, Burch JL (2018) Competency-based instruction in science teacher education: the next disruptive innovation or the next disruption? In: Shelley M (ed) Education research highlights in mathematics, science and technology. ISRES Publishing, Ames, pp 123–140 Arnold PL (2015) Rural high school faculty perspectives on bring your own device implementation: a phenomenological study (1707929226) [Ed.D., Liberty University]. ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article¼2077&context¼doctoral Associated Press (1993) Nuclear physicist blends modern-day science and ancient Navajo religion. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/nuclearphysicist-blends-modern-day-science/docview/288520339/se-2?accountid¼10639 Atwater MM (2017) The glue: culture for science learning and teaching: glocalization of science education. Paper presented at the international conference on glocalization in science education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei Atwater MM, Lance J, Woodard U, Hillsman-Johnson N (2013) Race and ethnicity: powerful forecasters of science learning and performance. Theory Pract 52(1):6–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07351690.2013.743757 Avery L (2013) Rural science education: valuing local knowledge. Theory Pract 52(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743769

482

R. Miles et al.

Azam S, Goodnough K (2018) Learning together about culturally relevant science teacher education: indigenizing a science methods course. Int J Innov Sci Math Educ 26(2):74–88. Retrieved from https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/12610/11611 Bajema DH, Miller WW, Williams DL (2002) Aspirations of rural youth. J Agric Educ 43(3):61–71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.03061 Baker J (12 April 2020) The kids who will never return to school after COVID-19. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-kids-who-will-never-return-to-schoolafter-covid-19-20200411-p54j0e.html Banks JA (2016) Multicultural education: characteristics and goals. In: Banks JA, Banks CAMG (eds) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives, 9th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 2–23 Barber B (2013) Rural schools and technology: connecting for innovation. Aust Int J Rural Educ 23(3):41 Besterman K, Williams TO, Ernst JV (2018) STEM teachers’ preparedness for English language learners. J STEM Educ Innov Res 19(3):33–39. Retrieved from https://www. learntechlib.org/p/184626/ Blanchard MR, LePrevost CE, Tolin AD, Gutierrez KS (2016) Investigating technology – enhanced teacher professional development in rural high -poverty middle schools. Educ Res 45(3):207–220. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16644602 Bolman LG, Deal TE (2013) Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership, 5th edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Borgerding LA (2017) High school biology evolution learning experiences in a rural context: a case of and for cultural border crossing. Cult Stud Sci Educ 12:53–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-016-9758-0 Boyer P (2006) Building community: reforming math and science education in rural schools. Alaskan Native Knowledge. Network for Cross Cultural Studies University of Alaska Fairbanks Brigandi CB, Rambo-Hernandez K, Schwartz J (2020) First-generation students in rural communities: a study of effective programming components that support closing the excellence gap. Gift Talented Int 35(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2020.1774944 Buffington P (2019) Rural and Ready: Embracing the assets and needs of rural schools and districts. Retrieved from https://cadrek12.org/spotlight-rural-stem-education Buxton CA, Caswell L (2020) Next generation sheltered instruction to support multilingual learners in secondary science classrooms. Sci Educ 104(3):555–580. https://doi.org/10. 1002/sce.21569 Calabrese-Barton A, Tan E (2009) Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid spaces. J Res Sci Teach 46(1):50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269 Carey DM (2013) Bring your own device: a case study of a 10th grade BYOD program in a rural Pennsylvania school district (1737745227) [D.Ed., Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/1737745227?accntid¼10639 Curran FC, Kitchin J (2019) Why are the early elementary race back/ethnicity test scores gap in science large in those and reading or mathematics? National evidence of the importance of language at immigration contacts and explain the gaps -in-gaps. Sci Educ 103(3):477–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21491 Darling-Hammond L, Flook L, Cook-Harvey C, Barron B, Osher D (2020) Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Appl Dev Sci 24(2):97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 Elam ME, Donham BL, Solomon SR (2012) An engineering summer program for underrepresented students form rural school districts. J STEM Educ 13(2):35–44 Eppley K (2017) Rural science education as social justice. Cult Stud Sci Educ 12:45–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11422-016-9751-7 Ericsson (2019 November) Ericsson mobility report. Retrieved from https://www.ericsson.com/ 4acd7e/assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2019/emr-november-2019.pdf

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

483

Fan X, Chen MJ (1998) Academic achievement of rural school students: a multi-year comparison with their peers in suburban and urban schools (ERIC Document Reproduction Service number 418 829). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id¼ED418829¼on Finkel L (2018) Infusing social justice into the science classroom: building a social justice movement in science education. J Educ Found 31(1):40–58. Retrieved from https://eric.ed. gov/?id¼EJ1193696 Gardner E (2021) The Boeing Company partners with Children’s Defense Fund Freedom Schools program to boost equity in STEM Education. Retrieved from https://www.childrensdefense.org/ 2021/the-boeing-company-partners-with-the-childrens-defense-fund-freedom-schools-pro gram-to-boost-equity-in-stem-education/ Gay G (2002) Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. J Teach Educ 53(2):106–116. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003 Goodpaster K, Adedokun O, Weaver G (2012) Teachers’ perceptions of rural STEM teaching: implications for rural teacher retention. Rural Educ 33(3):9–22. https://doi.org/10.35608/ ruraled.v33i3.408 Govender I, Breed B, Bailey R, Dignum F, Havenga M, Govender D, Mentz E et al (2012) The diverse educational needs and challenges of information technology teachers in two black rural schools. Perspect Educ 30(1):70–78 Graziano KJ, Bryans-Bongey S (2018) Surveying the national landscape of online teacher training in K–12 teacher preparation programs. J Digit Learn Teach Educ 34(4):259–277. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/21532974.2018.1498040 Hamrick LA, Harter SR, Fox CL, Meghna DA, Carrier RL (2019) Just say know to drugs! A high school pharmacology enrichment program for a rural population. J Am Osteopath Assoc 119(3). https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2019.031 Handwerk P, Tognatta N, Coley RJ, Gitomer DH (2008) Access to success: patterns of advanced placement participation in U.S. high schools [Policy information report]. (Educational Testing Services ED505556). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id¼ED505556 Harris RS, Hodges CB (2018) STEM education in rural schools: implications of untapped potential. Natl Youth-At-Risk J 3(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/nyarj.2018.030102 Hillman N (2016) Geography of college opportunity: the case of education desserts. Am Educ Res J 53(4):987–1021. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653204 Holder KA (2017) Veterans in rural America: 2011–2015. U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration. ACS-36. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC Howley A, Howley CB (2005) High – quality teaching: providing for rural teachers professional development. Rural Educ 26(2):1–5. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id¼EJ783825 Howley A, Wood L, Hough B (2011) Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration. J Res Rural Educ 26(9):1–13. Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/26-9.pdf Hudley CAH, Mallinson C (2017) “It’s worth our time”: a model of culturally and linguistically supportive professional development for K-12 STEM educators. Cult Stud Sci Educ 12:637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9743-7 Hurston N (11 May 1928) How it feels to be colored me. The World Tomorrow: A Journal Looking Toward a Christian World. Retrieved from https://www.everettsd.org/cms/lib/WA01920133/ Centricity/Domain/965/unit-4%2D%2D-hurston-how-it-feels.pdf Irby BJ, Lara-Alecio R, Tong F, Guerrero C, Sutton-Jones KL, Abdelrahman N (2018) Implementation of research-based ESL strategies with lower grade middle school ELLs in the science classroom: findings from an experimental study. TESL-EJ 22(1):1–25. Retrieved from https:// eric.ed.gov/?id¼EJ1178995 Jaret P (3 February 2020) Attracting the next generation of physicians to rural medicine. AAMC News. Retrieved from https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/attracting-next-generation-physi cians-rural-medicine Joyce-Gibbons A, Galloway D, Mollel A, Mgoma S, Pima M, Deogratias E (2018) Mobile phone use in two secondary schools in Tanzania. Educ Inf Technol 23(1):73–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639017-9586-1

484

R. Miles et al.

Kassam KS, Avery LM, Ruelle ML (2017) The cognitive relevance of indigenous and rural: why is it critical to survival? Cult Stud Sci Educ 12:97–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0169745-5 Kotok S, Kryst EL (2017) Digital technology: a double-edged sword for a school principal in rural Pennsylvania. J Cases Educ Leadersh 20(4):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1555458916685748 Lavalley M (2018) Out of the loop: rural schools are largely left out of research and policy discussions, exacerbating, poverty, inequity, and isolation. National School Board Association: Center for Public Education. Retrieved from https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/10901-5071_ CPE_Rural_School_Report_Web_FINAL.pdf Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. In: Legitimate peripheral participation in communities practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 89–118 Lee SC, Nugent G, Kunz GM, Houston J, DeChenne-Peters S (2018) Case study: value-added benefit of distance-based instructional coaching on science teachers’ inquiry instruction in rural schools. J Sci Teach Educ 29(3):179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018. 1432226 Lee O, Llosa L, Graspin S, Haas A, Goggins M (2019) Science and language integration with English learners: a conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development. Sci Educ 103(2):317–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21498 Leslie Linthicum Journal SW (13 February 2000) Navajo man a natural for physics. Albuq J. Retrieved from http://www.turtletrack.org/IssueHistory/Issues00/Co02262000/CO_02262000_ Physics.htm Licona MM (2013) Mexican and Mexican American children’s funds of knowledge as interventions into deficit thinking: opportunities for praxis in science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 8:859–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9515-6 Masih N (23 December 2020) Schools in India have been closed since march. The costs to children are mounting. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ india-coronavirus-school-closures/2020/12/23/7e80f628-3efc-11eb-b58b-1623f6267960_story. html McLaughlin CA (2014) Urban science education: examining current issues through a historical lens. Cult Stud Sci Educ 9(4):885–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9598-8 McNeely CA, Morland L, Doty SB, Meschke LL, Awad S, Husain A, Nashwan A (2017) How schools can promote healthy development for newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents: research priorities. J Sch Health. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12477 Merolla D (2017) Self-efficacy and academic achievement: the role neighborhood cultural context. Sociol Perspect 60(2):378–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416629993 Mihai MA (2017) Success factors and challenges of an information communication technology network in rural schools. Afr Educ Rev 14(1):155–170. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/ 2263/63542 Miles R (2012) Increasing student participation in science fairs. Sci Scope 36(1):66–70. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1036930552?accountid¼10639 Miles R, Stapleton J (2004) What about becoming a science teacher? Electron J Sci Educ 9(1). Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7723/5490 Miles RL, Slagter Van Tryon P, Moore F (2015) Mathematics and science teachers’ professional development with local businesses to introduce middle and high school students to opportunities in STEM careers. Sci Educ 24(1):1–11 Moje EB, Callazo T, Carillo R, Marx RW (2001) “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. J Res Sci Teach 38(4):469–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.1014 Moore-Adams BL, Jones WM, Cohen J (2016) Learning to teach online: a systematic review of the literature on K-12 teacher preparation for teaching online. Distance Educ 37(3):333–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1232158

18

Teaching Multicultural Science Education to Underserved and. . .

485

National Council on Disability (U.S.) (1995) Improving the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act: making schools work for all of America’s children. National Council on Disability, Washington, DC National Science Board, National Science Foundation (NSF) (2020) Science and engineering indicators 2020: the state of U.S. science and engineering. NSB-2020-1. Alexandria. Retrieved from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/ Oliver JS (2010) Rural science education. In: Abell S, Lederman N (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, New York, pp 345–372 Peterson B, Bornemann G, Lydon C, West K (2015) Rural students in Washington state: STEM as a strategy for building rigor, postsecondary aspirations, and relevant career opportunities. Peabody J Educ 90(2):280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022397 POD & NSES (2016) Collaborating at the centers: report from a STEM Education Transformation, Workshop involving leaders of cents for teacher and learning STEM Education. Retrieved from https://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/Collaborating-at-the-Centers-Workshop-Report20July2016.pdf Public Schools First NC organization (2018) The facts on NC's per pupil spending. Retrieved from https://www.publicschoolsfirstnc.org/resources/fact-sheets/the-facts-on-ncs-per-pupilspending/ Rebmann T, Elliott MB, Reddick D, Swick Z (2012) US school/academic institution disaster and pandemic preparedness and seasonal influenza vaccination among school nurses. Am J Infect Control 40(7):584–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.02.027 Rodriguez AJ, Morrison D (2019) Expanding and enacting transformative meanings of equity, diversity, and social justice in science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:265–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-019-09938-7 Saathoff SD (2017) Healing systemic fragmentation in education through multicultural education. Multicult Educ 25(1):2–8. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2007680391? accountid¼10639 Salciccioli M (2019) Rural STEM education: promising strategies from several California counties. WestEd, San Francisco Salinas A, Sánchez J (2009) Digital inclusion in Chile: internet in rural schools. Int J Educ Dev 29(6):573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.04.003 Sandholtz JH, Ringstaff (2013) Assessing the impact of teacher professional development on science instruction in early elementary grades and rural U.S. schools. Prof Dev Educ 39(5): 678–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.751044 Schademan AR (2011) What does playing cards have to do with science? A resource-rich view of African American young me. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6:361–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422010-9275-5 Schaftt KA, Jackson AY (eds) (2010) Rural education for the twenty-first century: identity, place, and community in a globalizing world. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park Seeberg V, Swadener B, Vanden-Wyngaard M, Rickel T (1998) Multicultural education in the United States. In: Cusher K (ed) International perspectives on intercultural education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 259–301 Showalter D, Hartman SL, Johnson J, Klein B (2015–2016) Why rural matters 2015–2016: understanding the landscape report. The Rural School and Community Trust and Our Partners: College Board and the School Superintendents Association (AASA). Retrieved from http:// www.ruraledu.org/user_uploads/file/WRM-2015-16.pdf Showalter D, Hartman SL Johnson J, Klein B (2018–2019) Why rural matters 2018–2019: the time is now. Report. The Rural School and Community Trust and Our Partners: College Board and the School Superintendents Association (AASA). Retrieved from http://www.ruraledu.org/ WhyRuralMatters.pdf Simpson WD, Marek EA (1988) Understanding and misconceptions of biology concepts held by students attending small high schools and students attending larger high schools. J Res Sci Teach 25(5):361–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250504

486

R. Miles et al.

Spivak M (2020) COVID-19 is poised to exacerbate the learning crisis, evidence from long term school closures in Pakistan. Rise Programme. Retrieved from https://riseprogramme.org/blog/ COVID-19-Exacerbate_Learning_Crisis Stapleton SR (2017) Oral traditions, changing rural landscapes and science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 12:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9749-1 Sundeen TH, Sundeen DM (2013) Instructional technology for rural schools: access and acquisition. Rural Spec Educ Q 32(2):8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200203 Tomlinson HB (2020) Gaining ground on equity for rural schools and communities rural equity series 1. Retrieved from https://maec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/MAEC-Rural-GainingGround.pdf Torrez JE (2014) “Teachers should be like us!”: bridging migrant communities to rural Michigan classrooms. Multicult Educ 21(3):39–44. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/ 1648093718?accountid¼10639 Treat D (2014) Instructional integration of technology in rural elementary schools. (1620729372) [M.S., Eastern Oregon University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. http://search. proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/1620729372?accountid¼10639 Tsui L (2007) Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: a review of the research literature. J Negro Educ 76(4):555–581 Tyler-Wood TL, Cockerham D, Johnson KR (2018) Implementing new technologies in a middle school curriculum: a rural perspective. Smart Learn Environ 5(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40561-018-0073-y United Nations (2020) Policy brief: education during COVID-19 and beyond. United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_ brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf United States Office of Civil Rights (2021) Education in a pandemic: the disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608impacts-of-covid19.pdf USA.gov (2019) Immigration and citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.usa.gov/immigrationand-citizenship Uscher-Pines L, Schwartz HL, Ahmed F, Zheteyeva Y, Meza E, Baker G, Uzicanin A (2018) School practices to promote social distancing in K-12 schools: review of influenza pandemic policies and practices. BMC Public Health 18(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5302-3 Week B (2020) The scramble to move America’s schools online. Educ Week 39:1–5 Wright BL, Ford DY, Scott MT (2017) Multicultural: multicultural pathways to STEM: engaging young gifted black boys using the color-coded bloom-banks matrix. Gift Child Today 40(4): 212–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517722577 Yore LA, Shymansky JA, Annetta LA, Everett SA (2011) Science cooperatives in Missouri and Iowa (science coop): addressing the needs of small rural school districts of science literacy for all. In: Johnson CC (ed) Secondary STEM educational reform. Palgrave, New York, pp 47–74 Zenda R (2017) Essential teaching methods to enhance learner academic achievement in physical sciences in rural secondary schools: a South African case study. Inf Learn Sci 11(3/4):170–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2017-0014 Zimmerman HT, Weible JL (2017) Learning in and about rural places: connections and tensions between students’ everyday experiences and environmental quality issues in their community. Cult Stud Sci Educ 12:7–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9757-1

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius

19

Christopher Emdin

Contents Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sciencemindedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Hip-Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Rap and Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science and Hip-Hop as Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What’s So Great about Hip-Hop? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding the Exclusion of Hip-Hop from Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Genius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

489 492 493 493 494 496 498 499 501

Abstract

This chapter makes an argument for a more expansive approach to science teaching and learning in urban spaces that considers hip-hop as a means to bridge gaps between school science and urban youth who are deeply embedded in the culture. Through a merging of sociocultural theoretical frameworks that provide a unique perspective to schools and a program that connects youth to science, I provide an exemplar for a more inclusive urban science education. Keywords

Urban science education · Hip-hop · Culture · Science

In a historical account of science education and scientific literacy over the last 400 years, Hurd (1986) discusses science education’s persistent need to focus on teaching in ways that use students’ ways of knowing and being the point from which C. Emdin (*) University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_19

487

488

C. Emdin

pedagogy is developed. In his exploration of the historical challenges and goals of science education, he uncovers that some of the chief themes of contemporary science education, such as improving the quality of instruction and through improving connections between curriculum and student’s lives, have always been deemed as necessary for improving learning outcomes for students. Decades later, more contemporary efforts to affect change in the discipline still focus on improving instruction and/through connections being made between science and students’ lived experiences (Seiler 2001; Jenkins 2011; Mackenzie 2020). Unfortunately, in the education of Black children writ large and in urban science education more specifically, the notion of truly connecting to the lived experiences and cultures of young people has not been taken up as a legitimate approach to actual classroom science teaching and learning (Emdin 2011; Kirkland 2013; Brown et al., 2019). This is not to say this approach is not present in research in general and specifically in science education. Scholars like Atwater (1996) have been pushing for more multicultural science education for decades. Others like Brown (2005) have argued for the consideration of the linguistic traditions of Black children. However, this work has always been considered fringe efforts or boutique projects relegated to the science education community’s margins. It has been unfairly critiqued by those who seek to maintain an acultural “objective” science by arguing that more diverse perspectives do not contribute to actual science (Southerland 2000) and more in-line with a theoretical position rather than a tangible approach. The reality is that much of the academic research in urban science education considers that culture in science education is undertaken from the vantage point of researchers who are not from the communities they write about. These outside researchers consistently write about urban science education by positioning themselves as alarmed, perplexed, or concerned by the achievement gaps between urban youth (predominantly Black or Latinx youth from urban communities) and their counterparts from more socioeconomically advantaged and less racially and ethnically diverse social settings. In science education research, reports, commentary, and presentations, the scholarship consistently points to a number of causes for existing achievement gaps in science education that reinforce a deficit view of Black youth from urban America. Consider that academic papers require a description of the setting and participants in their research that often read like attempts to cast the population that is being focused on in the most negative light. Low socioeconomic status and high academic struggle become the chief descriptors of urban youth when they could easily be levels of creativity, oration skills, and innate scientific and mathematical ability. From my vantage point, the aim of stakeholders in urban science education appears to be highlighting their work on (not with) urban youth while subtly reinforcing a false notion of a lack of motivation, interest, persistence, and initiative in the majority of Black children in urban America. In response, I suggest that there are two major challenges to the existing research. The first is that the unique perspectives of Black people in urban settings are both devalued and absent from existing academic work. Researchers have not seen the value of including the words, thoughts, and ideas of the target population. The second is that there is a lack of consideration for the fact that urban science education (teaching and learning in

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 489

urban settings for majority Black youth in these settings) is more about complicity and control than creativity and activating the imagination – especially for a population whose genius is often expressed through creativity and artistic expression. There has been little to no consideration of urban Black youth conceptions of science and pedagogy and what insight can be gleaned from their perspectives in creating classrooms that met their needs. In education writ large, the consideration of youth perspective and insight is much more prominent than in science education and offers a powerful way forward in how we consider urban science teaching and learning. Ginwright (2007) articulates a consideration for critical social capital in how we make sense of Black youth activism that would bode well for how we construct the ways that urban youth make sense of science. This framework lays out a need for teaching science as an act of activism that can be supported through the forms of capital urban youth possess. Madkins and McKinney de Royston (2019) work within this tradition in science education and moves toward both culture and sociopolitical consciousness as the seedbed of transformative culturally inclusive science teaching that engages students and their cultural understandings. Currently, science teaching for Black youth in urban America extracts the very core of this population’s localized scientific ways of knowing and being from how they are taught and how they prefer to learn. This extraction of culture from science teaching is rooted in the fact that perceptions of urbanness and Blackness in America’s collective imagination and represented in Americana positions Black folks as less than their counterparts and disinterested in learning (Hill 2002). Beyond the extraction/erasure of the ways of knowing and being of urban youth from how they are taught science, there is a societal demonizing of Black males who employ hip-hop as their chief mode of cultural expression (Smiley and Fakunle 2016) and even attempts to erase the academic merit of a vast and complex culture with a powerful intellectual tradition by identifying it wholly as its more commercial and less culturally rooted problematic aspects (Forman 2021). I argue that without consideration of the way that culture and its unique manifestations in the lives of urban Black youth (such as hip-hop) impact learning, we do not improve outcomes for the most brilliant young people that schools and society have made educationally vulnerable.

Theoretical Framework My perspective on urban science education is rooted in a theoretical framework/ perspective that considers the intersections of social capital, culture, ritual, identity, and hip-hop. I argue that a robust understanding of how these concepts come together is where the teaching and learning of science for urban youth from the hip-hop generation begins. In particular, this framework elucidates the misalignments that exist between urban youth and school science. I am identifying school science in urban America as distinct from science writ large because I argue that there is a culture of hip-hop that aligns to the culture of science (value for creativity, innovation, deep questioning, keen observation) even when it does not align to

490

C. Emdin

school science; that often functions to silence, demean, and disengage hip-hop youth. The point here is that hip-hop-engaged youth have social capital that must be identified. My view of social capital is rooted in the ways that Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) present them as the accumulation of phenomena that facilitate shared/collective action based on shared goals or resources. I suggest that this phenomenon allows for a unique understanding of youth engaged in hip-hop culture, as science as a culture that has its own distinct actions/goals, and school science as a phenomenon that interrupts this natural connection. Furthermore, the framework lends itself to understanding youth experiences in schools where their forms of social capital are erased from classrooms and misidentified as misaligned to that of science writ large, and school science in particular. Because social capital is the amassed benefits of social relationships when individuals interact (Portes 1998), it also provides insights into the harms that come when interactions are unproductive or where the ways of knowing and being of certain individuals or groups are not welcome in social settings. For urban youth who are deeply embedded in hip-hop, research into their interactions with each other in nonschool/science places indicates varied forms of social capital that are not welcome in schools. For example, the voice, tone, anti-authoritarian positions, and creativity that benefit certain young people in hip-hop spaces are often unwelcome in school science – that emphasizes complicity and blindly following instructions over other approaches to engaging (Emdin 2020). Understanding the hip-hop experience in science requires an understanding of the ways that the young people in the culture enact practices that either deflect societal oppression (as manifested in science instruction that stifles self-expression and other attempts at agency) or absorb strength from each other to overcome it. Any process in the urban science classroom that inhibits students from fully engaging in science or that alienates them from academic success in school is oppressive. Hip-hop has historically been a culture that is about responding to oppression in visceral ways. Tarifa (2012) describes this phenomenon in Bolivia as students utilize hip-hop culture as a way to reclaim agency in a society that has robbed them of opportunities to engage sociopolitically. Like hip-hop youth across the globe, Bolivian youth respond to oppression and exclusion by engaging on their terms or not at all. Their forms of engagement are communal/collectivist – in groups with collective goals being identified and strived for. This stands in contradistinction from school science and its individualistic nature (LaCera 2020). The community approaches to engaging are about exchanging shared forms of social capital, which are examples of what Coleman (1988) refers to as dense networks. These dense networks engender an alienation from structures (such as people, subjects, institutions, and science) that students believe are separate from who they are. To engage hip-hop youth in science, it is imperative that educators find ways to bring their more communal hip-hop cultural expressions into the classroom. Burt (2001) provides a theoretical approach to entering dense networks where one is not a member – like when teachers look to connect with youth who are part of dense hip-hop networks. He suggests creating “structural holes” that can help extend existing social networks by creating weak ties to outsiders. This framework allows

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 491

for an understanding that the science educator is an outsider to hip-hop and requires an approach to teaching that can serve as structural holes in existent student networks. It also provides a theoretical explanation for the importance of hip-hoprooted culturally relevant practices in science classrooms. More specifically, this framework provides me a lens for looking at my own work in urban science education. Despite being from a similar racial/ethnic background as many of my students, I was perceived as outside of their culture as a science educator. They had formed their dense networks, and I had to find structural holes within them in order to connect them to science. I had to recognize that the culture of school science and that of young people are not necessarily aligned and that this misalignment is at the root of their unwillingness to see connections between their culture and that of science. Culture here refers to an individual or groups’ schematic understandings as well as their practices (Bourdieu 1993). Using Bourdieu’s articulation of culture as a base, I suggest a focus on Becker’s (1963) outline of the relationship of cultures to subcultures. In particular, Becker focuses on the culture of youth that is perceived as deviant and how their cultural understandings can be considered as both subcultures and responses to the rules and regulations of the larger culture or society in which they are embedded. In other words, the subculture of “deviant” youth is a response to the larger culture of society. Using Bourdieu and Becker as a base, I consider the relationship between culture and subculture as being mediated by the practices performed by people who either enact oppression or are forced to respond to it. In this case, if urban science educators enact practices that are oppressive to hip-hop youth, the teacher is fostering a subculture among students that stands in opposition to the subject being taught in the classroom and causes the students to not see themselves as being represented within that social space. For example, the teachers’ expectation that students will be docile and engage in rote practices within the science classroom causes a student who refuses to engage in these practices to be viewed as an outsider to the culture of science. In response, the student who refuses to be docile “may not accept the rule by which he is being judged and may not regard those who judge him as either competent or legitimately entitled to do so” (Becker 1963, p. 2). Becker’s classic work on deviance provides insight into the science class experiences of hip-hop culture-rooted youth in science classrooms. Teachers often view their reactions to feeling invisible in classrooms as deviant behavior (Losen and Orfield 2002; Coutinho et al. 2002). Furthermore, hip-hop has often been viewed as deviant culture despite its educative potential and evidence to the contrary based on subgenres of hip-hop and what is viewed as hip-hop (Miranda and Claes 2004). Deviance “has strong connections with feelings of youthful rebelliousness” (Becker 1963, p. 175), which plays out as the disinterest in education oftentimes associated with hip-hop. This rebelliousness is a large component of both historical and contemporary descriptions of youth of color in general (Cross 2003; Zeldin 2002) and has become an identity marker for hip-hop. This notion of a rebellious identity sustains some educators justification for a hyper-focus on behavior management and discipline in lieu of trying to truly engage youth through the very cultural phenomena used to frame them as deviant or disinterested in school or science.

492

C. Emdin

Hip-hop involves processes such as discussing, describing, predicting, and analyzing a number of situations and then describing them in words through rhyme (Emdin 2010). This ability to discuss, describe, predict, and analyze aligns with the skills necessary to actively engage in science lessons (Germann et al. 1996). Unfortunately, these attributes are rarely expressed within urban science classrooms, despite their potential for supporting science learning. This is the case because attempts to exhibit these behaviors within classrooms are misconstrued as deviant when they are actually exhibitions of interest. Instead, the urban classroom focuses on disseminating scientific facts and creating classroom spaces that quell possibilities of behavior problems in lieu of truly engaging students in science.

Sciencemindedness In my work, I argue that sciencemindedness (ways of engaging in the world that trigger scientific thinking and the type of critical questioning required to be a scientist) is not valued, fostered, or developed in urban science classrooms (Emdin 2007). Furthermore, I suggest that sciencemindedness naturally exists in all people and is uniquely present among Black youth in urban America who employ it in navigating a world designed for them. In particular, hip-hop (a culture and art form created by predominantly Black youth in urban America) employs scientific ways of engaging in the world. Hip-hop also creates a model for teaching science that is not considered by educators because there has always been a contentious battle between those who produce/create it and schools (Au 2005). In other words, attributes like developing keen observations of the environment, gathering evidence and drawing conclusions based on this evidence, developing and testing hypotheses, being reflective, being anti-authoritarian, and expressing curiosity are integral to scientific thinking (Zimmerman 2007). These are also requirements for engaging in hip-hop as a writer, dancer, artist, and performer but are not recognized or built upon in classrooms. In response to the dismissal of the power and potential of hip-hop in education writ large and science education, in particular, this chapter argues for the centering of a hip-hop standpoint in the science classroom. To make this point, I draw from my research and practice with students and teachers in urban science classrooms and my stance as a scientist and participant in hip-hop culture. I draw from experiences I have been afforded, having completed a vast majority of my education in urban public institutions that denied my sciencemindedness. I also draw from the fact that I am a part of the hip-hop community and a student of and performer within the culture. Most importantly, I draw from close to two decades of teaching/research in urban science classrooms and observations of youth being disengaged in and from school science while showcasing sciencemindedness outside of classrooms while engaged in hip-hop. I choose and suggest that educators employ a Sandra Hardingesque strong subjectivity (Harding 1992) that runs counter to the “objective” and Eurocentric approach to science and science teaching that professes that science is acultural or just facts and not biased – which is a misrepresentation of what urban Black youth are currently experiencing in science classrooms.

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 493

Writing/sharing/engaging in hip-hop is intimate, reflexive, phenomenological, and experiential, and therefore, the teaching of science must be the same. Rappers/ emcees (the griots within hip-hop culture) write and then perform words in rhyme over rhythms that are observations of their environment, articulations of the experiments they are conducting or have conducted, and summaries of their philosophies about life and their environment. It must be considered as we reimagine science education.

On Hip-Hop For many people, hip-hop is seen as something that a person becomes involved in because they have an affinity for certain parts of or choose to have a connection to artifacts developed from hip-hop, like rap or graffiti, while this may be the case in certain communities that are afforded the socioeconomic allowances to engage in hip-hop as a means to connect themselves to something more authentic or culturally rich than what they are born into, those whose lifeworlds are hip-hop and are born into the culture. They grow up with beats and rhymes as an extension of who they are. They learn to speak in rhyme, and hip-hop beats are their lullabies. For populations who are not a part of hip-hop culture but who have chosen to engage in hip-hop, the need to be fully immersed in hip-hop is not as necessary. They may not see the benefit of disrupting science or science teaching. Their relationship to hip-hop may involve a commercial and superficial acceptance of hip-hop and a welcoming of media-constructed narratives of the Black folks who rap and dance and not the genius in the people who they see as entertainers and not as a scientist and scholar. It is also important to note that many commercial versions of hip-hop have a sole purpose to reinforce the notion that hip-hop and the Black folks who create it are inherently violent and anti-academic – and for this reason, essential to construct a counternarrative that highlights their scientific genius. We must staunchly argue that when we refer to hip-hop, or rather when students in the urban communities I work in refer to it, it is not just a form of music or entertainment. My research and personal experience indicates that urban youth who are marginalized from achievement in science see themselves as not only participants in hip-hop but as a living embodiment of the culture. In order for the urban science educator to masterfully mobilize the potential of marginalized students and provide communal experiences where the force of hip-hop culture is merged with the power of scientific knowledge, a reconnection of hip-hop to science, education, teaching, and learning must occur.

On Rap and Science Education Rap music is the chief artifact of hip-hop and is one of the purest expressions of urban Black youth culture. This is the case because we (Black folks) exist in a cultural context that equally prioritizes both artistic expression and the written word.

494

C. Emdin

It has roots in Negro spirituals, spoken word, poetry, and multiple other forms of Black culture and tradition and carries them all with it. Hip-hop music is a coagulation of centuries of practices, rules, and traditions (Ramsey 2003). Since “Black music has always been a primary means of cultural expression for African Americans, particularly during especially difficult social periods and traditions” (Rose 1994, p.184), the feeling of living in a seemingly eternal difficult social life for minoritized youth calls for the rise of a medium that expresses the realities of their lives. Rap music is the text produced by those who are involved in hip-hop, and is a medium through which the culture of the marginalized is expressed. Rap’s antecedents in the traditions of the Black experience in the United States lead to its ability to provide descriptions of contemporary urban life in oppressive social spheres beyond the United States. This attribute causes it to display a quality that transcends space and time while it reflects the experiences of those within a current and specific context. This attribute of rap is closely related to the chronotypic nature of certain literary texts that express an “intrinsic connectedness of temporal and spatial relationships that are artistically expressed in literature” (Bakhtine 1981, p. 84). Rap music becomes the literature of those whose backgrounds are rooted in oral traditions and connects a history of the marginalization, echoes pain, and concurrently articulates the stance of new people who have been, or are being, marginalized in different spaces around the globe. It is the verbal expression in words of the realities of social actors in contexts where they are either not allowed to fully participate or cannot be heard because their histories, traditions, and voices are different from that of a dominant group. Therefore, it is a direct reflection of the identities of urban youth, and in some instances, it describes the urban students’ experiences in schools. This is why I believe that rap can and should be a form of expressing/creating/ scientific text. Its ability to capture the full cultural experience of a population allows it to be a mechanism for connecting culture(s).

Science and Hip-Hop as Culture The culture of science, which Cordero (2001) refers to as a “scientific picture of the world” (p. 3), is made up of the way that scientists view the world. Likewise, the culture of hip-hop refers to the way that its participants view and make sense of their world. This basic relationship between hip-hop and science culture is significant because it allows us to see science learning as a cultural exchange or cultural merging rather than the denial of one culture and adoption of another. Science, which possesses a certain epistemic value, positions itself as being an international language that is accessible to all. Ridley (2001) discusses the prevalence of what he terms scientism, which is the belief that science has the ability to see itself as able to make sense of everything in the world. Science, which as articulated earlier is a culture – with a distinct way of knowing – is presented to the world, as being accessible to everyone who is willing to be a part of it. However, when the subculture of school science becomes the outward-facing representative of science, it distorts the discipline in the imagination of hip-hop-engaged youth and creates a

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 495

false notion that it (science) is not for them. If this is the case, then I suggest that hip-hop can and should be allowed to connect to the culture of science and interrupt the deleterious effects of the subculture of urban school science on the relationship between hip-hop youth and science. This concept of subculture which stands in contradistinction from culture in ways that distort the full expression/ meaning of culture (Yinger 1960) provides us a framework for using hip-hop to connect youth to science. Hip-hop, which is a culture whose main artifacts are artistic, correlates to science because “From an Apollonian point of view, both science and art aim for an understanding of the world; both appear to be part of an understanding of the world; both appear to be part of an all-embracing culture of enquiry, a search for all forms of truth” (Ridley 2001, p. 1). Furthermore, the most fundamental connection of hip-hop to science is that hip-hop is the voice of urban youth and built on passionate response to one’s physical and social surroundings. Hip-hop is the voice to the passions of marginalized youth. “Scientists are, believe it or not, human, and often motivated by passions that are far from being scientific” (Ridley 2001, p. 65). Essentially, the omission of hip-hop culture from urban schools that are in the communities where hip-hop is created limits the process of connecting hip-hop to science, even though there are phenomena that are already fundamentally connected. This process is counterintuitive to instructional techniques that rest on connecting students to science through their lifeworlds and experiences. It also relegates teaching to archaic, hyper-structured instruction rather than an inquiry- and interest-based approach to delivering subject matter that focuses on the fact that both hip-hop and science are entities that provide a picture of the world from a particular group’s perspective. Structures within schools that do not consider the ways that people view the world interrupt learning. These structures support reductionist approaches to instruction and viewing the world in such a manner, which require individuals who are involved in highly communal practices based on oral traditions, community, coteaching, and colearning like hip-hop to deny their culture and have to adopt an alien approach to teaching and learning in order to be a scientist. Oliver (2001) clearly outlines the contradictory logic of these types of reductionist processes through her descriptions of colonial authority and its “contradiction between denying the internal life, mind, or soul to the colonized on one hand, and demanding that they internalize colonial values on the other” (p. 8). In other words, within the traditional science classroom, a colonization of the hip-hop participant, which can be seen as domination over her words, thoughts, and ideas and a relegation of her position to other than norm, occurs. In this colonization process, the hip-hop participants’ ways of being in the world are denied the opportunity to become expressed in the classroom, and they are forced to follow the routines of a science classroom that are opposed to their ways of viewing the world. For example, a student who is accustomed to working with peers in solving real-life problems in the hip-hop fields outside of the classroom, when forced to work individually within an urban science classroom that is focused on individual success, will have a challenge connecting to science.

496

C. Emdin

This type of practice clearly outlines the reasons why students who are a part of hip-hop are often unsuccessful within schools and science. While the urban science classroom limits hip-hop students’ opportunities to express their culture in the science classroom, they are forced to embrace the culture of the colonizer and be silent, docile, and passive in order to be successful within school science. This is the case even if their expression of hip-hop includes attributes that support their engagement in science. Attributes of participants in hip-hop, like speaking with one’s hands or raising one’s voice to get another person’s attention, may be looked at as subverting the teachers’ control over the classroom rather than an expression of interest. This creates a dilemma where what is considered appropriate behavior for learning science in urban classrooms actually constricts certain students’ abilities to engage, participate, and experience success in the science classroom.

What’s So Great about Hip-Hop? My goal here is not to describe a false utopia of hip-hop or to label school science as completely alien to certain populations. In fact, there are pockets within both hip-hop and schools that serve as counterexamples to the descriptions I have laid out. However, on a grand scale, my research indicates that participants in hip-hop generally view science classrooms as fields that impede their excitement about learning, discussing, and engaging in classroom learning. By contrast, they view fields within hip-hop as supporters of these processes. Juxtaposing the descriptions of the school field with the hip-hop field, it becomes evident that the hierarchical nature of interactions among actors in urban schools is among the major reasons why students who are participants in hip-hop do not feel comfortable interacting within urban schools. The improvisational nature, adaptability, and value of communality within hip-hop are the key to its lasting legacy and longevity despite consistent commentary throughout its existence that it is just a musical fad. Within the culture of hip-hop, there is a stable history that makes allowances for constant change within the sociopolitical landscapes in the contexts where the culture is lived. There is also a consistent push to expand beyond the norms in these contexts to find new ways to connect new audiences. If police brutality is an issue within the community, it is expressed in hip-hop music and culture the next day. Rap songs are created about the issue, freestyles are recited about it, tee shirts show messages that connect to the issue, and the entire culture is transformed. This malleable quality of hip-hop culture must be juxtaposed with the static, standardized approach to pedagogy and policy within urban science education. All too often, in these venues, contemporary issues and topics that directly affect the communities that students are a part of are notably absent from the curriculum, are never aspects of the teaching, and are never given space to be brought into science education. The static nature of urban science education contributes to the ineffectiveness of the current educational model and contributes to the active engagement of urban youth in hip-hop and their disengagement with science.

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 497

In my work in urban science classrooms, I have seen students unconsciously enact the communal nature of hip-hop that comes from the social fields where they live in the science classroom. In these scenarios they may be enacting their habitus by speaking along with or even with overlapping speech with the teacher (behaviors or expressions that indicate engagement and interest in their social fields), and these behaviors then get misidentified as disrespect or rudeness in the social field that is the urban science classroom (Emdin 2016). The concept of social fields with different cultural norms is rooted in the sociocultural framework that this chapter is nested in as articulated by Bourdieu (2018) and refers to variations in cultural norms across geographic and symbolic boundaries’ locations where culture is enacted. I argue that when the awareness that the embodiment of hip-hop (a distinct type of habitus) is not an indicator of disinterest in the social field of the urban science classroom is in place, the educator has reached a new level of understanding that allows the bridge between hip-hop culture and science to become manifested in the urban classroom. In order to move beyond the current state of urban science education, and move toward more actively fostering effective science instruction in urban schools, an effort must be made to look at hip-hop as the ways that urban youth make sense of the world and the structural similarity of the ways they view the world with how scientists make sense of the world. In this view, a more cultural view of both science and hip-hop allows the teacher and researcher to see them both as entities rooted in the schema and practices of different groups of people. I suggest that hip-hop breeds its creativity and its inventiveness as a result of a necessity to provide new avenues for voice to the marginalized just as I perceive science to be inherently rooted in generating new and more complex ideas and providing new solutions to existing world problems. The similarities here – related to evolving, growing, and meeting the needs of the present population – are further supported by the scientific inventions and breakthroughs that have had and continue to have substantial social and economic implications on all of modern society. As a result of science, places throughout the world are directly affected by advantages such as medicine and technology. However, in this view of science from a cultural perspective, the discipline is charged with being an agent that limits free thought and that has done tremendous harms on populations throughout the globe by taking advantage of indigenous peoples and causing larger harms like pollution. In addition, science has been viewed as a proponent of closed mindedness and a “purely western” way of looking at the world. In reality, this is not fully the case, and if it were the case, there would be no true way that the wealth of information received, and developed by scientists, from a range of disciplines within science could be so vast, innovative, informative, and constantly changing. Science in itself is not a discipline that limits. The issue is the way that it has been used, the ways it has been described, the history that it has inherited, and the closed-minded people who have worked to co-opt science for their own purposes. On a fundamental level, science is everywhere and is for all people.

498

C. Emdin

Understanding the Exclusion of Hip-Hop from Science After a discussion of the similarities between hip-hop and science, the acknowledgment must be made that science, as institutions of higher learning present it, and has partnered with technology, has traditionally been closed to certain groups and/or functions in an exclusionary manner to certain groups (Benjamin 2019; Cobern and Loving 2001). This does not mean that science does not exist in spaces that are not traditionally valued. The exclusion of certain groups occurs because science is perceived by society to be a discipline that is difficult to master and set aside only for those who are most intellectually capable of understanding it. Consequently, populations who have been mislabeled as intellectually deficient (Blacks and Latinx) have been in many instances purposefully steered away from science. When this purposeful steering away from science has become commonplace, institutionally supported biases that label minoritized populations as intellectually deficient function to support hip-hop’s abstention from science. The display of hip-hop markers like wearing certain clothes or talking a certain way is often used as evidence that supports the notion that a person is not intellectually prepared for science. Concurrently, participants in hip-hop have to contend with the fact that urban science education does not allow for the acceptance of creativity or exploration – which are staples in hip-hop and also necessary for active engagement in science. The end result here is that students are perceived as not able to do science and are not given the opportunity to be engaged in it. Science within urban schools becomes expressed in ways that are almost completely contrary to the ways that discovery in science is supposed to be enacted. As scholars in the field of education, critique “hard sciences” and critical scholars expose the subjectivity of science and the absence of plurality in the kinds of science being taught in schools; it is important to show how science, through an exploration of hip-hop’s possible connections to it, can mend the rifts between participants in hip-hop and the teaching and learning of science in schools. The kind of science being taught to the hip-hop generation that focuses on facts that have been developed by scientists does not work to foster the attitudes and behaviors that cause hip-hop youth to develop the kind of scientific understanding that is required for creating new scientific outcomes in the future. In essence, I am positing that science education as it currently stands is fact based and does not seek to develop attitudes/behaviors such as inquiry and exploration that can support scientific habits of mind. The tendency to present science as though there is a completed digital picture of science where each pixel has to be memorized foregoes the reality that scientific knowledge, like the messages heard in hip-hop music, is always changing and that “truth” in science, despite the perceptions of science that students get in schools, is ever changing just as descriptions of the experiences of the marginalized vary in different locations. West coast hip-hop, Southern hip-hop, East coast hip-hop, and Australian hip-hop all share a common thread in their roots in the Bronx, but in artifacts of hip-hop like rap music, are ever evolving to give voice to their creators, just as theories in the sciences evolve from existing ones and change over time.

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 499

In order for science education and hip-hop to coexist, it is necessary to discover what is at the core of the cultures that they both encompass and what they have in common, so that the science education community can begin to work toward situating them within each other. Choosing not to engage in this process will result in the persistence of the existent division between the hip-hop generation and science education and the growing numbers of students who are in urban areas throughout the country who are disinterested in science.

Science Genius In response to the need for us to reimagine science education, I have created and worked with a number of initiatives to reimagine science teaching and learning. Of these programs, the Science Genius B.A.T.T.L.E.S. (Bringing Attention to Transforming Teaching, Learning, and Engagement in Science) has captured the essence of the effort to allow the sciencemindedness of young people to be expressed in traditional science. Science Genius recognizes who youth are, recognized the culture they are embedded in, and rather than allow dense networks to form in opposition to school through science instruction that devalues youth culture, utilizes an approach to pedagogy to serve as a structural hole that creates weak ties between youth and science that get fortified over time as their culture becomes more central to engaging in and with science. Science Genius B.A.T.T.L.E.S., which began in New York City and has since been adopted in US cities like Houston and Chattanooga and in cities in both Canada and Jamaica, focuses on utilizing the power of hip-hop music and culture to introduce youth to the wonder and beauty of science while pushing them to engage with and gain a command of traditional science content knowledge. The core message of the initiative is to meet urban youth who are traditionally disengaged in science classrooms on their cultural turf, and provide them with the opportunity to express the same passion they have for hip-hop culture for science. This is accomplished through the issuing of a challenge for young people to create raps/poems/ songs over hip-hop beats that are based on their realities (their life experiences and out-of-school lives) and the science content they are learning in the science class. The students are then provided a rubric that ensures that the academic rigor of the rap/poem/song they produce captures the complexity of the science while also meeting expectations for both sound hip-hop lyrics and performance. On this rubric, their sciencemindedness skills are brought to the fore through an expectation that they are incorporated in both the rap and how they connect it to science. For example, the rubric requires evidence of deep reflection, creativity, and evidence-based thinking/writing. Once students have written their raps, they compete with their peers in a hip-hop battle – a competition between artists that is judged by their peers and their teacher to see whose rap is most scientifically accurate, most authentic in terms of connection to real life, and in performance. The winner in each classroom goes on to face the winner in other science classes until a school-wide science genius is declared. This student then competes against winners from schools

500

C. Emdin

across the city until a city-wide science genius is declared. Each finished rhyme serves as an oral exam method or “teaching back” of the science content and a catalyst for engaging the students and audiences through a clever and creative hip-hop performance. Furthermore, the writing that requires connection to reality allows the subjectivity innate to hip-hop, and good hip-hop-based learning is allowed to shine through.

Content

Overall presentation

Rap flow/ sequence

Creativity

4 Exemplary The student expressed factual information and incorporated more than three science topics taught during the school year Student exhibits an original, resourceful, and novel approach to presentation or topic; the rap is creatively and clearly written Student rap presents easyto-follow steps which are logical and adequately detailed

Student’s rap is creative the content is delivered with the concurrent use of story metaphor, simile, or analogy without detracting from the content

3 Accomplished The student expressed factual information and incorporated at least three science content themes taught throughout the school year Student presents topic with standard approach; writing is unimaginative but effectively gets point across Student rap presents scientific information with steps that are understandable; some of the rap lacks detail or is confusing

2 Developing The student expressed factual information and incorporated less than three science content themes taught throughout the school year Student’s presentation of topic is incomplete and unimaginative; writing lacks clarity

Student’s rap is original. content is conveyed in such a way that uses one of the following (story, metaphor, simile, or analogy) without distracting from the content

Student’s rap shows some originality. The content is conveyed in such a way that alludes to some story, metaphor, simile, or analogy

Student rap presents scientific information that is understandable. However, most of the rap is confusing and lacks detail

1 Beginning The student expressed nonfactual information and incorporated one science content theme taught throughout the school year Student’s presentation of topic is ineffective and lacks cohesion; rap lacks clarity and is poorly written Student rap presents information that is not organized (sequentially or otherwise) It appears that steps are missing or organization is confusing. Student’s rap is not very original. the content is not conveyed in such a way that uses story, metaphor, simile, or analogy

(continued)

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 501

Science content/ vocabulary comprehension

4 Exemplary Student completely understands the topic and uses scientific terminology properly and effectively

3 Accomplished Student demonstrates solid understanding of the topic and adequate use of scientific terminology

2 Developing Student displays insufficient understanding of the topic and uses very little scientific terminology

1 Beginning Student lacks understanding of the topic and incorrectly uses scientific terminology

The rubric above centers skills that matter in hip-hop spaces such as the use of simile, metaphor, and originality while challenging that scientific terminology is used and scientific ideas are being shared accurately. This type of exercise, which has been framed as radical in that it focuses on emancipatory pedagogy in the “hard sciences” (Adjapong 2019), is simple in its intent and its goals – to have young people feel free to engage in science and be themselves. With a focus on centering culture and valuing culture, it has propelled science into the real lives and cultures of young people without sacrificing academic rigor or authenticity. Furthermore, through the Science Genius pilot program, researchers have noticed an increase in student attendance in school, higher test scores on traditional measures of science content knowledge, persistence in pursuing science classes, and enthusiasm for science content in students who participated in the program. If the goal of science education is to replicate the current achievement gaps and retain the current disinterest that many young people have for the subject, we can continue the status quo in science teaching and learning. However, if the goal is to create a new generation of science enthusiasts who have a passion for the discipline and see it as an extension of their identity and culture, we must do something radically different. Merging hip-hop with science through initiatives like Science Genius is a model for a way forward.

References Adjapong E (2019) Towards a practice of emancipation in urban schools: a look at student experiences through the science genius battles program. J Ethnic Cult Stud 6(1):15–27 Atwater MM (1996) Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. J Res Sci Teach 33(8):821–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982736(199610)33:83.0.CO;2-Y Au W (2005) Fresh out of school: rap music’s discursive battle with education. J Negro Educ 74(3): 210–220 Bakhtine MM (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays (No. 1). University of Texas Press, Austin Becker HS (1963) Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. The Free Press, New York Benjamin R (2019) Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press, New York, pp 241–258 Bourdieu P (2018) Structures, habitus, practices. In Rethinking the Subject (pp. 31–45). Routledge

502

C. Emdin

Bourdieu P (1993) The field of cultural production: essays on art and literature. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK Brown BA (2005) The politics of public discourse: discourse, identity and African Americans in science education. Negro Educ Rev 56(2/3):205–220 Brown BA, Donovan B, Wild A (2019) Language and cognitive interference: How using complex scientific language limits cognitive performance. Sci Educ 103(4):750–769 Burt R (2001) Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin N, Cook KS, Burt RS (eds) Social capital: theory and research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 31–56 Cobern WW, Loving CC (2001) Defining “science” in a multicultural world: implications for science education. Sci Educ 85(1):50–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85: 13.0.CO;2-G Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120 Cordero A (2001) Scientific culture and public education. Sci & Educ 10:71–83. https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1008764626622 Coutinho MJ, Oswald DP, Best AM (2002) The influence of sociodemographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning disabilities. Remedial Spec Educ 23(1):49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250202300107 Cross WE (2003) Tracing the historical origins of youth delinquency & violence: myths & realities about black culture. J Soc Issues 59(1):67–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.t01-1-00005 Emdin C (2007) Exploring the contexts of urban science classrooms. part 1: investigating corporate and communal practices. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2:319–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0079055-z Emdin C (2010) Urban science education for the hip-hop generation. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam Emdin C (2011) Droppin’ science and dropping science: African American males and urban science education. J Afr Am Males Educ 2(1) Emdin C (2016) For White folks who teach in the hood... and the rest of y’all too: reality pedagogy and urban education. Beacon Press, Boston Emdin C (2020) A ratchetdemic reality pedagogy and/as cultural freedom in urban education. Educ Philos Theory 52(9):947–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1669446 Forman M (2021) Things done changed: Recalibrating the real in hip-hop. Pop Music Soc 44(4):451–477 Germann PJ, Haskins S, Auls S (1996) Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: promoting scientific inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 33(5):475–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI) 1098-2736(199605)33:53.0.CO;2-O Ginwright SA (2007) Black youth activism and the role of critical social capital in Black community organizations. Am Behavior Scient 51(3):403–418 Harding S (1992) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “strong objectivity?”. Centennial Rev 36(3):437–470 Hill ME (2002) Race of the interviewer and perception of skin color: evidence from the multi-city study of urban inequality. Am Sociol Rev 67(1):99–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088935 Hurd PD (1986) Perspectives for the reform of science education. Phi Delta Kappan 67(5):353–358 Jenkins LL (2011) Using citizen science beyond teaching science content: A strategy for making science relevant to students’ lives. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6(2):501–508 Kirkland L (2013) Preservice science teachers’ conception of students’ prior knowledge. Childhood Educ 89(5):334–335 LaCera LP (2020) Evaluating grit through the use of MathSpring in individualistic and collectivist cultures. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Losen DJ, Orfield G (2002) Racial inequity in special education. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA Mackenzie AH (2020) Technology and scientific habits of mind. Sci Teach 88(4):6–7 Madkins TC, McKinney de Royston M (2019) Illuminating political clarity in culturally relevant science instruction. Sci Educ 103(6):1319–1346

19

On Hip-Hop and Multicultural Urban Science Education: Uncovering Science Genius 503

Miranda D, Claes M (2004) Rap music genres and deviant behaviors in French-Canadian adolescents. J Youth Adolesc 33:113–122. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000013423.34021.45 Oliver K (2001) Witnessing: beyond recognition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Portes A (1998) Social capital: its origins and application in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol 24:1–14 Ramsey GP (2003) Race music: black cultures from bebop to hip-hop, vol 7. University of California Press, Berkeley Ridley B (2001) On science. Routledge, New York Rose T (1994) A style nobody can deal with: politics, style and the postindustrial city in hip-hop. Microphone Fiends: Youth Music and Youth Culture, New York Seiler G (2001) Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. J Res Sci Teach Official J Natl Assoc Res Sci Teach 38(9):1000–1014 Smiley C, Fakunle D (2016) From “brute” to “thug:” The demonization and criminalization of unarmed Black male victims in America. J Hum Behav Soc Environ 26(3–4):350–366 Southerland SA (2000) Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Sci Educ 9(3):289–307 Tarifa A (2012) Hip hop as empowerment: voices in El Alto, Bolivia. Int J Qual Stud Educ 25(4): 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.673030 Yinger JM (1960) Contraculture and subculture. Am Sociol Rev 625–635 Zeldin S (2002) Sense of community and positive adult beliefs toward adolescents and youth policy in urban neighborhoods and small cities. J Youth Adolesc 31:331–342. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1015624507644 Zimmerman C (2007) The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Dev Rev 27(2):172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DR.2006.12.001

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

20

Advancing Multicultural Science for Social Justice and Equity Bhaskar Upadhyay

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is a Dominant Group? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Culture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Poverty and Concentrated Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is High Poverty or Concentrated Poverty Community? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Poverty in School-Based Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic Imperatives of High Poverty Urban Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Science in High Poverty Urban High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges for High Poverty Urban Schools in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State of Science Teaching in High Poverty Urban High Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Academic Expectations in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social, Cultural, and Historical Connections in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Race/Racism and Structural Recognition in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Danger of Deficit Thinking in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Relevancy in Science Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culturally Relevant/Responsive Pedagogy in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sociocultural and Situated Nature of Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multicultural Education in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funds of Knowledge in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identity and Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morally Healing Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economics of Science Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion: Implications for Science Education in High Poverty Urban Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

506 508 508 509 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 520 521 522 523 524 525 525 527 528 529 531

B. Upadhyay (*) Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_56

505

506

B. Upadhyay

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the complexities of multicultural science education in High poverty urban schools. High poverty urban schools encounter layers of barriers that expand in all directions of social, cultural, racial, political, historical, economic, and personal lives of individuals and communities. High poverty urban schools are uniquely different from any other schools including low-poverty urban schools. Science teacher attrition, low per student funding, scarcity of science education resources, culturally less sensitive science teachers, low academic expectation, and structural barriers of schools and schooling seem to be hallmarks of these schools. Studies have shown that pedagogies that value students’ and community culture and experiences show greater academic achievement and success among High poverty schools. Additionally, social justice and sociopolitically conscious pedagogies show greater connections between High poverty urban school students’ lives and science because these pedagogies are successful in strongly linking experiences of race, culture, history, identities, values, and beliefs. This chapter draws from large swaths of literature from different disciplines including science education, general education, critical theories, sociology, anthropology, policy, indigenous, immigrant, and urban education to paint a complex picture of how science education in High poverty urban schools need tremendous amount of work from researchers, educators, teachers, administrators, policy makers, communities, and parents and caretakers. The chapter suggests that more focused studies are needed to better understand the assets, needs, and challenges of High poverty urban schools for a science education that is socially justice; equitable, socially, and personally transformative; and sociopolitically conscious. Keywords

High poverty · Multicultural science education · Race · Secondary school · Social justice · Culturally responsive pedagogy

Introduction Poverty has an oversized effect on students’ ability to learn and engage in school. Specifically, there is a strong correlation between students’ academic performance and poverty (Entwisle and Alexander 1992; Kao and Thompson 2003; van der Klaauw 2008). A number of researchers have shown that poverty, High poverty in particular, delivers a direct impact on students’ in areas such as cognitive struggles (e.g., Nelson and Sheridan 2011), poorly prepared and less qualified teaching force (Goldhaber et al. 2015), and poor instruction and instructional resources (Schmidt et al. 2015). High poverty also has many other indirect impacts on students and teachers such as class size, teacher salary, and behavioral challenges to name a few. It should not surprise anyone that students in High poverty schools receive the lowest academic experiences in science. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results show that poverty has a substantial influence on all students’

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

507

performance (Rutkowskia et al. 2018). Furthermore, Rutkowski and his team agree that poverty is linked to race, and because of overrepresentation from African American and Hispanic groups in the poverty data, there needs to be caution when interpreting relationship between poverty and academic achievement (Garcia 2015; Hemphill and Vanneman 2011). Not just academically, poverty also affects families and students in other ways such as limited opportunities for experiential learning through access to parks and recreation, museums, healthcare facilities, grocery stores, and playgrounds, as examples. These poverty-related challenges faced by families and children magnify the poor academic performance of children in school, potential for graduation, and future economic gains. High poverty also influences mental health, homeownership, wealth accumulation, financial mobility, and various other stressors that have negative consequences for adults and children. Specifically, the effects of High poverty, which is an acute measure of poverty, are even more severe on school-going children and families in all aspects of their lives. In the context of science education, the consequences of High poverty have been shown to be extremely detrimental to poor students. Many of these students, as they progress through K-12 schooling, have grown to dislike science and receive inadequate science courses such as fewer opportunities to participate in lab-based science activities (Change the Equation [CTE] 2016). Some of the sobering statistics based on the National Center for Education Statistics [NCES 2016] and CTE (2016) show that a little less than half, or 47%, of High poverty elementary schools provide hands-on activities to students as little as once a week. In the middle school, only 82% of High poverty schools have science labs for eighth graders. This number gets worse for the High poverty high schools. At the high school level, only 43% of the High poverty schools in the USA provide physics for 12th graders. A strong implication of the data on students who attend High poverty schools is that they continuously experience learning disadvantages throughout their K-12 schooling. Science education scholars and others who have explored teaching and learning in High poverty schools have found that students in these schools continuously underperform compared to their peers in middle and affluent schools (Bryan and Atwater 2002; Hewson et al. 2001; Darling-Hammond 2014; Riddle 2014). Similarly research also indicates that High poverty schools are concentrated in urban centers where most of the underrepresented, marginalized, and immigrant groups live and their children attend these schools (Calabrese Barton 2001; Rodriguez 2001; Upadhyay 2006). Racial minority teachers make up 20% of the US public school teachers (NCES 2019). The same report from NCES also indicated that schools with more than 90% non-White students had 55% White teachers. This imbalance becomes even more acute in High poverty schools (percentage of FRPL>75%) where only 34% teachers are non-Whites (NCES 2019). Most of the White teachers tend to come from middle-class families compared to their students. Therefore, science teaching and learning in High poverty urban schools has its own complex and layered challenges. In this chapter, I present current research findings and future potential works that science education researchers could pursue to better understand science teaching and learning in High poverty urban schools. Before exploring relevant research literature, theories, and findings, readers may benefit from knowing how I have conceptualized the meaning of a dominant group.

508

B. Upadhyay

What Is a Dominant Group? A dominant group is a racial/ethnic group that “exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources” (Doane 1997, p. 376). This creates unbalanced distribution of resources at all levels of social, economic, and political lives. In everyday situations, dominant group members believe that their social and cultural practices, values, and beliefs are the norms; thus, they fail to experience cultural and social differences. Dominant groups enjoy the privilege of being the mainstream culture and that culture is assumed to be adopted and practiced by all ethnic and racial groups, thus creating a culture of everyone despite differences between different ethnic groups. This idea of unitary culture promotes the view of “culturelessness or being the same as everybody else” (Doane 1997, p. 378) and necessitating nondominant groups to learn both the dominant group’s culture and their own culture. In terms of privilege and struggles, dominant groups generally tend to highlight their struggles but ignore privileges the groups enjoy (McIntosh 1989). The influence of a dominant group easily permeates into all aspects of education creating disadvantages to members of nondominant groups.

What Is Culture? Culture is central to how individuals make sense of science and why culture is central to making science learning essential to students in High poverty urban schools because of immense diversity of experiences that students bring into classrooms. Since culture is not monolithic, culture is understood differently depending on the context, experiences, and values and beliefs of groups and individuals. Varied experiences and contexts make culture dynamic and evolving with time and space. For the purposes of this chapter, I draw from the following definition of culture in connection to science education recognizing that some scholars will have a different framework of culture: . . .. culture is as much an individual, psychological construct as it is a social construct. To some extent, culture exists in each and every one of us individually as much as it exists as a global, social construct. Individual differences in culture can be observed among people in the degree to which they adopt and engage in the attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors that, by consensus, constitute their culture. . . . acting in accordance with those values or behaviors [means the] culture resides in a person; but not sharing those values or behaviors means the person does not share that culture. . . . the blend of culture in anthropology and sociology as a macroconcept and in psychology as an individual construct makes understanding culture difficult...failure in the past to recognize the existence of individual differences in constructs and concepts of culture has undoubtedly aided in the formation and maintenance of stereotypes. (Matsumoto 1996, p. 18) Everyone is simultaneously a member of several different cultural groups and thus could be said to have multicultural membership [having multiple identities].

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

509

. . .because each group of institution [community, school, etc.] places individuals in different experiential worlds, and because culture derives in part from this experience, each of these groups and institutions can be a potential container for culture. Thus, no population can be adequately characterized as a single culture or by a single cultural descriptor. As a corollary, the more complexly organized a population is on sociological grounds (class, region, ethnicity, and so on), the more complex will its cultural mappings appear. This is why the notion of “subculture(s)” is needed. (Avruch 1998, pp. 17–18)

High Poverty and Concentrated Poverty Scholars, the US Census Bureau, and reports from various organizations use “High poverty” and “concentrated poverty” as terms that define the levels of economic poverty in a neighborhood based on income below federal threshold and the percentage of students who receive free and reduced-priced lunch (FRPL) in school (Bryan and Atwater 2002; NCES 2010; Rutkowskia et al. 2018; Todd 2003). Most of the times, federal threshold and FRPL are used interchangeably to define a community where the poverty level is dire and the social and public infrastructures for the well-being and education of the community are extremely low quality and scarce. What does High poverty or concentrated poverty mean? Why High poverty and concentrated poverty need to be better understood for the purposes of science education research in High poverty urban contexts?

What Is High Poverty or Concentrated Poverty Community? A High poverty community is a community where the majority of residents are extremely poor. The Census Bureau describes concentrated poverty or High poverty community as a geographic area (also known as census tract) where 40% or more families live under the federal poverty line (Todd 2003). In 2020, the federal poverty level for a family of four is $26,200 per year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2020). In many studies, researchers have considered communities with 20% or more families living below poverty line as a High poverty community (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2019). I think how the Census Bureau defines High poverty community based on the census tract would be beneficial to understand the geographic nature of High poverty community. A census tract is a geographic area defined by the Census Bureau for analyzing the population living in the area. The size of a census tract is between 1,200 and 8,000 people, and most census tracts are about 4,000 people in size. Therefore, a census tract is considered to provide reasonably stable clusters of families, so the data gathered over time and geographical regions could be a good basis for understanding comparable issues for policy development and actions. There are several important characteristics of census tracts that science education researchers should consider when they are exploring High poverty communities and schools. First, the schools in High poverty communities get less school funding because of low property value, thus receiving reduced funding per

510

B. Upadhyay

student affecting educational resources and support programs for English language learners, special needs, and science specialists (e.g., Baker and Corcoran 2012; Biddle and Berliner 2002; Chingos and Blagg 2017). Second, the teachers in these schools are paid much less than at the more well-to-do communities because younger and less experienced teachers are placed in these schools and make much less than senior colleagues (e.g., Clotfelter et al. 2008; Fowler 2003) and many of these teachers do not live in the same neighborhood as the school. Third, families, specifically the adults, hold multiple low-paying hazardous jobs with very little time left to support their children’s schooling (e.g., Albrecht and Upadhyay 2018; Biblarz and Raftery 1999; Flouri and Buchanan 2004; Steele et al. 2009; Zellman and Waterman 1998). Fourth, most refugee and immigrants with financial hardships add new cultural diversity but also exert multiple burdens on school resources and support systems (e.g., Albrecht and Upadhyay 2018, 2020; Chiswick and Miller 2008; Portes and Hao 2004). Fifth, physical infrastructure and wellness systems are poor and overcrowded (e.g., Murillo and Román 2011). Sixth, many children have multiple burdens such as caring for younger siblings, preparing food, and maintaining the home on top of school works. Seventh, schools have scarce science and other educational resources (e.g., Cohen et al. 2003; Spillane et al. 2001). Eight, schools have less wellprepared teachers in general and science teachers in particular with very high turnover rates (e.g., Ingersoll 2004; Simon and Johnson 2015). Therefore, understanding science teaching and learning in a High poverty school context is a layered business with multiple factors influencing students,’ teachers’, parents’, and school administrators’ experiences (Gallard et al. 2020). Success in science teaching and learning is dependent on how well science educators understand the challenges and possibilities in these schools intertwined with social, political, cultural, historical, class, gendered, and racial issues at all levels of science teaching and learning.

High Poverty in School-Based Research Scholars, school districts, researchers, and community organizations that work with schools tend to use FRPL programs as a proxy for High poverty. According to the federal guideline (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2020), children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty level are eligible for free meals in school. Those whose families make 130–185 percent of the poverty level their children are eligible for reduced-price meals in school and are considered low-poverty families (Ralston et al. 2008). There are several reasons that science education researchers use FRPL as a marker for High poverty: FRPL and district level poverty data are strongly correlated; socioeconomic status of families and FRPL have a strong correlation; and FRPL tend to be used as a measure of High poverty in almost all research (NCES 2010), thus providing consistency and comparability among studies. Consistency and comparability among studies provides a much more robust evidence and support for science education that is equity and

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

511

social justice oriented, pedagogically culturally relevant, locally meaningful, personally transformative, and academically successful.

Demographic Imperatives of High Poverty Urban Communities In the USA High poverty schools are concentrated in urban centers. According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation ( 2019) report on High poverty children, 8.5 million or 12% of all children are living in extremely poor communities. Similarly, the report also shows that there are extreme racial disparities in who lives in High poverty communities. For example, based on the most recent American Community Survey data (U.S. Census Bureau 2018; Annie E. Casey Foundation 2019), almost 75% of children in High poverty come from African American, Hispanic, and Native American communities. In the case of African Americans, their chance of living in High poverty community is four times higher than non-White Hispanic, and this is true for Hispanics as well (Jargowsky 2006). Similarly, a large percentage of Native American children, almost 28% (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2019), perpetually live in poor communities making them the largest group among all groups in terms of the percentage of the children in High poverty (National Academies of Sciences [NAEP] 2019). Another group of people that is generally a part of the High poverty communities is recent immigrants from poorer countries. Many immigrant groups arrive in the USA because of war, famine, political unrest, and political and religious prosecutions, leaving their economic, cultural, and social wealth behind. A small portion of immigrants arrive in the USA as educated and high-skilled labors, and they were mostly educated and financially stable in their birth countries and mostly succeed in the newly adopted home too. Analysis of Census Bureau data by Suro et al. (2011) at the Brookings Institute indicates that most immigrants tend to live in poor or High poverty communities around urban centers. Urban centers are attractive because of easier access to jobs, resettlement programs with low-cost housing, and kinship with their cultural groups. One of the great challenges for many immigrants in the USA is disrupting the stigma of negative stereotypes. The stigma of being an immigrant or belonging to an immigrant family gets more complicated for undocumented immigrant families. For youth and young adults from undocumented immigrant families, the challenges of education (Gonzales 2011) and everyday home lives are astronomically larger than documented immigrant families. Immigration policies of any country are structures that are mostly designed to exclude certain groups of people, mostly poor, racially and ethnically different from majority ruling class, and disadvantaged. In the case of the USA, “immigration policy is a form of structural racism: exclusionary policies provide the most permanent and broad-scale type of segregation by prohibiting groups from entering the country [legally], deporting those already here, and limiting the rights of those deemed to be threats” (Gee and Ford 2011, p. 122). Therefore, many social programs are out of the reach of immigrant families including their mental health issues (Gee and Ford 2011; Patler and Pirtle 2017) despite their large number in the USA.

512

B. Upadhyay

According to the most recent analysis (Passel and Cohn 2018), there are 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants living in the USA. The undocumented immigrants comprise the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Temporary Protected Status (TPS), asylum seekers whose applications are pending for adjudication by the immigration department, those who overstayed their visa, and also those who did not enter the USA through designated ports of entry (Passel and Cohn 2018). The DACA people are those who arrived in the USA when they were minors, but the TPS people are those who are from countries that suffered natural disaster or armed conflict so severe that they cannot return to their home countries after their US visa expires. For example, Haitians in the USA received TPS after the massive earthquake in 2010, Nepalis after the 2015 earthquake, Syrians since the civil war 2012, and Honduras since 1999 after Hurricane Mitch. Therefore, undocumented immigrants comprise diverse groups of people who contribute to a community’s economic and cultural growth and diversity but live in constant fear of being sent back to their home country. The trauma of potential deportation at any time weighs on their mental and psychological health. Above all, the children and youth who live with undocumented immigrant families attend High poverty schools and struggle to complete high school diploma or continue to college (Gelatt and Zong 2018). The layered nature of immigration status of immigrant families in the USA makes success of their children in schools much more challenging to attain than their mostly White peers. Similarly, for teachers, immigration status combined with High poverty of their students and the school they work in requires greater sensitivities to students’ home cultures and academic struggles. The demographic makeup of the High poverty urban schools with a high number of students from immigrant families clearly makes these schools culturally, linguistically, racially, and experientially richer than more homogeneous schools in middleand high-income communities (Owens et al. 2016). This richness of culture and experiences gives science teachers greater opportunities to leverage students’ diversities to enhance learning experiences and at the end help all High poverty students obtain academic success. Science teachers in particular could further benefit by drawing from the abundance of sociocultural, historical, sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and linguistic experiences and knowledge of these students in science teaching and learning, thus making science intimately personal and meaningful to the students.

Teaching Science in High Poverty Urban High School Teaching science in High poverty urban schools is very challenging to any teacher of any racial and ethnic background. The scarcity of resources, dilapidated infrastructures, inappropriate curriculum, teacher attrition, emotional toll, and poor health and nutrition excessively drain teachers’ energy, and many do not survive in these urban schools (e.g., Calabrese Barton and Osborne 1995; Brown 2006; Fordham 1996; Fradd and Lee 1999; Kozol 1992; Rivera Maulucci 2013; Ogbu 1994; Upadhyay et al. 2017). Above all, the single most important factor that makes science teachers’

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

513

jobs overwhelmingly challenging in High poverty urban schools are differing historical experiences that create dissonance between mostly White teachers and their students who are mostly non-White.

Challenges for High Poverty Urban Schools in Science Teaching Differences in student performance between High poverty and affluent schools are documented well in urban schools globally (e.g., Aaronson et al. 2007; Caponera and Losito 2016; Hopland 2013; Thomson et al. 2012; Upadhyay et al. 2005, 2020; Zahur et al. 2002). However, studies show that teachers can make significant difference in High poverty students’ learning and their academic success (DarlingHammond 2003; Darling-Hammond and Youngs 2002; Rockoff 2004; Rivkin et al. 2005). Furthermore, Daniel Aaronson, Lisa Barrow, and William Sanderal (2007) showed that teachers’ influence on academic gain and the value they add in student learning vary strongly within and between High poverty schools. These variations on student learning are the cumulative results of: (i) Teacher qualifications in High poverty schools (Clotfelter et al. 2005; Goldhaber and Anthony 2007) (ii) Teachers leaving High poverty schools for lower-needs (low-poverty) schools in the district (Boyd et al. 2005; Clotfelter et al. 2005; Feng 2009; Ingersoll 2001; Ingersoll et al. 2012; Marinell and Coca 2013; Ronfeldt et al. 2013) (iii) Accountability pressures on High poverty urban schools (Darling-Hammond 2004) Therefore, many urban schools are filled with science and other subject area teachers who have the least experience and subpar pedagogical skills (Borman and Dowling 2008; Clotfelter et al. 2006; Ingersoll 2001). One other factor that has dramatically put undue burden on High poverty urban schools is the accountability system that relies on testing as the measure of teacher effectiveness and student success. When many states in the USA sought school and teacher accountability through content knowledge tests, High poverty urban school teachers had to focus on students passing the mandated standardized tests in literacy and math in early grades and science in later grades (Settlage and Meadows 2002). This had a direct negative impact on science teaching and student learning outcomes. The drive for measuring teacher effectiveness through standardized test scores received the greatest boost right after the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. In states like Texas, Florida, and Illinois, school accountability produced centrally controlled science curriculum; test-focused instruction; discrimination against African American, Hispanic, Asians, and special needs students; and testfocused teacher performance measures (Berliner and Biddle 1995; Biddle and Berliner 2002; Brewer et al. 2015). These ill-advised policy outcomes tied urban science teachers’ hand availing them with fewer opportunities to modify the science curriculum based on student needs. High poverty urban schools, in accountabilityfocused states, curtailed science teachers’ opportunity to make science learning more

514

B. Upadhyay

authentic and highly disconnected to their personal and local urban issues (Buxton 2005; Settlage and Meadows 2002; Tobin et al. 2001). Test-focused accountability creates inequities and distrust between White teachers and students from underrepresented groups. In these schools, science teaching and learning became less inquiry based without hands-on and minds-on inquiry learning opportunities. Many teachers in these schools reluctantly accepted reduced inquiry science teaching and increased teacher-controlled rote learning with a focus on the state-mandated tests (Dworkin and Tobe 2014). Negative pressures in High poverty urban schools have a long-term effect on science teachers and most importantly on students of color, mostly African American, Asians, Hispanic, and documented and undocumented immigrants. One factor that uniquely influences science teaching and learning is resources to engage students in inquiry-based science learning. From a social justice perspective, equity in resource distribution and opportunity to use these resources are essential for science education to be equitable and socially just (Calabrese Barton and Upadhyay 2010). Science teachers in any grade level rely on science resources and tools to teach science effectively and engagingly. High school science teachers cannot teach science in an authentic way if a school does not have resources of durable such as microscopes, beakers, measuring tools, smoke ventilators, and premade slides as examples and consumable goods to include chemicals, cell samples, and paper filters. Recent studies show that teachers leave High poverty urban schools not because they do not want to teach students who need them the most but because of the scarcity of resources and poor working conditions in these schools (Johnson et al. 2012). Many science teachers and teachers in general who work in High poverty urban schools struggle to give excellent learning opportunities to students because they lack teaching tools (Cochran-Smith and DudleyMarling 2012; Johnson and Birkeland 2003). Yet, studies have shown that science and other teachers in High poverty schools work in these schools because they are committed to social justice and the “humanistic” value of teaching (Achinstein et al. 2010, p. 71; Suriel and Atwater 2012). Therefore, teachers maybe not escape from hard-to-teach students but are seeking shelter from the perennial trauma of not being able to be the best teacher for the neediest students. Based on the most recent analysis of teacher surveys (Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond 2017), math and science teachers leave High poverty schools at more than 70% higher rate than at non-High poverty schools. This rate of teacher loss has similar impact on students’ learning as taught by out of subject area teachers.

State of Science Teaching in High Poverty Urban High Schools Science teaching in High poverty urban schools is both rewarding and challenging at the same time. It is rewarding to teachers, students, and parents because these schools bring multicultural groups of families and individuals in one space who have come to learn from each other’s lived experiences, knowledge, and ideas. The diversity of experiences and knowledge makes science teaching and learning intellectually and culturally uplifting. Yet, teachers and students face many expected and

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

515

unexpected challenges while engaging in school science contents and with each other because of social, cultural, political, linguistic, and religious differences in values and beliefs. Despite these challenges, effective and dedicated science teachers are essential in High poverty schools if students and community are to have any kind of future successes.

High Academic Expectations in Science Research in science education shows that students learn better and succeed academically when teachers have high academic expectations (Deschenes et al. 2001; Hewson et al. 2001). This is specifically true for High poverty schools where the tendencies of many teachers are to lower the academic expectations. Lower academic expectations result in lowered or watered-down science curriculum that is mostly fact based. Watered-down science curriculum (Uzuntiryaki et al. 2009) also perpetuates the beliefs in teaching to the test. Another devastating effect of watereddown science curriculum is that students are ill prepared for postsecondary education in STEM fields. Research in science education has shown that students in High poverty urban schools are capable of learning and engaging in science at a very high intellectual level (Snipes et al. 2002). Those teachers who have continuously expected rigor in their science curriculum always got high levels of engagement from their students in these schools (Norman et al. 2001). Advanced placement (AP) classes in science are very rigorous and set high academic and effort expectations from students. Many High poverty urban schools do not provide AP science course options for high school teachers and students because of the cost to run these classes and the belief that these students cannot cope with the rigor of the curriculum (The Education Trust 2013). Therefore, many students lose the opportunity to prepare themselves for postsecondary education in STEM fields. The AP participation gap between middle-income school and High poverty (more than 75% FPRL) school is 53%, and this gap shrinks to 38% for low-poverty (less than 25% FRPL) schools. However, studies have shown that when given an opportunity, science teachers are well equipped to teach these courses, and students are ready to take up the challenge and succeed. In a study (Morales-Doyle 2017) of an AP chemistry class in a High poverty urban high school with a majority of Hispanic and African American students, the teacher successfully engaged students in AP chemistry that linked complex and demanding chemistry contents with the local community problem of soil and environment pollution because of two currently decommissioned coal-fired power plants. Because lead poisoning is one of the major health hazards for High poverty urban communities, students wanted to find out if the soil contained lead. The students specifically explored the effects on the quality and health of soil by analyzing pollutants found in the neighborhood soil and linking them to the power plants. Doyle used extended case study methods (see Burawoy 2009) which required the teacher researcher to reflect and extend AP chemistry content into the larger social and political issues that the community and students lived with for many

516

B. Upadhyay

years. In order to make AP chemistry more relevant to students with a focus on social justice issues, community members were also part of the study because they had an established history of social and political activism connected to the high school. In this study, the local community concerns provided an authentic context for the teacher to link science ideas and concepts. The teacher’s deep knowledge of the community through students and community members enabled him to mix cannons of science and local issues with the larger social and political contexts. Thus, disrupting the myth that High poverty urban school students are anticipated to follow a culture of low expectation in science (Seiler et al. 2003; Songer et al. 2002) and challenging the stereotypical beliefs that African American urban students can’t succeed in science (Brandt and Carlone 2012).

Social, Cultural, and Historical Connections in Science Teaching Relationships between teachers and students are a central aspect of effective teaching and better learning outcomes. Relationships are forged through recognizing, respecting, and understanding social, cultural, and historical experiences of students to make science more connected and relevant to the learners (e.g., Atwater 2000, 2010; Atwater and Butler 2006; Ramos de Robles and Gallard 2018; Parsons 2008; Seiler 2018; Upadhyay et al. 2020). In the case of High poverty schools and communities, which are mostly inhabited by African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, and immigrant families, the values of social, cultural, and historical connections to science teaching are essential for effective teaching. Therefore, for those whose research focuses on science teaching, teachers, students, learning, curriculum, policy, and other issues connected to High poverty urban contexts, they need to be aware of the effects of social, cultural, and historical experiences. Obed Norman, Charles R. Ault Jr., Bonnie Bentz, and Lloyd Meskimen (2001), through a historical analysis of 100 years of achievement data, showed that achievement gaps in urban science classrooms were not just about racial differences between African American and other races but also about sociocultural differences because some groups that were subclass at one point in the history of the USA later on attained academic success. I believe, in the case of African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans, academic success does not come easy unless these groups get co-opted into White cultures and values. Linda C. Tillman (2002) made a call to all researchers who are working in schools and communities of African Americans that the uniqueness of African American culture, social interactions, and the history of slavery cannot be marginalized and ignored. A similar call was made by Boykin (1986) where he highlighted that teaching African Americans requires for a teacher to understand that their experiences are informed by oppressed minority status, a culture rooted in African cultures, and interaction with dominant White culture. Eileen Parsons (2008) extended Tillman and Boykin’s ideas on African American engagement in science to advocate that studying this group requires full recognition of oppressive experiences at the hands of dominant groups and the influence of African cultures. I believe the central argument of Tillman

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

517

(2002), Boykin (1986), and Parsons (2008) is that teaching and research in High poverty urban schools will be effective when teachers actively infuse historical experiences of these groups in science pedagogies and classroom discourses. Successful science teaching and learning in High poverty urban schools points us to research that have shown positive outcomes when social, cultural, and historical experiences are mixed in with science contents. In a study of African American students in High poverty urban school, Gale Seiler and Rowhea Elmesky (2007) found that drawing from students and community’s cultural, social, and symbolic knowledge aided the teacher better teach wave ideas and functions. In the class, teacher encouraged students to utilize dance movements to make sense of waves. The idea of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988) is advocated by Emdin (2007, 2010, 2016) who supports that through hip-hop and reality pedagogy, urban students can engage in science content learning as well as seeking a larger social meaning of doing and being in science. These success stories of teachers and students who developed and had positive reinforcing relationships are underscored by the recognition of diverse cultural, historical, and social experiences. When students bring symbolic capital such as artistic performances like dance, short plays, and music into a science class and a teacher dismisses them as irrelevant to learning and doing science, students can take a defensive and subversive posture that could strain student-teacher relationships and students’ desire to continue to excel in science. Yet, when the data collected by NCES in 2009 titled The High School Longitudinal Study were analyzed, the researchers found that high school students’ engagement in science increased with grade level depending on how encouraging the teachers were through their relationships with students (Kelly and Zhang 2016).

Race/Racism and Structural Recognition in Science Teaching High poverty urban schools suffer the greatest discrimination from racism, structural discrimination, and oppressive policies rooted in history. Successfully teaching science in a High poverty urban school requires a teacher to recognize many racial and structural discriminatory practices represented in science textbooks, curriculum, history, pedagogies, and culture. Many of these aspects of teaching and learning are hidden in structures, epistemologies, and ontologies of science, and they inflict symbolic violence (Bourdieu 1977) on many students of color. Many science education and other researchers saw racial discrimination in teachers’ academic expectations and course taking of students from African American, Hispanic, and other students from underrepresented groups (Chang and Sue 2003; Russell and Atwater 2005; Solorzano and Ornelas 2004). Daniel G. Solorzano and Armida Ornelas (2004) found that teachers and schools actively discouraged African American students from taking AP courses even in good schools; so, a lack of AP courses in High poverty urban schools is not a surprise. Similarly, students and parents of these students from Hispanic, Native American, Asian, and other recent immigrant groups have shared experiencing similar discouraging racial and structural practices in schools they attended (Albrecht and Upadhyay 2018; Chau and Feagin 2008;

518

B. Upadhyay

Upadhyay and Gifford 2011). In the current COVID-19 global pandemic health crisis, Asian Americans have endured racism in the USA, and some have experienced life-threating situations from xenophobic groups. The irony is that the White-dominant group has perpetuated a model minority myth about Asian Americans as a successful group in education and STEM professions. Why racism persists and why racist practices are enduring in various forms in schools and institutions? Race is a social creation. People’s culture profoundly influences their actions, practices, values, beliefs, language, meaning making and meaning giving, and successes and failures. Race allows dominant groups to classify themselves and other groups in hierarchies of power. This classification then seeps into other aspects of human social, economic, and political lives that ranks groups into superior and inferior legitimizing inequalities in all aspects of human relationships. Furthermore, colonization of tribes, nations, and cultures by Western powers over centuries has attempted to legitimize race as a universal human phenomenon despite it being not true. In order to make race as omnipresent in all cultures and histories, dominant White Europeans used Western science to argue that race is inherently biological (Smedley 1998), therefore permanent forever. In the US context, race has historically played an outsized influence in resource distribution, education, economy, wealth distribution, health systems, infrastructures, environmental hazards, legal system, and STEM fields. In order to give race an irrefutable objective classification, biologists used cranial shape, brain size, craniofacial measurements, lip size and shape, eye color and shape, hair color and texture, nose shape and size, teeth and mouth shape, limb lengths, body shape and size, skin color, and other phenotypes as a scientific way of recognizing race as legitimate classification (Fuentes 2012; Relethford and Crawford 2013). All of these phenotypes were measured against the Caucasian or White characteristics of beauty, intelligence, and cultural preferences that could easily show that non-Caucasians or non-Whites would fail the so-called objective measurements. In recent times, the analysis of human beings from different races and geographical regions shows that about 75 percent of genes are exactly the same (Fuentes 2012; Relethford and Crawford 2013). The DNA sequences in the genes carry instructions for what kinds of phenotype get expressed. However, many variations in human genes are random and take place through natural processes such as mutation, genetic flow, genetic drift, and natural selection. Thus, the variation in the DNA sequence produces variability in how people look (Jurmain et al. 2014). For example, sickle cell disease seen more frequently among African Americans and other groups like the Tharus in Nepal (Upadhyay et al. 2020) who live in regions of the world where malaria is prevalent is an adaptation to the environment against the malaria parasite. Because diseases create fear in people, dominant groups create discriminatory myths against a racial group and perpetuate racism in subtle and not so subtle ways. This implies that diseases can give power to dominant groups to exclusively discriminate against those who suffer from the ill effects of a disease such

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

519

as chronic pain from sickle disease and inheriting from parents when both carry sickle cell genes. The major goal of racial science was to categorize people into hierarchical ladders to support the prevailing power and inequitable social and political structures (Smedley and Smedley 2012). Furthermore, the racial science promoted racial categories as “castes,” like in the Hindu traditional social hierarchy, in which a person is born but can never get out of it. This gave colonizers and Whites permanent power over anyone who did not look like them. There is strong evidence from science and most biological and social anthropologists (Carmill 1998; Lieberman and Reynolds 1996; Smedley and Smedley 2005; Yelvington et al. 2015) that race has no scientific basis but rather is completely based on political, cultural, and historical sociocultural contextual factors. The expansion of European and other colonial powers found an effective way to rule over the others and by validating race-based inequalities in all walks of lives (Smedley and Smedley 2012). For many science teachers, race may not “exist” in their personally privileged White experiences, but for marginalized groups, race is a reality that is perpetuated in science textbooks, curriculum, tests, and pedagogies (Mutegi 2013; Parsons 2014; Brotman et al. 2011; Rascoe and Atwater 2005; Seiler 2018). In the context of the USA, slavery and Native reservations became the most painful effects of using race. The enduring effect of race on non-Whites specifically African Americans, Hispanics, Natives, and Asians persists. Research in science teacher education clearly indicates that many teachers feel challenged to learn and implement equity-based pedagogy that is constructed on critical theory (e.g., CRP, Funds of Knowledge) to challenge racism in science (Bianchini and Solomon 2003; Braaten and Sheth 2017). The struggle for many science teachers is the disconnect between race-sensitive pedagogies such as sociocultural nature of learning and CRP and their own position in the larger social structures (Brotman et al. 2011; Mensah 2009; Rodriguez 2005). Because most science teachers have learned science through universalistic lens, they tend to find racism outside of science teaching and in content areas like social studies and English literature. This colors their views about race and racism by making sense through their points of views rather than those who experience it (Larkin et al. 2016). Many teacher education and professional development programs tend to tackle race in the context of science teaching; these efforts have been lacking in large areas of the country (Atwater et al. 2014; Brown and Crippen 2017; Warren and Rosebery 2011). The question that is in front of many science teachers, parents, educators, researchers, policy makers, and schools is: how can we create a type of science teaching and learning that challenges and disrupts racism and advocates for equity for all but is specifically inclusive of students from underrepresented groups? There are several theories and ideas that have been put forward to make science teaching effective and respectful for High poverty urban schools because these schools are overwhelmingly attended by students from underrepresented and immigrant groups.

520

B. Upadhyay

Danger of Deficit Thinking in Science Teaching New teachers and teachers who come from White middle-class families are sometimes the most vulnerable to the social representations of urban poverty and poor urban students. Living lives so culturally distant from their students, these teachers . . .need to understand both the communities in which poor urban students live and the nature of their daily lives. . . These are also teachers and teacher education students who – moving to the other end of the spectrum – sometimes develop an unhealthy desire to “save” or “rescue” poor Latino or African American students. In this mode such teachers see the cultural capital of white middle-class lifestyles as the antidote to “urbanness.” These rescuers are missionaries who bring salvation through “proper ways of being.” Urban teacher[s] . . . must work to help teachers avoid the prejudiced view of poor urban students as dangerous criminals incapable of learning or, at the other extreme, as communicants who may be reformed by the gospel of white culture as pedagogy. [Kincheloe 2010, p. 11]

Kincheloe’s concern clearly underscores the origins of deficit thinking in teachers and how a “savior” (p. 11) mentality further perpetuates unhealthy pedagogical choices. Even though the model of deficit thinking that can explain why High poverty urban schools fail to show academic gain has been debunked, it has persisted in the mainstream culture (Valencia and Solórzano 1997). Richard Valencia and Daniel Solorzano suggested that there are three models of deficit thinking that generally get utilized to explain the struggles of teachers’ effectiveness in teaching in High poverty urban schools – “genetic pathology, culture of poverty, and environment and culture of deficit” (p. 161). Most of the genetic explanation relied on the correlation between IQ test scores and race (Dunn 1987) without focusing on the cultural linguistic, and social biases contained in the IQ test items that favored middle-class white individuals (Berliner 1988; Fernandez 1988; Richwine 2009). Culture of poverty is prevalent among a number of White science teachers of High poverty schools (Darling-Hammond 2004; Mutegi et al. 2018; Parsons 2008; Russell and Atwater 2005; Upadhyay 2020). For example, many High poverty urban science teachers are less well prepared to teach science to diverse groups of students in urban schools so they rely on culture of poverty in their pedagogy (Atwater and Butler 2006; Ladson-Billings 2006; Lavigne et al. 2007; Lynch et al. 2005; Norman et al. 2001). The culture of poverty in teaching generally focuses on behavioral and punitive classroom management rather than on critical thinking, inquiry, scientific writing skills, and comprehension skills (Haberman 1991). Therefore, urban science teachers who do not have cultural sensitivities and awareness of High poverty urban communities could prolong pedagogy of poverty through myths, for example, the parents of the poor devalue education (Compton-Lilly 2003; National Center for Education Statistics 2005; Ortiz and Briggs 2003), students are lazy and unmotivated (Iversen and Farber 1996; National Center for Children in Poverty 2004; Wilson 1997), and language skills are not up to par with White students (Bomer et al. 2008). In order to disrupt the myths of poverty of culture and the science pedagogies contextualized within, it is necessary to educate and prepare science teachers to

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

521

recognize the everyday scarce realities of higher-poverty urban communities. Additionally, it is important to prepare science teachers who work in these schools to value and strategically utilize the social and cultural experiences of students in science teaching. A deficit thinking model views environment and culture of people who are not from the mainstream cultures with homogenous experiences as them as inferior. The failures of ill-prepared science teachers, high attrition rate among teachers, and culturally insensitive pedagogies are not highlighted as to likely explanation as to why students in High poverty urban schools fail to succeed academically and drop out before completing high school. Failure to recognize that home environment of students is varied and their cultural experiences and values are different from school science environment and culture made science teacher either pedagogically poor or leave these schools early. Many science teachers succeed in High poverty urban schools because they create spaces that allow students to interact with science content that values students’ home environment and culture. Norman et al. (2001) termed the space where science teachers can let students interact with science content, teacher culture, and student culture “cultural interface zones” (p. 1103). S. Lizette Ramos de Robles and Alejandro Gallard M. (2018) refer to these spaces as social fields where students and teachers are agents of their teaching and learning and display their agency as they work to achieve their goals in the science classroom. In this sense, each cultural experience that is enacted individually positions a student within a range of social settings and is uniquely interpreted and integrated by an individual and constantly enacted in their science classroom (Ramos de Robles 2018). I believe the challenge for urban White teachers is how to connect their culture with students’ culture in that each compliment and support science learning. Thus, teachers have to be able to forge relationships between students’ culture and their culture that allows for engagement in science practices and activities for academic success and personal transformation (Calabrese Barton et al. 2008; Craig 2009; Upadhyay et al. 2020).

Cultural Relevancy in Science Pedagogy Most scholars of education agree that congruence and connections between students’ culture and classroom teaching and content are central to effective pedagogies and better learning (Banks 1993, 1996; Banks and McGee Banks 2004; Delpit 2001; Ladson-Billings 1994, 1995, 1999, 2004, 2006, 2014; Gay 2002; Frederick and Gutierrez 2002; González et al. 2005; Lave and Wenger 1999; Rogoff 1990; Shockley and Frederick 2010; Sleeter 1993, 2012; Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg 1992). In science education, which has its own unique culture and subcultures, the connections between science culture and students’ home culture are essential for meaningful teaching (Aikenhead 2006; Aikenhead and Jegede 1999; Atwater 1996, 2000; Bryan and Atwater 2002; Rahm 2010; Rahm et al. 2003). There is an acute recognition that High poverty urban science teaching has to infuse students’ sociocultural experiences in content learning. There are several theories that have

522

B. Upadhyay

proposed attributes of successful pedagogical decisions and ideas to make science teaching effective for diverse students who attend High poverty schools. I will explore several of them in this section.

Culturally Relevant/Responsive Pedagogy in Science Culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) was proposed by Ladson-Billings (1994, 1995) as a theory of teaching and learning in the context of African American students. The theory drew from critical race theory to argue that teaching needs to be inclusive of cultures and experiences of students and communities whose cultures and ways of learning have been excluded or devalued in everyday classrooms. Ladson-Billings proposed three key features of CRP on which teachers need to anchor their dispositions and attitudes about teaching to students from underrepresented groups. First, teachers need to focus on producing academic success. Second, teaching must help students develop positive cultural identities and help attain academic success. Third, teaching must support students to gain skills “to recognize, understand, and critique current and social inequalities” (Ladson-Billings 1995, p. 476) which is gaining sociopolitical consciousness (SPC). Among the three key goals of CRP, SPC has been the most challenging goal to attain in science classrooms (Ladson-Billings 2014; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Sleeter 2012; Upadhyay et al. 2017, 2020). However, if science teachers were to pivot their teaching dispositions and attitude along these three goals of CRP, they could substantially improve High poverty urban students’ science experiences both in academic performance and in sociopolitical engagement. Geneva Gay (2002, 2010) on the other hand proposed culturally responsive pedagogy. Gay’s framework of culturally responsive teaching draws from Ladson-Billings framework but emphasizes teaching in which a teacher’s competence and methods should be culturally inclusive. Culturally responsive teaching focuses on social and academic empowerment, cultural validation, and emancipatory and liberatory educational practices. Therefore, Gay and LadsonBillings both support an asset-based framework for teaching students from diverse cultural backgrounds. Another scholar who has expanded culturally relevant pedagogy is Django Paris (2012). He specifically argues that culturally responsive pedagogy needs to include learners’ identities and their evolving culture. Therefore, he proposes culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) because effective urban teachers not only make learning culturally relevant but also sustain their core culture passed down over generations but also their new culture (Paris and Alim 2017). In all of these different variations in teaching, these three scholars support teaching in schools that values diverse cultural experiences. Their ideas disrupt a deficit model of teaching and encourage teachers to make learning reflect community values and beliefs. Cultural incongruency between urban high school students and teachers is one of the root causes of dissensions and dislike of science (Emdin 2011b; Moscovici 2009; Schaderman 2011; Seiler 2018). Students exhibit behavioral issues and distance

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

523

from science because their cultural practices get reprimanded in favor of White school cultural practices in science (Tobin 2006). In an urban science class study (Tobin 2006), a student from Cuban African origin used his voice and pitch in a manner that his teacher took it as inappropriate, and the teacher rejected his contribution to the classroom interactions. This resulted in disruption in the class and the teacher’s authority questioned. Thus, this action showed that rule following established by science teachers was the path to success rather than cognitive and critical thinking (Griffard and Wandersee 1999; Seiler 2001; Tobin et al. 1999).

Sociocultural and Situated Nature of Science Teaching Incorporation of culture, social experiences at home, race, language, and history are essential aspects of effective teaching practices. Sociocultural (Vygotsky 1978) and situated (Lave and Wenger 1991) learning argues that for effective and transformational learning, teachers need to consider classroom teaching as social engagements. In these engagements, students bring their social, cultural, and everyday experiences from home and other social interactions to make sense of what they are learning and why. This means that students bring the entirety of themselves to a classroom. Both of these ideas support that science teaching practices and instructional designs to promote science learning need to let students engage in active interactions with their peers through exchange of ideas (Palincsar 1998; Tobin 1993). Teachers in High poverty urban science classrooms need to recognize that science learning is a social and economic activity (I will touch on the economics of learning or education later in this chapter) where the learners see themselves within science and see value in science contents and practices they are learning. Therefore, what science learning means to a student depends on how science ideas interact with their current knowledge. As students are making sense of learning, their learning is socially mediated because students are actively interacting with the culture of peers and the teacher (Atwater 1996; Von Glaserfeld 1993; Mutegi et al. 2018; Tobin 1993). Kris Gutiérrez and Barbara Rogoff (2003) extended sociocultural nature of teaching and learning to recognize and alert teachers and researchers that culture is dynamic. Thus, students from diverse home experiences bring their core cultural experiences which were passed down through generation and more stable cultural identities as well as new cultural experiences through other new engagements with others (Gutiérrez 2002; Rogoff 2003). Since many new immigrants tend to start their lives in the USA in High poverty urban communities, their children attend High poverty schools adding new knowledge regarding sociocultural values, beliefs, languages, and practices, for teachers to recognize in science teaching. Therefore, teaching in High poverty urban schools requires teachers to be aware of both kinds of sociocultural experiences. The major argument from Gutiérrez and Rogoff is that teachers need to consider the dynamic nature of culture and should evolve their understanding of culture accordingly in order to make science learning more connected to diverse students (Brand et al. 2006; Brown and Mutegi 2010;

524

B. Upadhyay

Mutegi 2011; Paris and Alim 2017; Rosebery and Hudicourt-Barnes 2006; Upadhyay et al. 2017). Congruency between the cultures (Moje et al. 2001) of students and science is central for teachers to show that science can be done and engaged with when multiple cultures are allowed to form an amalgam culture (Hogan and Corey 2001). As the culture of science and cultures of urban students mix, it creates tensions between a science teacher and the students. This could either aid students to become more agentic in their learning, if the teacher supported and valued students’ culture over the science culture.

Multicultural Education in Science Teaching Multicultural education is closely tied to the issue of social justice (Nieto and Bode 2018) and inclusion of cultures that are different from mainstream dominant cultures (Banks 2016; Ladson-Billings 1995). Banks (2016) started the push for multicultural education to address the academic needs of African American urban students. He argued that without recognizing dissonance between the culture of schooling in US schools, which mostly serve underrepresented non-White students, and the cultures of students’ homes, disparities in educational experiences continue to persist. In order to make science teaching and learning more compatible, science teachers and science curricular developers need to bring multicultural experiences at the center of all classroom activities (Brown and Crippen 2017; Stanley and Brickhouse 2001; Suriel and Atwater 2012). Banks (2016) suggests four levels of cultural integration in teaching and curriculum – “contributory approach, additive approach, transformation approach, and social action approach” (Touré 2008, p. 17). One of the challenges to High poverty urban school science teachers, who mostly represent White middle class, is the lack of reflection on their own culture and a deeper understanding of students’ cultures. This imbalance makes science teachers infuse cultural and social knowledge and practices at the surface level without deeply connecting to broader sociopolitical, sociocultural, and historical experiences and problems (Brown et al. 2018; Civitillo et al. 2019). In High poverty urban schools, very few science teachers are able to, or are committed to, making their pedagogy and practices transformative for students and encourage students to seek to take social change actions and personal transformation (Brown et al. 2018; Sleeter 2012). Science education research focused on High poverty urban schools shows that many teachers still struggle to incorporate students’ sociocultural experiences in their pedagogies despite its benefits (e.g., Brown and Mutegi 2010). In many research publications related to science education at the High poverty urban high schools, the research on teaching science for personal and social transformation and change is still lacking. Much need exploring to better understand and support High poverty urban high school science teachers and students.

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

525

Funds of Knowledge in Science Teaching Learning science is about connecting science knowledge with practices and proficiencies accumulated through everyday home experiences, history, trade skills of parents, siblings, relatives, as well as neighbors and culture which are valuable resources for classroom teaching. Norma Gonzales and Luis C. Moll (2002) stated that the knowledge that students bring into the classroom is their “funds of knowledge” [FoK]. FoK places students as “people [who] are competent and have knowledge [gained] from their life experiences” (p. 625). Since FoK is based on practices of family and community, it is rooted in ways of knowing that are valued in the community (González et al. 2005; González and Moll 2002). Additionally, FoK is based on the cultural practices of a community that have been perfected over time and are passed down over generations. Therefore, FoK can engender productive and respectful relationships between learners from diverse communities and science teachers. Studies in science education have shown that incorporating FoK in High poverty urban classrooms helps to create useful bonds between classroom science learning and out-of-school learning and experiences (Bouillion and Gomez 2001; Calabrese-Barton and Tan 2009; Hammond 2001; Seiler 2001; Upadhyay 2006).

Identity and Science Teaching A major concern in science education is underrepresentation of many racially and ethnically marginalized groups (Archer et al. 2014; McGee and Bentley 2017). Underrepresentation is a product of structural and racial biases erected against those who were powerless because of systematic oppressive rules (Basu 2008; Carlone and Johnson 2007; Rosa and Mensah 2016; Seiler 2018; Upadhyay 2009b). About two decades earlier, Nancy Brickhouse, Patricia Lowery, and Katherine Schultz (2000) sent out a calling to science education, educators, policy makers, and teachers for a conscious work on science identity. In their paper, they showed a correlation between “how students thought who they are [and] how they viewed what science is” (p. 443). Even though their paper was about gender identity, they asked a profoundly important question about potential strong linkages between “identity” of marginalized students and “science.” I view identity as how a person views oneself through participating in specific activities and self-categorizing based on a membership in a particular group, community, or roles one takes (Stets and Burke 2000; Tajfel 1978). Thus, identity (identities) is a complex idea with multiple and fluid meanings based on a person’s association with a community or a group. The nature of intersectionality (Crenshaw 1991) between science, race, and identities does not give us a simple model of understanding issues connected to the lack of participation among High poverty urban high school students in science. Erik Erikson (1968), in his seminal book Identity: Youth and Crisis, argued that “oppressed and exploited minority” (p. 303) may internalize their own culture, social practices, views, and beliefs as inferior and

526

B. Upadhyay

less valuable, thus developing a negative identity of themselves and may even breed self-hatred. Groups who are from oppressed and marginalized groups can build negative views about themselves with profound negative psychological effect (Tajfel 1978). Henri Tajfel suggested that this conflict could push the oppressed group to either reject the negative views toward their group and creating their own new identity or accept the negative views directed toward them by the larger society. Research in science education and identity, specifically in High poverty urban schools, paid attention to multiple identities teachers and students took based on their social association, performance, and norms and discourses (Brown 2004; Aschbacher et al. 2010; Chinn 2002; Gee 2000; Olitsky 2007; Upadhyay 2009a). Because identity is layered and multiple depending on who, when, where, how, and for what purpose an individual is interacting or participating in an activity, there are three factors influencing identities of students who attend High poverty urban schools. They are (i) belonging and affiliation (Carlone and Johnson 2007; Schiebinger 2000; Upadhyay 2009a); (ii) external and internal attitudes (Furman and Barton 2006; Hazari et al. 2013; Maltese and Tai 2010); and (iii) minimal dissonance between school science and science practices of professional scientists (Braund and Driver 2005; Dawson 2014; Stake and Nikens 2005). In all of the research focusing on identity and science connections, a caution flag needs to be raised in two aspects, one the relationship between science identity and race and two the relationship between science identity and each of the science disciplines. Historically identity and race (Arce 1981; Smedley 1998) have a negative and detrimental effect on the most vulnerable oppressed groups including women and girls in science (Brown 2004; Carlone and Johnson 2007). Audrey Smedley (1998) puts the devastating effect of race on negative identities of African American youth and other marginalized groups in a very stark manner: . . . another element of the tragedy of racial ideology and the way it structures and constricts human identity . . . is the degree to which individuals in the low-status minority “races” have absorbed and acquiesced unconsciously to the folk beliefs [that]. . .. [the] racial worldview holds that blacks cannot achieve in any intellectual endeavor, and this has so infected our consciousness that even young black children are entrapped in the myth and inhibited from expressing intellectual curiosity. . . .. Fields like anatomy, biology, genetics, chemistry, botany, zoology, physics, mathematics, geology, geometry, and many others have been virtually closed to blacks. . . “Research” and “science” are almost unknown words in many inner-city public school systems. The irony is that this restricting of the intellectual potential of particularly black boys . . . were forms of racial repression, often subtle but experienced as a constant threat to their humanity, that prevented African Americans and Native Americans [Hispanic, Asians, and other immigrants] as free human beings from realizing their potential qualities and gifts. . . [as having intellectual human identity]. (697–698)

Smedley (1998) argues that race has an outsized influence on the identities of African American, Latinx, Asian, Native American, and immigrants more so than “religion, ethnic origin, education and training, socioeconomic class, occupation, language, values, beliefs, morals, lifestyles, geographical location, and all other human attributes” (p. 695). Therefore, science education research cannot avoid

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

527

race in its attempt to explore and understand science identities of teachers and students in High poverty urban schools. Several studies in science education have explored identities of students, and some have explored identities of science teachers (Calabrese Barton et al. 2013; Johnson et al. 2011; Rosa and Mensah 2016; Vincent-Ruz and Schunn 2018). Very few have explicitly explored the impact of race on how teachers and students from High poverty urban schools, including college, with majority of students from underrepresented families view their identities in relation to science (Carlone and Johnson 2007; Hazari et al. 2013; Moller et al. 2015; Rainey et al. 2018; Seth 2019; Upadhyay 2009a; Upadhyay et al. 2021). Science identities can be expressed by means of how teachers encourage students to participate in science discourses (Brown 2006). Bryan Brown showed that having poor cultural and linguistic connections between science and home experiences creates discomfort for diverse groups of urban students to participate in science. In order to support science learning as well as improve students’ communicative science practice, teachers need to concrete environment and communication skills that supports students’ diverse identities (Emdin 2011a; Settlage et al. 2005). Brown’s ethnographic study showed when teachers focused on enculturation of students in science and discourse practices of science, students felt cultural conflict and inequality. Students felt that they were outside of science and viewed science out of their social and cultural realm. In another study of patterns of urban high school students’ discourse practices, the researchers showed that teachers needed to find culturally suitable pedagogies that helped urban students to practice authentic scientific discursive practices (McNeill and Pimentel 2010). In a study of African American male high school students during lunchtime, Seiler (2001) found that students’ cultural and language differences were central to their identity and this knowledge could be leveraged during science learning by the science teacher. Additionally, these resources are agency and power that they could utilize for acquiring, managing, and seeking resources for the purposes of better science learning. Positionality is one of the key features of identity that intersects race, language, and culture (Murrell 2007). In a study of urban high school students where students played a researcher role, one female student created a rap to express her identities and links to her own lived experiences (Elmesky and Tobin 2005). Brown (2006) argues that students start to see themselves as bicultural when they can utilize their own experiences to define their science identity. These students are then able to cross boundaries (Aikenhead 2006) between science and their own cultures.

Morally Healing Science Teaching Good teaching relies on good relationship between teachers and students. A good relationship imposes moral and ethical responsibilities on teachers (Szostkowski and Upadhyay 2019). This is specifically true for teachers who teach science in High poverty urban schools. Most High poverty urban high school teachers, who are

528

B. Upadhyay

majority White, have to forge a caring and culturally respectful relationship with their students from diverse communities for effective teaching (Applebaum 2005). Many teachers in High poverty schools believe that their responsibility is to teach content that is “unbiased”; thus, these teachers believing that science is unbiased and absolves them from any responsibility of its negative consequences on students’ learning and participation which is “morally untenable” (Zeidler 2016, p. 13) act of teaching science. In science education, many scholars have argued that for there to be stronger linkages between science and sociohistorical or socioscientific issues, teaching has to be both an intellectual and a moral practice (Brickhouse 1992; Brotman et al. 2011; Sadler and Zeidler 2004; Tippins et al. 1993; Tobin 1992; Zeidler 1984). If teaching science to students in High poverty urban schools is about content mastery as well as broader connections to historical injustices and discriminations, then teaching cannot take place in a “moral vacuum” (Ladson-Billings and Donnor 2005; Szostkowski and Upadhyay 2019). Szostkowski and Upadhyay (2019) proposed that teaching science for social justice and social change need to be rooted in a moral responsibility framework so that science is directly connected to the historical injustices that oppressed communities and individuals endured. Therefore, if the goal of science teaching for High poverty urban students is ensuring equity in participation and success, then teachers have moral obligation and conscientiousness to engage students in science that is rooted in the communities where students live.

Economics of Science Learning Modern economy and the subsequent social benefits to the larger society are highly dependent on the production of science knowledge and its beneficial utilization in products and policies that bring positive and transformational changes in social, political, structural, economic, and educational lives of High poverty and marginalized groups. Partha Dasgupta and Paul David (1994) provide an excellent overview of how and why economics of science learning, research, and public good depends on public investment as well as attraction of diverse groups of people in the pursuit of science and related fields, technology, engineering, and mathematics. They argue that the true investment of public funding in a large national level initiative took place in the areas of sciences and engineering after the Sputnik event. This initiative was the basis for science education reform in the USA with a flurry of K-12 science education curriculum reform efforts including in K-12 teaching and learning (Frelindich 1998; National Science Foundation [NSF] 2020). However, investment in science teaching and learning through various means such as new curriculum, national and state standards, teacher professional development, assessments, and many more have failed to make significant differences in science course taking, science interest and motivation, science degrees, and science-related professions among High poverty urban youth from Black and Brown communities (e.g., Anderson 2010; Lewis and Diamond 2015; Riegle-Crumb et al. 2019). The economics of learning science or any STEM-related fields has constantly shown to make a life-

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

529

changing difference in students and communities from underrepresented groups across the globe (Patronis 2016; Tilly 1998). The analysis from the World Bank shows that every year of extra education in any field adds 5–8% of economic return to an individual and also adds to the social gains such as greater social capital through educated networking opportunities, greater access to resources, opportunity gains, better nutritional choices, etc. (Patronis 2016). These kinds of personal and social gains are amplified if an individual has a STEM-related degree because of its social standing, value in public policy, wealth enhancement, health decisions, and many more intangible gains. Furthermore, economics of science learning has a direct relationship with many social, health, political, and personal issues and better learning (e.g., Bundy 2005; Gomes-Neto et al. 1997; Hershbein and Kearney 2014; Hanushek 2013). These challenges have negative consequential results by depriving High poverty urban students in school attendance and science learning. For example, studies have shown that in most developing countries, health and nutritional problems have shunted school attendance and learning among students. Some of these problems are lack of proper and timely nutritional food (Bloom et al. 2004), crime (Lochner 2011), and infestation of parasites among school children (Miguel and Kremer 2004). These costs to learning could be minimized by greater investment in taking care of basic needs of High poverty students and by providing better infrastructures that support better science learning environments. When given the opportunities to students in High poverty schools, studies in science education have shown that students from High poverty and underrepresented groups show high and complex levels of science engagement and learning when science learning is tied to health, social, and political issues such as soil pollution (e.g., Morales-Doyle 2017), food security (e.g., Rahm 2010; Upadhyay et al. 2017), sickle cell disease (Upadhyay et al. 2020), vaccine (Upadhyay and Gifford 2011), and many more. In the end the economic cost of not learning science or not getting opportunities to learning science for High poverty and marginalized students is too high, and this loss of learning spills over into intergenerational loss of wealth, power, and better and sustainable future.

Conclusion: Implications for Science Education in High Poverty Urban Schools Science education still lags behind in its understanding of High poverty urban schools to influence teaching, curriculum, policy, and culture of science classrooms. One of the challenges in science education research and its critical consumption by teachers, school administrators, state and national science framework and standards developers (Rodriguez 2015), and policy makers is that the High poverty urban schools get hardly any attention than their academically more successful low-poverty urban schools because political voice and influence of these communities are missing. Another factor is that science education research in urban contexts tend to homogenize urban contexts as poor without any distinctions between High poverty

530

B. Upadhyay

and low-poverty schools as well as the multiple roots of poverty. Studies conducted in urban contexts such as teacher attrition and academic achievement show that there are distinct and stark differences between High poverty and low-poverty schools (Sutcher et al. 2016). When policies are developed for better science education and better science teacher preparation programs and professional developments to teach in diverse urban school contexts, educators have a tendency to completely either ignore High poverty schools as lost cause or perpetuate the myth that teachers and students are lazy, uncaring for good education, and parents and communities not valuing education. This could not be further from the truth. I have never seen or heard a parent, both as a K-12 science teacher and researcher, who does not care about their children’s better future and good education. Yet, the myth exists among teachers, administrators, policy makers, and White communities that the parents from High poverty urban communities, who are mostly from underrepresented groups, do not care about their children’s education. The shifting of blame for students’ failure and behavioral issues to parents based on which students’ parents attend parent teacher meetings is a flawed idea because parent-teacher meeting is a Western value based on White middle-class families. Many parents from High poverty urban communities, unlike White middle-class families, cannot attend these meetings because of multiple jobs, unreliable transportation, fewer social capital, complexities of US school cultures, lack of childcare, language barriers, and feeling of insecurity with science and math not because they do not care about their children’s education (Albrecht and Upadhyay 2018, 2020). Therefore, research in science education needs to give greater focus on how parents and caretakers influence science teachers, educators, and children in teaching, curriculum, learning, and culture. Most High poverty urban school students experience racial discrimination and structural barriers day-in and day-out. Similarly, students also experience racial and structural discrimination in science curriculum and teaching practices. Since most teachers in these schools are from White-middle-class families, teachers lack cultural, social, and historical experiences of their students and communities. Science education research in High poverty urban contexts needs to focus on how structural barriers and race influence teachers’ decisions and pedagogical choices. Race has to be central (Prime 2018; Upadhyay 2017, 2020; Upadhyay et al. 2021) to any science education research in High poverty urban schools if the goal is to build a lasting improvement among these students in science learning, engagement, and professions. Even though the focus of this chapter is on High poverty urban schools and science teaching, there are a considerable number of layered issues that have not been touched in this chapter. When we think about science education for such a vulnerable and diverse group of students, what should science education researchers and educators need to be looking at to support successful and fun teaching and learning experiences? What kind of teaching landscape across major urban centers are we envisioning to have for our High poverty students? What is it about science teaching dominated by Whiteness that we still need to understand and what do our High poverty urban science teachers need so they stay with these students? What

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

531

policies we seek to demand and influence for a racially inclusive, equitable, and socially just science teaching and learning experiences for High poverty urban schools? How do we make science teaching and learning culturally relevant and racially inclusive for Indigenous and Native students? How do we prepare and educate our teachers from White or any other dominant groups so they are well prepared to build their pedagogies that are racially inclusive, socially just, and sociopolitically conscious to deal with environment, social, cultural, structural, racial, and any other local and global challenges for personal transformation and social change?

References Aaronson D, Barrow L, Sander W (2007) Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public schools. J Labor Econ 25(1):95–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.05.001 Achinstein B, Ogawa RT, Sexton D, Freitas C (2010) Retaining teachers of color: a pressing problem and a potential strategy for “Hard-to-Staff” schools. Rev Educ Res 80(1):71–107. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309355994 Aikenhead GS (2006) Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press, New York Aikenhead GS, Jegede OJ (1999) Cross-cultural science education: a cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. J Res Sci Teach 36(3):269–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982736(199903)36:33.0.CO;2-T Albrecht N, Upadhyay B (2018) What do refugee mothers want in U.S. school science: learning from the perceptions of science of three Somali mothers. Urban Rev 50(4):604–629. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11256-018-0458-9 Albrecht N, Upadhyay B (2020) Two Somali fathers’ views of science: what should my children learn in science? Educ Urban Soc 52(7):1133–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-0180458-9 Anderson E (2010) The importance of integration. Princeton University Press, Princeton Annie E. Casey Foundation (September, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/blog/ percentage-of-kids-in-concentrated-poverty-worsens-in-10-states-and-puerto/ Applebaum B (2005) In the name of morality: moral responsibility, whiteness and social justice education. J Moral Educ 34(3):277–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240500206089 Arce CH (1981) A reconsideration of Chicano culture and identity. Daedalus 110(2):177–191 Archer L, DeWitt J, Willis B (2014) Adolescent boys’ science aspirations: masculinity, capital, and power. J Res Sci Teach 51(1):1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21122 Aschbacher PR, Li E, Roth EJ (2010) Is science me? High school students' identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. J Res Sci Teach 47(5):564–582. https:// doi.org/10.1002/tea.20353 Atwater MM (1996) Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. J Res Sci Teach 33(8):821–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982736(199610)33:83.0.CO;2-Y Atwater MM (2000) Equity for Black Americans in precollege science. Sci Educ 84(2):154–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:23.0.CO;2-R Atwater MM (2010) Multicultural science education and curriculum materials. Science Activities 47(4):103–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121003631652 Atwater MM, Butler MB (2006) Professional development of teachers of science in urban schools. In: Kincheloe J, Hayes K, Rose K, Anderson PM (eds) Urban education: an encyclopedia. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp 153–160 Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler M (2014) Multicultural science education: preparing teachers for equity and social justice. Springer, Dordrecht

532

B. Upadhyay

Avruch K (1998) Culture and conflict resolution. United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC Baker BD, Corcoran SP (2012) The stealth of inequities of school funding: how state and local school finance systems perpetuate inequitable student spending. Center for American Progress, Washington, DC Banks JA (1993) The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educ Res 22(5):4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022005004 Banks JA (1996) Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action. Teachers College Press, New York Banks JA (2016) Multicultural education: characteristics and goals. In: Banks J, Banks MG (eds) Multicultural education: issues and perspectives, 9th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 2–23 Banks JA, McGee Banks CA (2004) Multicultural education: historical development, dimensions, and practice. In: Banks JA, Banks CAMG (eds) Handbook of research on multicultural education, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–29 Basu SJ (2008) Powerful learners and critical agents: the goals of five urban Caribbean youth in a conceptual physics classroom. Sci Educ 92(2):252–277 Berliner DC (1988) The development of expertise in pedagogy. AACTE Publications Berliner CD, Biddle JB (1995) The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Basic Books Bianchini JA, Solomon EM (2003) Constructing views of science tied to issues of equity and diversity: a study of beginning science teachers. J Res Sci Teach 40(1):53–76. https://doi.org/10. 1002/tea.10060 Biblarz TJ, Raftery AE (1999) Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: rethinking the “pathology of matriarchy”. Am J Sociol 105(2):321–365. https://doi. org/10.1086/210314 Biddle B, Berliner DC (2002) Research synthesis: unequal school funding in the United States. Educ Leadersh 59(8):48–59 Bloom DE, Canning D, Jamison DT (2004) Health, wealth, and welfare. Financ Dev 41:10–15 Bomer R, Dworin JE, May L, Semingson P (2008) Miseducating teachers about the poor: a critical analysis of Ruby Payne’s claims about poverty. Teach Coll Rec 110:2497–2531 Borman GD, Dowling NM (2008) Teacher attrition and retention: a meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Rev Educ Res 78(3):367–409. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654308321455 Boschma, J. & Brownstein, R. (February 29, 2016). The concentration of poverty in American schools. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/ concentration-poverty-american-schools/471414/ Bouillion LM, Gomez LM (2001) Connecting school and community with science learning: real world problems and school–community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. J Res Sci Teach 38(8):878–898. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1037 Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK Bourdieu P (1986) The Forms of Capital. In Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp.241–258). Greenwood Boyd D, Lankford H, Loeb S, Wyckoff J (2005) Explaining the short careers of high achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. Am Econ Rev 95(2):166–171 Boykin AW (1986) The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American children. In: Neisser U (ed) The school achievement of minority children. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 58–94 Braaten M, Sheth M (2017) Tensions teaching science for equity: lessons learned from the case of Ms. Dawson. Sci Educ 101(1):134–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21254 Brand B, Glasson G, Green A (2006) Sociocultural factors influencing students’ learning in science and mathematics: an analysis of the perspectives of African American students. Sch Sci Math 106(5):228–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18081.x

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

533

Brandt CB, Carlone H (2012) Ethnographies of science education: situated practices of science learning for social/political transformation. Ethnogr Educ 7(2):143–150. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17457823.2012.693690 Braund M, Driver M (2005) Pupils’ perceptions of practical science in primary and secondary school: implications for improving progression and continuity of learning. Educ Res 47(1): 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318804200033757 Brewer TJ, Myers PS, Zhang M (2015) Islands unto themselves: how merit pay schemes may undermine positive teacher collaboration. Crit Quest Educ 6(2):45–54 Brickhouse N (1992) Ethics in field-based research: ethical principles and relationship considerations. Sci Educ 76(1):93–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760108 Brickhouse NW, Lowery P, Schultz K (2000) What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. J Res Sci Teach 37(5):441–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982736(200005)37:53.0.CO;2-3 Brotman JS, Mensha FM, Lesko N (2011) Urban high school students’ learning about HIV/AIDS in different contexts. Sci Educ 95(1):87–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20405 Brown BA (2004) Discursive identity: assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. J Res Sci Teach 41(8):810–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20228 Brown BA (2006) “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”: language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. J Res Sci Teach 43(1):96–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20096 Brown BA, Boda P, Lemmi C, Monroe X (2018) Moving culturally relevant pedagogy from theory to practice: exploring teachers’ application of culturally relevant education in science and mathematics. Urban Educ 54(6):775–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918794802 Brown JC, Crippen KJ (2017) The knowledge and practices of high school science teachers in pursuit of cultural responsiveness. Sci Educ 101(1):99–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21250 Brown BA, Mutegi JW (2010) A paradigm of contradictions: racism and science education. In: Baker E, Peterson P, McGaw B (eds) International encyclopedia of education, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Cambridge, MA, pp 554–564 Bryan LA, Atwater MM (2002) Teacher beliefs and cultural models: a challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Sci Educ 86(6):821–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10043 Bundy D (2005) School health and nutrition: policy and programs. Food Nutr Bull 26(2):S186– S192 Burawoy M (2009) The extended case method: four countries, four decades, four great transformations, and one theoretical tradition. University of California Press, Berkeley Buxton CA (2005) Creating a culture of academic success in an urban science and math magnet high school. Sci Educ 89(3):392–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20057 Caponera E, Losito B (2016) Context factors and student achievement in the IEA studies: evidence from TIMSS. Large-scale Assess Educ 4:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-016-0030-6 Calabrese Barton A, Osborne M (1995) Science for all Americans? Science education reform and Mexican-Americans. High School J 78:244–252 Calabrese-Barton A (2001) Science education in urban settings: seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. J Res Sci Teach 38(8):899–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1038 Calabrese Barton A, Tan E, Rivet A (2008) Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. Am Educ Res J 45(1):68–103. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831207308641 Calabrese-Barton AC, Tan E (2009) Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. J Res Sci Teach 46(1):50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269 Calabrese Barton A, Upadhyay B (2010) Teaching and learning science for social justice: introduction to the special issue. Equity Excell Educ 43(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10665680903484917 Calabrese Barton A, Kang H, Tan E, O’Neill TB, Bautista-Guerra J, Brecklin C (2013) Crafting a future in science: tracing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. Am Educ Res J 50(1):37–75. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212458142

534

B. Upadhyay

Carlone HB, Johnson A (2007) Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: science identity as an analytic lens. J Res Sci Teach 44(8):1187–1218. https://doi.org/10. 1002/tea.20237 Carmill M (1998) The status of the race concept in physical anthropology. Am Anthropol 100(3): 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.651 Carver-Thomas D, Darling-Hammond L (2017) Teacher turnover: why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute, Palo Alto Chang DF, Sue S (2003) The effects of race and problem type on teachers’ assessments of student behavior. J Consult Clin Psychol 71(2):235–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.235 Change The Equation (CTE) (2016) Ending the double disadvantage: ensuring STEM advantage in our poorest schools. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/CTE_STEMDesert-Brief_FINAL.pdf Chau SR, Feagin SR (2008) Myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing racism. Paradigm Publisher, Boulder Chingos MM, Blagg K (2017) Do poor kids get their fair share of school funding? Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90586/school_funding_brief.pdf Chinn PWU (2002) Asian and Pacific Islander women scientists and engineers: a narrative explanation of model minority, gender, and racial stereotypes. J Res Sci Teach 39(4): 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10026 Chiswick BR, Miller PW (2008) Why is the payoff to schooling smaller for immigrants? Labour Econ 15(6):1317–1340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2008.01.001 Civitillo S, Juang LP, Badra M, Schachner MK (2019) The interplay between culturally responsive teaching, cultural diversity beliefs, and self-reflection: a multiple case study. Teach Teach Educ 77(1):341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.002 Clotfelter CT, Ladd HF, Vigdor JL (2005) Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Econ Educ Rev 24(4):377–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004. 06.008 Clotfelter C, Ladd HF, Vigdor J, Wheeler J (2006) High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. Retrieved from https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/1001057_ High_Poverty.pdf Clotfelter C, Glennie E, Ladd H, Vigdor J (2008) Would higher salaries keep teachers in highpoverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North Carolina. J Public Econ 92(5–6):1352–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.07.003 Cochran-Smith M, Dudley-Marling C (2012) Diversity in teacher education and special education: the issues that divide. J Teach Educ 63(4):237–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112446512 Cohen DK, Raudenbush SW, Ball DL (2003) Resources, instruction, and research. Educ Eval Policy Anal 25(2):119–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119 Coleman JS (1988) Social Capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:95–120 Compton-Lilly C (2003) Reading families: the literate lives of urban children. Teachers College Press, New York Craig C (2009) The contested classroom space: a decade of lived educational policy in Texas schools. Am Educ Res J 46(4):1034–1059. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209334843 Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev 43(6):1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Res Policy 23(5):487–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1 Darling-Hammond L, Youngs P (2002) Defining “highly qualified teachers”: what does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educ Res 31(9):13–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X031009013 Darling-Hammond L (2003) Keeping good teachers: why it matters, what leaders can do. Educ Leadersh 60(8):6–13 Darling-Hammond L (2004) Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teach Coll Rec 106(6): 1047–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00372.x

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

535

Darling-Hammond L (2014) What can PISA tell us about U.S. Education Policy? N Engl J Public Policy 26(1):Article 4 Dawson E (2014) “Not designed for us”: how science museums and science centers socially exclude low income, minority ethnic groups. Sci Educ 98(6):981–1008. https://doi.org/10. 1002/sce.21133 Delpit L (2001) Other people’s children. New Press, New York Deschenes S, Cuban L, Tyack D (2001) Mismatch: historical perspectives on schools and students who don’t fit them. Teach Coll Rec 103(4):525–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00126 Doane WA (1997) Dominant group ethnic identity in the United States: the role of “Hidden” ethnicity in intergroup relations. Sociol Q 38(3):375–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525. 1997.tb00483.x Dunn LM (1987) Bilingual hispanic children on the U.S. Mainland: a review of research on their cognitive, linguistic, and scholastic development. American Guidance Service, Circle Pines Dworkin AG, Tobe PF (2014) The effects of standards based school accountability on teacher burnout and trust relationships: a longitudinal analysis. In: Van Maele D, Forsyth P, Van Houtte M (eds) Trust and school life. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 121–143 Elmesky R, Tobin K (2005) Expanding our understandings of urban science education by expanding the roles of students as researchers. J Res Sci Teach 42(7):807–828. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.20079 Emdin C (2007) Exploring the contexts of urban science classrooms. Part 1: investigating corporate and communal practices. Cult Stud Sci Educ 2:319–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0079055-z Emdin C (2010) Affiliation and alienation: hip-hop, rap, and urban science education. J Curric Stud 42(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270903161118 Emdin C (2011a) Dimensions of communication in urban science education: interactions and transactions. Sci Educ 95(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20411 Emdin C (2011b) Droppin’ science and dropping science: African American males and urban science education. J Afr Am Males Educ 2(1):68–80 Emdin C (2016) For White folks who teach in the hood... and the rest of y’all too: reality pedagogy and urban education. Beacon Press, Boston Entwisle DR, Alexander KL (1992) Summer setback: race, poverty, school composition, and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. Am Sociol Rev 57(1):72–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096145 Erikson EH (1968) Identity youth and crisis. Norton and Company, New York Feng L (2009) Opportunity wages, classroom characteristics, and teacher mobility. South Econ J 75(4):1165–1190 Fernandez RR (1988) Introduction. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 10(3):179–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863880103001 Flouri E, Buchanan A (2004) Early father’s and mother’s involvement and child’s later educational outcomes. Br J Educ Psychol 74(2):141–153. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839806 Fordham S (1996) Blacked out: dilemmas of race, identity, and success at capital high. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Fowler CR (2003) The Massachusetts signing bonus program for new teachers: a model of teacher preparation worth copying? Educ Policy Anal Arch 11 (April 22). Retrieved from http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v11n13/ Fradd SH, Lee O (1999) Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse backgrounds. Educ Res 28(6):14–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028006014 Frederick E, Gutierrez K (2002) Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educ Res 31(8): 21–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008021 Frelindich N (1998) From Sputnik to TIMSS: reforms in science education make headway despite setbacks. Harv Educ Lett 14 Fuentes A (2012) Ethnoprimatology and the anthropology of the human-primate interface. Annu Rev Anthropol 41(1):101–117. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145808

536

B. Upadhyay

Furman M, Barton AC (2006) Capturing urban student voices in the creation of a science minidocumentary. J Res Sci Teach 43(7):667–694. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20164 Gallard MAJ, Pitts W, Brkich K, Ramos de Robles SL (2020) How does one recognize contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) as a basis to understand and arrive at better approaches to research designs? Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:545–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0189872-2 Garcia E (2015) Inequalities at the starting gate: cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between 2010–2011 kindergarten classmates. Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC Gay G (2002) Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. J Teach Educ 53(2):106–116. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003 Gay G (2010) Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn. Teachers College Press, New York Gee JP (2000) Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Rev Res Educ 25(1):99–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X025001099 Gee GC, Ford CL (2011) Structural racism and health inequities: old issues, new directions. Du Bois Rev 8(1):115–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X11000130 Griffard PB, Wandersee JH (1999) Challenges to meaningful learning in African-American females at an urban science high school. Int J Sci Educ 21(6):611–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 095006999290471 Gelatt J, Zong J (2018) Settling in: a profile of the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States. Migration Institute Policy, Washington, DC Von Glaserfeld E (1993) Questions and answers about constructivism. In: Tobin K (ed) The practice of constructivism in science education. AAAS, Washington, DC, pp 23–28 Goldhaber D, Anthony E (2007) Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National Board Certification as a Signal of Effective Teaching. Rev Econ Stat 89:134–150. https://doi.org/10. 1162/rest.89.1.134 Goldhaber D, Lavery L, Theobald R (2015) Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educ Res 44(5):293–307. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0013189X15592622 Gomes-Neto JB, Hanushek EA, Leite RH, Frota-Bezzera RC (1997) Health and schooling: evidence and policy implications for developing countries. Econ Educ Rev 16(3):271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(97)00001-0 Gonzales RG (2011) Learning to be illegal: undocumented youth and shifting legal contexts in the transition to adulthood. Am Sociol Rev 76(4):602–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0003122411411901 González N, Moll LC (2002) Cruzando El Puente: building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educ Policy 16(4):623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802016004009 González N, Moll LC, Amanti C (2005) Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah Gutiérrez KD (2002) Studying cultural practices in urban learning communities. Hum Dev 45: 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1159/000064995 Gutiérrez KD, Rogoff B (2003) Cultural ways of learning: individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educ Res 32(5):19–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019 Haberman M (1991) The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 73(4): 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200223 Hammond L (2001) Notes from California: an anthropological approach to urban science education for language minority families. J Res Sci Teach 38(9):983–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.1043 Hanushek EA (2013) Economic growth in developing countries: the role of human capital. Econ Educ Rev 37(1):204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.04.005 Hazari Z, Sadler PM, Sonnert G (2013) The science identity of college students: exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. J Coll Sci Teach 42(5):82–91

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

537

Hemphill FC, Vanneman A (2011) Achievement gaps: how hispanic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Statistical analysis report. NCES 2011-459. National Center for Education Statistics Hershbein B, Kearney M (2014) Major decisions: what graduates earn over their lifetimes. Hamilton Project, Washington, DC Hewson P, Kahle J, Scantlebury K, Davies D (2001) Equitable science education in urban middle schools: do reform efforts make a difference? J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1130–1144. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.10006 Hogan K, Corey C (2001) Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropol Educ Q 32:214–243. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2001.32.2.214 Hopland AO (2013) School facilities and student achievement in industrial countries: evidence from the TIMSS. Int Educ Stud 6(6):162–171. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n3p162 Ingersoll RM (2001) Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis. Am Educ Res J 38(3):499–534. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499 Ingersoll RM (2004) Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their classrooms with qualified teachers? Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article¼1505&context¼gse_pubs Ingersoll RM, Merrill L, May H (2012) Retaining teachers: how preparation matters. Educ Leadersh 69(8):30–34. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/550 Iversen RR, Farber N (1996) Transmission of family values, work, and welfare among poor urban black women. Work Occup 23(4):437–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888496023004006 Jargowsky P (2006) Immigrants and neighborhoods of concentrated poverty: assimilation or stagnation? National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #06–44. Retrieved from http:// www.npc.umich.edu/publications/u/working_paper06-44.pdf Johnson SM, Birkeland SE (2003) Pursuing a “Sense of success”: new teachers explain their career decisions. Am Educ Res J 40(3):581–617. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003581 Johnson A, Brown J, Carlone H, Cuevas AK (2011) Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: a multiracial feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science. J Res Sci Teach 48(4):339–366 Johnson SM, Kraft M, Papay JP (2012) How context matters in high-need schools: the effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teach Coll Rec 114(10):1–39 Jurmain R, Kilgore L, Trevathan W, Ciochon RL (2014) Introduction to physical anthropology. Cengage Learning, Boston Kao G, Thompson JS (2003) Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annu Rev Sociol 29:417–442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100019 Kelly S, Zhang Y (2016) Teacher support and engagement in math and science: evidence from the High School Longitudinal Study. High Sch J 99:141–165. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj. 2016.0005 Kincheloe J (2010) CHAPTER ONE: why a book on urban education? Counterpoints 215:1–25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980434 Kozol J (1992) Savage inequalities: children in America’s schools. Harper Perennial, New York Ladson-Billings G (1994) The dreamkeepers: successful teachers of African American children. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Ladson-Billings G (1995) Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. Am Educ Res J 32(3): 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465 Ladson-Billings GJ (1999) Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: a critical race theory perspective. Rev Res Educ 24(1):211–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001211 Ladson-Billings G (2004) Landing on the wrong note: the price we paid for Brown. Educ Res 33(7): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007003 Ladson-Billings G (2006) From the achievement gap to the education debt: understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educ Res 35(7):73–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

538

B. Upadhyay

Ladson-Billings G (2014) Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0, a.k.a. the remix. Harv Educ Rev 84(1): 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751 Ladson-Billings G, Donnor J (2005) Waiting for the call: the moral activist role of critical race theory scholarship. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Smith LT (eds) The sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, Thousand Oaks, pp 279–301 Ladson-Billings G, Tate W (1995) Toward a critical theory of education. Teach Coll Rec 97(1): 47–68 Larkin DB, Maloney T, Perry-Ryder GM (2016) Reasoning about race and pedagogy in two preservice science teachers: a critical race theory analysis. Cogn Instr 34(4):285–322. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1215721 Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA Lave J, Wenger E (1999) Legitimate peripheral participation: Learners, learning and assessment. The Open University Lavigne GL, Vallerand RJ, Miquelon P (2007) A motivational model of persistence in science education: a self-determination theory approach. Eur J Psychol Educ 22(3):351–369. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF03173432 Lewis A, Diamond J (2015) Despite the best intentions: how racial inequality thrives in good schools. Oxford University Press, New York Lieberman L, Reynolds LT (1996) Race: the deconstruction of a scientific concept. In: Reynolds LT, Lieberman L (eds) Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu in his ninetieth year. General Hall, Dix Hills, pp 142–173 Lochner L (2011) Nonproduction benefits of education: crime, health, and good citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w16722.pdf Lynch S, Kuipers J, Pyke C, Szesze M (2005) Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: results from a planning grant. J Res Sci Teach 42(8): 912–946. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20080 Maltese AV, Tai RH (2010) Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interest in science. Int J Sci Educ 32(5):669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385 Marinell WH, Coca VM (2013) Who stays and who leaves? Findings from a three-part study of teacher turnover in NYC Middle Schools. Research Alliance for New York City Schools, New York Matsumoto D (1996) Culture and psychology. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove McGee EO, Bentley L (2017) The troubled success of Black women in STEM. Cogn Instr 35(4): 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1355211 McNeill KL, Pimentel DS (2010) Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Sci Educ 94(2):203–229. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.20364 Mensah FM (2009) Confronting assumptions, biases, and stereotypes in preservice teachers’ conceptualizations of science teaching through the use of book club. J Res Sci Teach 46(9): 1041–1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20299 McIntosh P (1989, July/August) White privilege: unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Peace Freedom 10–12. Retrieved from https://psychology.umbc.edu/files/2016/10/White-Privilege_ McIntosh-1989.pdf Miguel E, Kremer M (2004) Worms: identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica 72(1):159–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262. 2004.00481.x Moje EB, Collazo T, Carrillo R, Marx RW (2001) “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. J Res Sci Teach 38(4):469–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.1014 Moller S, Banerjee N, Bottia MC, Stearns E, Mickelson RA, Dancy M, Wright E, Valentino L (2015) Moving Latino/a students into STEM majors in college: the role of teachers and

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

539

professional communities in secondary schools. J Hisp High Educ 14(1):3–33. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1538192714540533 Morales-Doyle D (2017) Justice-centered science pedagogy: a catalyst for academic achievement and social transformation. Sci Educ 101(6):1034–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21305 Moscovici H (2009) Science teacher retention in today’s Urban Schools. Urban Educ 44:105–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318527 Murillo FJ, Román M (2011) School infrastructure and resources do matter: analysis of the incidence of school resources on the performance of Latin American students. Sch Eff Sch Improv 22(1):29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.543538 Murrell PC Jr (2007) Race, culture, and schooling: identities of achievement in multicultural urban schools. Taylor & Francis, New York Mutegi JW (2011) The in adequacies of “science for all” and the necessity and nature of a socially transformative curriculum approach for African American science education. J Res Sci Teach 48(3):301–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20410 Mutegi JW (2013) “Life’s first need is for us to be realistic” and other reasons for examining the sociocultural construction of race in the science performance of African American students. J Res Sci Teach 50(1):82–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21065 Mutegi JW, Morton CH, Etienne LK (2018) Reconceptualizing science education for learners of African descent. In: Prime GM (ed) Centering race in the STEM education of African American K-12 learners. Peter Lang, New York, pp 71–94 National Academies of Sciences [NAEP] (2019) A roadmap to reducing child poverty. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25246 National Center for Children in Poverty (2004) Parental employment in low-income families. Author, New York National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2005) Parent and family involvement in education: 2002–03. Author, Washington, DC National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2010) The condition of education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2010-note.asp National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2016) Public elementary/secondary school universe survey, 2014–15. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/ dt16_216.60.asp National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2019) Spotlight A: characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ raceindicators/spotlight_a.asp National Science Foundation [NSF] (2020) Education lessons about learning. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/pdf/education.pdf Nelson CA, Sheridan M (2011) Lessons from neuroscience research for understanding casual links between family and neighborhood characteristics and educational outcomes. In: Duncan GJ, Murnane RJ (eds) Whither opportunity. Rising inequality, school, and children’s life chances. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 3–24 Nieto S, Bode P (2018) Affirming diversity: the sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 7th edn. Pearson, New York Norman O, Ault C, Bentz B, Meskimen L (2001) The black-white ‘achievement gap’ as a perennial challenge of urban science education: a sociocultural and historical overview with implications for research and practice. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1101–1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10004 Ogbu J (1994) Racial stratification and education in the United States: why inequality persists. Teach Coll Rec 96(2):264–297 Olitsky S (2007) Facilitating identity formation, group membership, and learning in science classrooms. Sci Educ 91(2):201–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20182 Ortiz AT, Briggs L (2003) The culture of poverty, crack babies, and welfare cheats: the making of the “healthy white baby crisis”. Social Text 21(3):39–57. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-213_76-39

540

B. Upadhyay

Owens A, Reardon SF, Jencks C (2016) Income segregation between schools and school districts. Am Educ Res J 53(4):1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216652722 Palincsar AS (1998) Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu Rev Psychol 49:345–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345 Patler C, Pirtle WL (2017) From undocumented to lawfully present: do changes to legal status impact psychological wellbeing among Latino immigrant young adults? Soc Sci Med 199: 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.009 Paris D (2012) Culturally sustaining pedagogy: a needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educ Res 41(3):93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244 Paris D, Alim SH (2017) Culturally sustaining pedagogies: teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press, New York Parsons E (2008) Positionality of African Americans and a theoretical accommodation of it: rethinking science education research. Sci Educ 92(6):1127–1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce. 20273 Parsons EC (2014) Unpacking and critically synthesizing the literature on race and ethnicity in science education. In: Lederman NG, Abell SK (eds) Handbook of research on science education, vol II, 1st edn. Routledge, New York, pp 161–181 Passel JS, Cohn D (2019) Mexicans decline to less than half the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population for the first time. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthorized-immigrant-population-2017/ Patronis HA (2016) Why education matters for education development. World Bank Blog. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/why-education-matters-economicdevelopment Portes A, Hao L (2004) The schooling of children of immigrants: contextual effects on the educational attainment of the second generation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101(33):11920–11927. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403418101 Prime GM (2018) Introduction: race-visible pedagogy in the STEM education of African American learners. In: Prime GM (ed) Centering race in the STEM education of African American K-12 learners. Peter Lang, New York, pp 1–18 Rahm J (2010) Science in the making at the margin: A multi-sited ethnography of learning and becoming in an after school program, a garden, and a math and science upward bound program. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam Rahm J, Miller HC, Hartley L, Moore JC (2003) The value of an emergent notion of authenticity: examples from two student/teacher-scientist partnership programs. J Res Sci Teach 40(8): 737–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10109 Rainey K, Dancy M, Mickelson R, Stearns E, Moller S (2018) Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. Int J STEM Educ 5(6):1–14. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0159-2 Ralston K, Newman C, Clauson A, Guthrie J, Buzby J (2008) The National School Lunch Program: background, trends, and issues. Economic Research Service [ERS] Report Summary Ramos de Robles SL (2018) Silencing of voices in a Swedish science classroom. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9741-9 Ramos de Robles SL, Gallard A (2018) Sociocultural perspectives: an opportunity to understand science education in a different dimension. In: Arslan H (ed) An introduction to education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp 129–141 Rascoe B, Atwater MM (2005) Black males’ self-perceptions of academic ability and gifted potential in advanced science classes. J Res Sci Teach 42(8):888–911. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.20077 Relethford JH, Crawford MH (2013) Genetic drift and the population history of the Irish travellers. Am J Phys Anthropol I50(2):184–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22191 Richwine J (2009) IQ and immigration policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_3FlLndbex3 NnNDVXZxUWp0YXc/view

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

541

Riddle M (2014) It’s Poverty, Not Stupid. The Principal Difference (blog), National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved from https://blog.nassp.org/2014/02/12/pisa-its-stillpoverty-not-stupid/ Riegle-Crumb C, King B, Irizarry Y (2019) Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educ Res 48(3):133–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X19831006 Rivera Maulucci MS (2013) Emotions and positional identity in becoming a social justice science teacher: Nicole’s story. J Res Sci Teach 50(4):453–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21081 Rivkin SG, Hanushek EA, Kain JF (2005) Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica 73(2):417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x Rockoff JE (2004) The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: evidence from panel data. Am Econ Rev 94(2):247–252. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244 Rodriguez AJ (2001) From gap gazing to promising cases: moving toward equity in urban education reform. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1115–1129. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10005 Rodriguez AJ (2005) Teachers’ resistance to ideological and pedagogical change: definitions, theoretical framework, and significance. In: Rodriguez A, Kitchen R (eds) Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: promising strategies for transformative pedagogy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 1–16 Rodriguez AJ (2015) What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards. J Res Sci Teach 52(7):1031–1051. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.21232 Rogoff B (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press, New York Rogoff B (2003) The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press, Oxford Ronfeldt M, Loeb S, Wyckoff J (2013) How teacher turnover harms student achievement. Am Educ Res J 50(1):4–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813 Rosa K, Mensah FM (2016) Educational pathways of Black women physicists: stories of experiencing and overcoming obstacles in life. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res 12(2):020113 Rosebery A, Hudicourt-Barnes J (2006) Using diversity as a strength in the science classroom: the benefits of science talk. In: Douglas R (ed) Linking science & literacy in the K-8 classroom. NSTA Press, Arlington, pp 305–320 Russell ML, Atwater MM (2005) Traveling the road to success: a discourse on persistence throughout the science pipeline with African American students at a predominantly White institution. J Res Sci Teach 42(6):691–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20068 Rutkowskia D, Rutkowskia L, Wild J, Burroughs N (2018) Poverty and educational achievement in the U.S.: a less-biased estimate using PISA 2012 data. J Child Poverty 24(1):47–67. https://doi. org/10.1080/10796126.2017.1401898 Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Sci Educ 88(1):4–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101 Schaderman AR (2011) What does playing cards have to do with science? A resource-rich view of African American young men. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6(2):361–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-010-9275-5 Schiebinger L (2000) Has feminism changed science? Signs 25(4):1171–1175 Schmidt WH, Burroughs N, Zoido P (2015) The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: an international perspective. Educ Res 44(7):371–386. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X15603982 Seiler G (2001) Reversing the “standard” direction: science emerging from the lives of African American students. J Res Sci Teach 38(9):1000–1014. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1044 Seiler G, Tobin K, Sokolic J (2003) Reply: reconstituting resistance in urban science education. J Res Sci Teach 40(1):101–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10063 Seiler G, Elmesky R (2007) The role of communal practices in the generation of capital and emotional energy among urban African American students in science classrooms. Teach Coll Rec 109(2):391–419

542

B. Upadhyay

Seiler G (2018) Challenging whiteness in science education. In: Prime GM (ed) Centering race in the STEM education of African American K-12 learners. Peter Lang, New York, pp 19–34 Stets JE, Burke PJ (2000) Identity theory and social identity theory. Soc Psychol Q 63(3):224–237 Seth MJ (2019) Grappling with racism as foundational practice of science teaching. Sci Educ 103(1):37–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21450 Settlage J, Meadows L (2002) Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: implications for science education within America’s urban schools. J Res Sci Teach 39(2):114–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10012 Settlage J, Madsen A, Rustad K (2005) Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English language learners: conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues Teacher Educ 14(1):39–57 Shockley KG, Frederick RM (2010) Constructs and dimensions of Afrocentric education. J Black Stud 40(6):1212–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934708325517 Simon NS, Johnson SM (2015) Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: what we know and can do. Teach Coll Rec 117(3):1–36 Sleeter C (1993) How white teachers construct race. In: McCarty C, Crichlow W (eds) Race, identity and representation in education. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 243–256 Sleeter CE (2012) Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Educ 47(3):562–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911431472 Smedley A (1998) “Race” and the construction of human identity. Am Anthropol 100(3):690–702. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.690 Smedley A, Smedley BD (2005) Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. Am Psychol 60(1):16–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16 Stake JE, Nikens SD (2005) Adolescent girls’ and boys’ science peer relationships and perceptions of the possible self as scientist. Sex Roles 52(1/2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0051189-4 Smedley A, Smedley BD (2012) Race in North America: origin and evolution of a worldview. Routledge, New York Snipes J, Doolittle F, Herlihy C (2002) Foundations for success: case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Council of the Great City Schools, Washington, DC Solorzano D, Ornelas A (2004) A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. High Sch J 87(3):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1353/ hsj.2004.0003 Songer NB, Lee H-S, Kam R (2002) Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: what are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? J Res Sci Teach 39(2):128–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea. 10013 Spillane JP, Diamond JB, Walker LJ, Halverson R, Jita L (2001) Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. J Res Sci Teach 38(8):918–940. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1039 Stanley WB, Brickhouse NW (2001) Teaching sciences: the multicultural question revisited. Sci Educ 85(1):35–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:13.0. CO;2-6 Steele F, Sigle-Rushton W, Kravdal Ø (2009) Consequences of family disruption on children’s educational outcomes in Norway. Demography 46(3):553–574. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem. 0.0063 Sutcher L, Darling-Hammond L, Carver-Thomas D (2016) A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Learning Policy Institute, Palo Alto. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/coming-crisis-teaching Suriel RL, Atwater MM (2012) From the contribution to the action approach: white teachers’ experiences influencing the development of multicultural science curricula. J Res Sci Teach 49: 1271–1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21057

20

Multicultural Science Education in High Poverty Urban High School Contexts

543

Suro R, Wilson JH, Singer A (2011) Immigration and poverty in America’s suburbs. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/06/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer.pdf Szostkowski A, Upadhyay B (2019) Looking forward by looking back: equity in science education as a socially just and morally healing act. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:335–353. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-019-09916-z Tajfel HE (1978) Differentiation between social groups: studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press, New York The Education Trust (2013) Finding America’s missing AP and IB students. Retrieved https:// edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Missing_Students.pdf Thomson S, Hillman K, Wernert N, Schmid M, Buckley S, Munene A (2012) Monitoring Australian year 4 student achievement internationally: TIMSS and PIRLS 2011. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Melbourne Tilly C (1998) Durable inequality. University of California Press, Berkley Tillman LC (2002) Culturally sensitive research approaches: an African-American perspective. Educ Res 31(9):3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031009003 Tippins DJ, Tobin KG, Hook K (1993) Ethical decisions at the heart of teaching: making sense from a constructivist perspective. J Moral Educ 22(3):221–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305724930220304 Tobin K (1992) Ethical concerns and research in science classrooms: resolved and unresolved dilemmas. Sci Educ 76(1):105–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760110 Tobin K (ed) (1993) The practice of constructivism in science education. AAAS, Washington, DC Tobin K (2006) Aligning the cultures of teaching and learning science in urban high schools. Cult Stud Sci Educ 1:219–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-005-9008-3 Tobin K, Roth W-M, Zimmermann A (2001) Learning to teach science in urban schools. J Res Sci Teach 38(8):941–964. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1040 Tobin K, Seiler G, Smith MW (1999) Educating science teachers for the sociocultural diversity of urban schools. Res Sci Educ 29:69–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461181 Todd RM (2003) A better day in the neighborhood: the rise and decline of poverty concentration in the Twin Cities, 1970–2000. Retrieved from https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2003/abetter-day-in-the-neighborhood-the-rise-and-decline-of-poverty-concentration-in-the-twin-cit ies-19702000 Touré JL (2008) “There’s some good karma up in here”: a case study of white school leadership in an urban context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. http:// d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10450/1/JToure_ETD_2008.pdf? Upadhyay B, Calabrese Barton AC, Zahur R (2005) Teaching science in a poor urban school in Pakistan: tensions in the life history of a female elementary teacher. Sci Educ 89(5):725–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20067 Upadhyay B (2006) Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: an elementary school teacher’s thinking. Sci Educ 90(1):94–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20095 Upadhyay B (2009a) Negotiating identity and science teaching in a high-stakes testing environment: an elementary teacher’s perceptions. Cult Stud Sci Educ 4:569–586. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-008-9170-5 Upadhyay B (2009b) Narratives, choices, alienation, and identity: learning from an elementary science teacher. Cult Stud Sci Educ 4:601–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9169-y Upadhyay B, Gifford A (2011) Changing lives: coteaching immigrant students in a middle school science classroom. In: Murphy C, Scantlebury K (eds) Coteaching in international contexts: research and practice. Springer, New York, pp 267–283 Upadhyay B (2017, November 29–December 3) Understanding race and racism in science through the physics of motion [conference presentation]. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Conference, Washington, DC

544

B. Upadhyay

Upadhyay B, Maruyama G, Albrecht N (2017) Taking an active stance: how urban elementary students connect sociocultural experiences in learning science. Int J Sci Educ 39(18): 2528–2547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1392645 Upadhyay B, Atwood E, Tharu B (2020) Actions for sociopolitical consciousness in a high school science class: a case study of ninth grade class with predominantly indigenous students. J Res Sci Teach 57(7):1119–1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21626 Upadhyay B (2020) Review: centering race in the STEM education of African American K-12 learners by Glenda Prime (ed) Teachers College record. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp? ContentId¼23433 Upadhyay B, Atwood E, Tharu B (2021) Antiracist pedagogy in a high school science class: A case of high school science teacher in an indigenous high school. J Sci Teach Educ 32(5):518–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1869886 U.S. Census Bureau (2018) Income and poverty publications. https://www.census.gov/topics/ income-poverty/library/publications.2018.html U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2020) Annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-01-17/pdf/202000858.pdf Uzuntiryaki E, Boz Y, Kirbulut D, Bektas O (2009) Do pre-service chemistry teachers reflect their beliefs about constructivism in their teaching practices? Res Sci Educ 40(3):403–424. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9127-z Valencia R, Solórzano D (1997) Contemporary deficit thinking. In: Valencia R (ed) The evolution of deficit thinking in educational thought and practice. Falmer, New York, pp 160–210 van der Klaauw W (2008) Breaking the link between poverty and low student achievement: an evaluation of title I. J Econ 142(2):731–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.007 Vélez-Ibáñez CG, Greenberg JB (1992) Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S. Mexican households. Anthropol Educ Q 23(4):313–335. https://doi.org/10.1525/ aeq.1992.23.4.05x1582v Vincent-Ruz P, Schunn CD (2018) The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. Int J STEM Educ 5:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5 Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Warren B, Rosebery AS (2011) Navigating interculturality: African American male students and the science classroom. J Afr Am Males Educ 2(1):1–18 Wilson WJ (1997) When work disappears. Random House, New York Yelvington KA, Winn AR, Wells EC, Stuesse A, Romero-Daza N, Johnson LC, Jackson AT, Curry E, Castañeda H (2015) Diversity dilemmas and opportunities: training the next generation of anthropologists. Am Anthropol 117(2):387–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12243 Zahur R, Calabrese Barton A, Upadhyay B (2002) Science education for empowerment and social change: a case study of a teacher educator in urban Pakistani school. Int J Sci Educ 24(9): 899–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095302 Zeidler DL (1984) Moral issues and social policy in science education: closing the literacy gap. Sci Educ 68(4):411–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730680406 Zeidler DL (2016) STEM education: a deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cult Stud Sci Educ 11:11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422014-9578-z Zellman GL, Waterman JM (1998) Understanding the impact of parent school involvement on children’s educational outcomes. J Educ Res 91(6):370–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00220679809597566

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of Arab Countries

21

Saouma BouJaoude, Abdullah Ambusaidi, and Sara Salloum

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research on NOS in Arab Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frameworks of NOS Adopted in the Reviewed Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Views of the Nature of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOS in Science Curricula and Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching and Learning NOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culturally Sensitive Approaches to Teach NOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem-Solving Using Cultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nature of Science in International Handbooks on Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What We Wish to Discuss and Conclude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

546 548 548 549 550 551 553 554 560 563 566 566

Abstract

Although NOS is included in standards and curricular frameworks in several Arab countries and many research studies have been conducted on the topic in these countries, a rigorous review of the extant literature showed that no systematic reviews of research regarding nature of science (NOS) were conducted in these countries to understand the nature and impact of this research. Consequently, this chapter reviews NOS research studies that have been conducted in S. BouJaoude (*) American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] A. Ambusaidi Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman e-mail: [email protected] S. Salloum University of Balamand, Balamand, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_17

545

546

S. BouJaoude et al.

Arab countries to investigate the frameworks of NOS adopted in the studies, the different constituencies’ views of NOS, the status of NOS in science textbooks and curricula, and the approaches that have been used to teach NOS. Additionally, we provide examples of approaches that can be used to teach NOS in the cultural context of Arab countries. Specifically, for this chapter we underscore that the frameworks used researching NOS in Arab countries do not provide or use a comprehensive view of NOS that is sensitive to multicultural issues. Accordingly, we propose that further research is inclusive of multicultural matter by proposing the use of an NOS framework entitled the family resemblance approach (FRA) to NOS. Our recommendation is based on the premise that FRA is responsive to NOS multicultural issues, and has the potential to engender more in-depth thinking about science and its role in society. Keywords

Nature of science (NOS) · Arab countries · NOS family resemblance approach framework · NOS and multicultural · NOS in Islamic countries

Introduction There are basic experiences about how scientific knowledge is generated and validated and which highlight the nature of science (NOS) that we consider integral to science education. NOS has been defined as the epistemology of science or the beliefs and values that demarcate the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman 1992). Walls (2012) operationalized this definition from the perspective of the learner: An individual’s beliefs about how scientific knowledge is constructed; where scientific knowledge originates; who uses science (including scientists); who produces scientific knowledge; and most importantly, where the individuals place themselves within the community of producers and users of science. (p. 1)

In 2014 Walls added that diverse students’ successful learning of science requires that they understand how it operates, and as importantly, they must understand that they are integral to science. On a similar note, Meyer and Crawford (2011) noted that the ways students view science would “shape their interest” in learning science and then pursuing careers in science. Thereon, teaching NOS and science education in a multicultural context intersects in several ways. A multicultural perspective to science education stipulates two fundamental aspects: (a) science should be taught in such a way that does not alienate women and students of diverse cultures, religions, and ethnicities; and (b) a realistic picture of the cultural-historical development of science needs to be presented to students, especially acknowledging that science is the product of different cultures across time (Matthews 1994). On a basic level, by acknowledging the cultural-historical development of science as the product of many cultures, we

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

547

are both portraying a more authentic view of NOS and inviting students and teachers to deliberate on how their culture and that of others have influenced and were influenced by science. From a pedagogic perspective, presenting a multitude of perspectives on science and science as a human endeavor along with taking into account its historical and cultural context would enrich its teaching and nurture students’ interest in it (Erduran and Dagher 2014a; Ruse 2015) and would show its relevance to diverse groups of students (Goff et al. 2012). An additional and more profound dimension of the intersection between multicultural science education and NOS involves the premise that NOS instruction may provide diverse students with spaces to explore, compare, and bridge their everyday or cultural understandings alongside scientific ways of knowing, and as such diverse students may start seeing themselves as “potential contributors to science” (Meyer and Crawford 2011, p. 621). Actually, recent characterizations of NOS are guided by valuing diversity and inclusion in addition to making science and scientific reasoning accessible (e.g., Erduran and Dagher 2014a). When we use the term Arab countries, we are referring to the following countries: Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The Arab countries, though diverse in many respects, share a common cultural/religious heritage that can influence how students view science and NOS. NOS is included as a student-learning outcome in many science standards and curricular frameworks around the world, including Arab countries (Dagher and BouJaoude 2011). Yet, even though NOS is included in standards and curricular frameworks in some Arab countries, our review of the literature revealed that there were no attempts to review systematically research conducted in these countries on views of different constituencies about NOS, aspects of NOS included in frameworks and curricular materials, and how NOS should be taught and tested taking into account the Arab culture. Moreover, even as aspects of NOS appear in curricular materials and textbooks, research suggests that there are problems with what NOS aspects are included in standards and frameworks, which of these aspects find their way to curricular materials, and which of these aspects reach students in science classrooms (Dagher 2009; Dagher and BouJaoude 2011). For example, in a study of science curriculum goal statements or standards of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Qatar, Dagher and BouJaoude (2011) found that important ideas about NOS are omitted from these documents and thus are unlikely to be included in textbooks and other curricular materials. For example, the Lebanese science curriculum emphasizes the empirical and investigative nature of science to the neglect of the social and cultural embeddedness of science (BouJaoude 2002). Moreover, the Egyptian curriculum neglects to emphasize the role of creativity and the centrality of evidence in science, while the Jordanian curriculum neglects the cultural embeddedness of science (Dagher 2009). Certain omissions can be problematic from both an NOS and a multicultural perspective. For example, an overemphasis on the investigative or empirical nature of science at the expense of other aspects, such as subjectivity and social and cultural embeddedness, may fail to represent science appropriately

548

S. BouJaoude et al.

and advance a strong impression of an empirical process where the “rigid application of the standard ‘rules of knowing’ will lead inexorably to the derivation of certain knowledge—the ‘laws of science’” (Monk and Osborne 1997, p. 408). To fill this gap in research, this chapter describes the frameworks that have been adopted in studies on NOS and reviews the results of studies that have been conducted in Arab countries to investigate different constituencies’ views of NOS, the status of NOS in science textbooks and curricula, and the approaches that have been used to teach NOS. Additionally, it presents attempts to incorporate cultural issues in the teaching of NOS in one Arab country and reviews research on NOS in handbooks of science education. Finally, the chapter proposes a systematic approach through which NOS could be taught with culture in mind.

Research on NOS in Arab Countries It is important to note that any study that attempts to review educational research in Arab countries is faced with the problem of the absence of comprehensive databases of educational research in Arabic. Consequently, the research that we report in this chapter may not be comprehensive. However, we propose that it provides an approximation of the status of this research, an indicator of the extent to which NOS is being researched, and a motivation to conduct more studies on the topic.

Frameworks of NOS Adopted in the Reviewed Studies There are four frameworks of NOS used in the reviewed studies. These views were described in Park (2007) and included the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1994), the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (2000), Abd-El Khalick, Lederman and others (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick 2005; Abd-ElKhalick and Lederman 2000; Bell and Lederman 2003; Lederman et al. 2002), and McComas and Olson (1998). According to the AAAS (1994), science is understandable, scientific ideas are subject to change, scientific knowledge is durable, science cannot provide answers to all questions, scientific knowledge is based on evidence, science is an amalgam of logic and imagination, and scientists try to avoid bias. The AAAS view also suggests that science is a social activity and is conducted under accepted ethical principles. For NSTA (2000), science is tentative, creative, collaborative, devoid of reference to supernatural elements, and affected by its social context. Moreover, NSTA differentiates laws from theories, emphasizes that there is no single scientific method, and suggests that science changes evolutionally, and revolutionally. Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) maintain that science is theory-laden, tentative, empirical, creative and imaginative, and socially embedded. In addition, they differentiate between laws and theories and observation and inference and emphasize the lack of a single stepwise universal “scientific method.” This characterization has been coined the “consensus” view of NOS. Finally, McComas and Olson (1998) assert that science is tentative, empirical, and is an

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

549

attempt to explain phenomena. Additionally, science has a sociological aspect, which asserts that it is a human endeavor whose conduct is ethical, among other characteristics, and it also has psychological and historical aspects. The studies reviewed below have utilized the views described above to different extents, with most of the recent ones using Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000), while others using different articulations of NOS. For example, Al-Zoubi (2017) based a questionnaire he used in his study on AAAS, while Yacoubian and BouJaoude (2010), Al-Jabr, Al-Mufti, and Al-Shaya (2016), Hmayda (2013), Saleh and Khine (2014), Khalidi (2010), Ibrahim (2016), Swelmeen (2018) used the view advanced by Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000). Furthermore, Al-Kadat (2016) used the NSTA framework, while Ambusaidi (2009), Alsubai and Omar (2016), and Abou Azra (2013) used the McComas and Olson’s (1998) articulation. Interestingly, a closer examination of the papers shows that most authors use adapted versions of the different views without providing sufficient theoretical arguments in support of the approaches used in the studies. Later in the discussion section, we present and discuss other frameworks that can potentially be useful to teach the nature of science with culture in mind.

Views of the Nature of Science The most significant number of studies related to NOS in Arab countries investigated views of NOS of those involved in the teaching/learning process such as students and pre-service and in-service teachers. However, published research studies are not distributed equally among Arab countries, possibly because of the unavailability of research funds, the perceived difficulty and philosophical nature of the topic, and the nature of foreign educational influences on educational systems. For example, an extensive literature search did not identify articles published in North African countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco about NOS possibly because these countries are typically associated with French rather than American or English educational traditions. Below, we present the results of several studies from different Arab countries that have investigated views of NOS among various constituencies. It is worth noting that different instruments were used for data collection, including questionnaires, open-ended questions, and semi-structured interviews. Moreover, as will be demonstrated below, NOS views of pre-service and in-service teachers as well as high school and university students in Arab countries are less than ideal. One of the groups whose views of NOS were investigated in a number of Arab countries (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman) were pre-service teachers (Hmayda 2013; Abu Azra 2013; Al-Shuaili and Ambusaidi 2010; Saleh and Khine 2014). Results of these studies showed that Bahraini teachers’ views were not aligned with the prevailing understandings of NOS to a large extent while Omani teachers had varying views starting with the highest understanding of the nature of observation and inference, followed by scientific theories and laws, nature of scientific knowledge, empirical/experimental NOS, social and cultural influences on science, and the role of creativity in science. In Saudi Arabia, results showed that female teachers had

550

S. BouJaoude et al.

contemporary views of almost all aspects of NOS. This result is not surprising in the context of Arab countries in which girls outperform boys in science and math as evidenced by the results of international comparison studies such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) (Atia 2019; Guessoum 2018; Ridge 2014). Research has shown that gender differences in achievement are more prominent in public than in private schools and in countries where public schools are segregated by sex (Guessoum 2018). More in-depth studies have shown that classroom environments in boys’ schools are unfavorable to learning because of the prevalence of bullying, violence, and overall bad relationships between boys and their all-male teachers. On the contrary, girls’ schools provide environments that are more conducive to learning (Atia 2019, Guessoum 2108), private schools provide more controlled environments, and mixed schools push boys to work harder to impress girls and avoid humiliation (Atia 2019). Additionally, Guessoum (2018) and Marcus (2018) attribute the low performance of boys to general macho, hypermasculine personalities leading them to disdain learning and schoolwork. The second group whose NOS views were investigated was in-service science teachers in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, and United Arab Emirates (Abu Jahjouh 2015; Al-Mailabi 2010; Al-Omari 2006; Ambusaidi 2009; Ambusaidi and Al-Shuaili 2010; Haidar 1999, 2002; Ibrahim 2016; Khalidi 2010; Mohammad 2016). Results showed that Jordanian, United Arab Emirates, and Palestinian science teachers had mixed conceptions of NOS, while views of Saudi teachers were acceptable. Interestingly, Haidar (1999) suggests that United Arab Emirates science teachers’, who are mostly Muslim, views about the tentative NOS are related to their religious belief that God only knows the truth about material and spiritual matters. Students in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Oman at different grade levels are the third group whose NOS views were investigated (Abdallah et al. 2007; Abd-El-Khalick and BouJaoude 2003; Alhosani 2016; Al-Janabi 2016; Samara 2015). The results of these studies showed that students at the high school and university levels had mixed views of NOS in Lebanon and Jordan but were naïve in Iraq.

NOS in Science Curricula and Textbooks Abdul-Majeed (2004) investigated the extent to which NOS aspects were included in the Egyptian lower secondary science curriculum. Results showed that there was a lack of emphasis on social and cultural aspects and that emphasis was more on facts rather than scientific processes. Similarly, Shahada (2008) investigated the extent to which aspects of NOS were included in the ninth-grade Palestinian curriculum and textbooks and showed that these aspects were not well-represented in the content of both the curriculum and textbooks. In his turn, Al-Ismali (2009) analyzed grade 8–10 Omani science textbooks to identify what aspects of NOS were included in these textbooks. Results showed that science as a creative endeavor was the aspect most represented in the textbooks, followed by social and cultural influences on science and the empirical NOS while the subjective NOS was totally absent from textbooks.

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

551

In a similar study to that of Al-Ismali’s (2009), Al-Asmari, Al-Shamrani, and Al-Shaya (2014) found that empiricism was the most common aspect of NOS included in the first secondary grade biology textbooks in Saudi Arabia while social and cultural influences on science and the subjective NOS were not well covered. Harbali (2000) examined the content of 18 grade 7 and 10 physics, chemistry, and life-science Lebanese textbooks. Results showed that the analyzed textbooks emphasized science as a body of knowledge and as a way of investigation to the neglect of science as a way of thinking and the interaction among science, technology, and society. Al-Jabr et al. (2016) investigated the extent to which NOS was included in the science textbooks of the intermediate stages in Saudi Arabia. Six science textbooks of the intermediate stage were selected for this purpose. Results showed that all the science textbooks included aspects of NOS, with certain variations, except for the subjective nature of science, which was missing. Specifically, results showed that grade 7 textbooks did not address creativity in science and social and cultural embeddedness of science while they emphasized the empirical aspect of science. Grade 8 textbooks focused on the distinction between inference and observation but neglected to discuss the myth of the scientific method, while grade 9 textbooks emphasized the distinction between scientific theories and laws but neglected the social and cultural embeddedness of science. Regarding curriculum analysis, BouJaoude (2002) investigated the balance of scientific literacy themes in the Lebanese science curriculum in an attempt to find out if the curriculum had the potential to prepare scientifically literate citizens. Results showed that the curriculum emphasized the knowledge of science, the investigative NOS, and the interactions between science, technology, and society, but neglected science as a way of knowing. Moreover, while science as a way of knowing was emphasized in the general curricular goals, it was not addressed in specific instructional objectives and associated activities. In summary, research on the extent to which NOS is included in science curricula and textbooks is limited in the Arab countries. In countries where such research was conducted, results show that its inclusion in science curricula and textbooks is sporadic and not systematic. For example, results showed that in some countries, the social and cultural aspects of science were emphasized to the neglect of the subjective and empirical natures while in others, creativity was emphasized to the neglect of other aspects. Table 1 summarizes aspects most and least represented in the curricula of certain Arab countries.

Teaching and Learning NOS The review of the research presented above identified the scarcity of NOS content in textbooks and curricula in several Arab countries. However, it is also as essential to find out if and how NOS is taught in those countries that have included it in its curricula. Below, we present research on the prevailing approaches for teaching and learning NOS followed by examples of culturally sensitive approaches to teaching NOS used by educators in the Sultanate of Oman. These examples demonstrate

552

S. BouJaoude et al.

Table 1 Aspects of NOS most and least represented in the curricula of certain Arab countries Country Palestine Egypt Saudi Arabia Oman Lebanon

Aspects represented empirical nature, laws become theories, one scientific method Science as a body of knowledge Empirical NOS Creative endeavor, social and cultural embeddedness Science as a body of knowledge, empirical NOS

NOS aspects not well-represented Social and cultural embeddedness Social and cultural embeddedness Social and cultural embeddedness, subjective NOS, creative endeavor Subjective NOS Science as a way of thinking, interaction among science, technology, and society

innovative activities that move away from teaching NOS as a set of statements that are devoid of context by giving it more meaning by using cultural notions. Traditional approaches for teaching NOS. There are at least three main approaches to teaching NOS: explicit, implicit, and historical (Burgin and Sadler 2016; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). The explicit approach requires focused and explicit attention to NOS aspects during student engagement in science practices. To make the explicit approach more effective, adding a reflective component allows students to be more aware of these aspects, consequently helping them to develop more deep understandings of these aspects. Results of research showed that using such an approach leads to a better understanding of NOS aspects (Abd-ElKhalick et al. 1998;, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Aydeniz et al. 2011; Bell et al. 2011; Khishfe 2013, 2014, 2015; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Yacoubian and BouJaoude 2010). Two of the previous studies were conducted in Lebanon (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Yacoubian and BouJaoude 2010). Another study implemented in Lebanon that employed the explicit approach investigated the effect of using drama as a supporting learning strategy on students’ conceptions of NOS. Results showed that students in the drama group articulated more informed views of the tentative, empirical, and theory-laden nature of NOS (BouJaoude et al. 2005). In the implicit approach, the assumption is that by involving students in hands-on inquiry activities or science process skills instruction, without any explicit reference to NOS aspects, students will develop an understanding of these aspects (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Al-Saidi 2004). For example, Ambusaidi and Al-Sinani (2011) investigated the effect of using problem-solving methods in chemistry on the level of understanding of NOS among grade 11 students in the Sultanate of Oman. Results showed that the level of understanding of NOS increased among students in the group in which problem-solving was used. In another study, Ambusaidi and Al-Jabri (2015) conducted an experimental study to investigate the effect of using an iterative inquiry approach on 11th-grade students’ understanding of the nature of science, specifically, the tentative, empirical, creative, and imaginative nature of science, the social-cultural embeddedness of science, and the differences between inference and observation. Results showed that students in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group. Al-Za’aanin (2015) investigated the effect

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

553

of using a skills-based lab guide on grade 11 Palestinian students’ understanding of NOS. Results revealed gains in understanding of NOS of students who were involved in labs. Finally, Al-Zoubi (2017) investigated the effect of using WebQuests on grade 8 Jordanian students’ understanding of NOS. Results indicated that using WebQuests enhanced students’ understanding of NOS. Other research studies showed that engaging in science practices alone produces limited impact on learners’ NOS understanding (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). As can been seen from the above, the results of using the implicit approach in enhancing NOS understanding are not conclusive. The third approach involves using the history of science to teach NOS. In this regard, Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) explain that incorporating the history of science in science teaching can enhance students’ NOS views. This approach was used in the History of Science Cases for High Schools (HOSC) (Klopfer and Watson 1957) and the Harvard Project Physics (HPP) course (Rutherford et al. 1970). While this approach was used in many studies in the west, very few studies used such an approach in Arab countries (e.g., Santourian 2009; Kotob 2007 in Lebanon). However, both studies showed that students’ NOS views remained naïve following the interventions, a result similar to the conclusion of Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), who suggest that results of studies using the historical approach were inconclusive. The results of the studies discussed above vary in their support for what approach is more effective in developing students’ understanding of NOS. This variation should not be a problem for science teachers and students, because students at different stages of their education will not be or are not expected to be historians or philosophers of science (Al-Hajri 2006). What is needed is to train science teachers on how to use teaching approaches that lead to sophisticated student understanding of NOS. This training, however, should ensure that teachers are provided with culturally appropriate techniques because as demonstrated by Haidar (1999) in the United Arab Emirates, some aspects of NOS are influenced by the religious and cultural milieu in which students live and neglecting this environment might lead to controversy and possible lack of appreciation of science. Mansour (2010) argues that teachers’ personal religious beliefs are among the major constructs that drive teachers’ ways of thinking and interpretation of scientific issues related to religion.

Culturally Sensitive Approaches to Teach NOS There have been attempts in the Sultanate of Oman to develop culturally sensitive instructional materials that integrate NOS and culture, with a specific accent on the relationship between science and Islam. In what follows, we present a brief description of some of these materials with supporting examples from the Omani science curriculum, with the understanding that these approaches could be easily adapted to similar environments in other Arab countries.

554

S. BouJaoude et al.

The instructional materials presented below have been implemented in the classrooms of several Omani science teachers as a result of professional development activities focused on making science more culturally relevant to students (Brown 2017; Goldston and Nichols 2009) because all “learning is culturally grounded” and culture “interacts with the daily schooling experiences of students” (Kumar et al. 2018, p. 81). Since Islam is a fundamental aspect of everyday life of Omani students, making science more relevant to Islam, without jeopardizing the basic tenets of science and Islam, becomes necessary. While, according to teachers, these instructional materials seemed to stimulate student thinking and increase the involvement in science, there have been no focused efforts yet to investigate their effectiveness. What is characteristic of these materials is that they use well-known and effective teaching strategies such as problem-solving, role-playing, the ethical analytical approach, and concept cartoons, in addition to focusing on specific aspects of NOS as defined by the consensus view of NOS. Presenting them in this chapter will give them the visibility that will allow researchers to test their effectiveness and possibly modify them to fit different cultural contexts.

Problem-Solving Using Cultural Issues The problem-solving method can be seen as one of the most common practices in teaching science. It enjoys popularity among science teachers due to its potential to motivate students to learn science (Ambusaidi and Al-Sinani 2011). However, teachers need to use problems from students’ real life; otherwise, students will not pay much attention to the problems and fail to solve them. There are different models of the problem-solving method for teaching. Some of these models have more detailed steps than others. The five major steps of the problem-solving method are the following: (1) analyze the problem; (2) propose hypotheses; (3) propose problem-solving strategies; (4) solve the problem; and (5) analyze the results (Martinez-Aznar and Ibanez 2005). Previous research conducted in Oman has shown that problem-solving can be an effective method to teach NOS aspects (Ambusaidi and Al-Sinani 2011). However, increasing the effectiveness of the problem-solving method requires that science teachers incorporate social and cultural issues in the problems they offer to students (Ambusaidi and Al-Sinani 2011). In the following example (Fig. 1), the teacher uses an explicit/reflective approach to teaching NOS. The main aspects that are most suitable for discussion in this example are the social and cultural influences on science, creativity, and the empirical nature of NOS. First, for the aspect of social and cultural influences, the teacher uses a cultural issue as an introduction to the topic by giving an example of the preparation of acetic acid by Omani women and the problems they face with the presence of alcohol in the product. The second aspect of NOS is creativity and imagination that are emphasized when students are asked to propose several hypotheses and designs to solve the problem. The empirical NOS is also included in the example because students will conduct an experiment and collect and interpret data to solve the problem. The distinction between laws and theories is evident when

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

Topic: The problem of preparing acetic acid at home Step Descriptions of the step Introduction The teacher starts by clarifying that the importance of this lesson is that the chemical compound discussed in the problem(vinegar) has been used for a long time as a condiment in many dishes, moreover, it is praised by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Problem Many homemakers in Oman who are near Eid Al Fitr and Eid Al Adha (two religious Muslim holydays) prepare acetic acid (vinegar), which is used in the preparation of meat for the barbecue. However, many in Oman believe that the method used by women is risky because of the possibility of alcohol not totally transformed into acetic acid if proper steps are not followed with the knowledge that Islam forbids alcohol. Identify the • The teacher asks students to work in groups to understand the problem Problem and the possible factors that contribute to it by using resources provided by the teacher, which include references about carboxylic acids and pictures of the preparation of acetic acid in homes, in addition to the information in the11th grade chemistry textbook. • Students then study the relationship between alcohols and carboxylic acids in terms of chemical reactions and chemical properties of carboxylic acids. In addition, students discuss the circumstances and conditions that should be considered during the process of the preparation of acetic acid by homemakers, so that they can formulate the problem accurately. The problem is: How can homemakers get rid of the alcohol that remains and is mixed with acetic acid resulting from the preparation process? Propose • The teacher asks students to work in groups to propose appropriate Hypothesis hypotheses to address the problem. The students are encouraged to use creativity and imagination is selecting their hypotheses. (Students can use brainstorming, dialogue, and discussion between team members of the groups). • The developed hypotheses are then discussed in a whole class situation. Designing • The teacher asks students to come up with different research designs to Experiments to test the hypotheses proposed earlier. In this step, students have the Gather Data opportunity to practice creativity to design multiple strategies to test the hypotheses and solve the problem. • After the groups finish their work, the teacher discusses students' research designs and agrees with them on the best design. Solve the • The teacher asks groups of students to implement the design that they Problem proposed in the previous step and collect data. Analyzing and • The teacher asks the groups of students to analyze the data and interpret Interpreting the the results in light of the concepts related to the topic. Results to • The teacher should discuss with students their interpretations and link Reach a Final these interpretations to scientific principles, laws, and theories. Conclusions • During the discussion, the teacher asks students to reflect on the NOS aspects that they practiced during problem-solving.

555

NOS Aspect Social and Cultural Influences

• Creativity and imagination

Creativity

Empiricism Law/Theory Distinction

Fig. 1 Example of the problem-solving approach in teaching NOS aspects

students analyze data and reach a conclusion. Finally, the teacher helps students to reflect on the aspects of NOS addressed in the activity by using a variety of methods, including writing journals (Ambusaidi 2014). Figure 1 presents an example of the problem-solving approach that draws on an 11th-grade Omani chemistry textbook. Role-playing. Role-playing is defined as “students acting a part or role in events before a situation, during a situation and after the situation” (Reece and Walker 1997, p. 162). Role-playing helps students feel the influences and pressures in their role and provides (a) a high degree of student participation; (b) a context for relating learning to everyday life and for peer teaching; and (c) a safe environment for students to express their ideas and opinions. In implementing the role-playing

556

S. BouJaoude et al.

strategy in the classroom, Petty (1998) provided three main steps to implement roleplaying. The first step is planning, during which teachers should be clear about their goals as a necessary step to design activities aligned with these goals. During this step, students are divided into two groups: those who take part in the role-playing and those who do not (observers). Teachers then prepare a written role-playing scenario and provide it to participants in the role-play. Teachers should encourage participation among the observers by giving them a checklist or set of questions to use as they watch students playing their roles. The second step is implementing the role-play activity. In this step, teachers give players time to read the scenario and be ready to play. If the role-playing is well planned and prepared by teachers, then it will run smoothly and not require any intervention. The third step is debriefing. This step is regarded as the most critical and time-consuming part of the role-playing activity. In this step, teachers encourage students to reflect on the role-playing experience and collaborate with fellow students to reach some general conclusions. If some questions are prepared at the planning stage, the teacher can discuss them with the students during this last stage. The most important part of this step is the reflection process. Teachers should give the players time to reflect on what they did, what they are feeling about the characters they played, and how they perceive the whole scenario. Role-playing pedagogically can be implemented in the context of a controversial socio-scientific issue (SSI) such as artificial insemination. Thus, the teacher sets the stage for the discussion by providing students with a scenario regarding the controversial SSI that incorporates the ideas to be discussed from several perspectives while taking into consideration the social cultural context, especially the religious context, in which the issue is situated. In this context, roleplaying has the potential to be used as a successful teaching practice to address controversial SSIs because it involves “Contextualizing teaching and learning in the issue” and “challenging students to analyze SSI from multiple perspectives” (Owens et al. 2019) The following example illustrates how social and cultural issues influence a couple’s decision to select a specific solution for having a baby. Because the overwhelming majority of Omanis are Muslim and Islam specifies the religiously accepted ways of having babies (other than by natural means), science teachers must be aware of these accepted ways when discussing such matters with students. The teacher cannot just focus on science and neglect the importance of social and cultural influences on science, in this case, religious influences. Figure 2 provides a scenario that can be used for role-playing and how this method can be linked to teaching aspects of NOS in a specific cultural context. Ethical analytical approach (EAA). The EAA is considered effective when teaching NOS, and particularly recommended when teaching the social and cultural influences on science and how science is distinct from technology and engineering. EAA consists of four main steps (Al-Alwai 2015). First, teachers identify the scientific issue and determine its social and ethical aspects when they plan for a science lesson. Second, students gather and analyze information and data about the issue. Third, students make judgments and decisions about the issue after conducting argumentation. Fourth, students evaluate and review the decisions to determine the

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

Title of the Topic: Techniques Related to Human Reproduction Component Descriptions Scenario A couple did not have children after 3 years of marriage. They, therefore, sought the advice of a specialist, who, after conducting the necessary medical tests, concluded that the wife could not get pregnant by normal means. The specialist then proposed different solutions and advised the couple to select their preferred one. The Roles of Students

557

NOS Aspect Social and Cultural Influences

The teacher prepares a role and a dialogue for three students: one for each of the specialist, wife, and husband. Students play the roles in front of other students serving as observers. A discussion follows during which the teacher coaches the students to link the issues to students' religion (in this case Islam) especially the relevant versus of the Holy Quran. In addition, the teacher encourages students to reflect on the social and cultural influences on the solution and science in general.

Fig. 2 Example of the role-playing method of teaching NOS aspects

effect on them and their society. During the implementation of EAA, teachers can develop students’ understanding of NOS aspects by discussing the activities with them (explicit approach), or without discussion (implicit approach), if the explicit approach is not appropriate. Below is an example of using the EAA approach. In Islamic cultures where some biological issues such as genetic engineering, cloning, and in vitro, fertilization (IVF) techniques have religious connotations, science teachers need to possess in-depth understandings of how social and cultural influences affect scientific issues. Moreover, students should understand that science is not isolated from society and that there is no conflict between science and Islam (Guessoum 2010). However, convincing teachers and students that science and religion are two “ways of knowing” or two worldviews is not a straightforward matter. For example, Mansour (2010) has shown that Egyptian teachers emphasize that “religion comes first and science comes next” (p. 127). The second aspect of NOS that is explored in this approach is that science is distinct from technology and engineering. The scientific issues that EAA deals with have many science- and technology-related aspects. For example, IVF uses the fertilization process, a science aspect, and a technology and engineering aspect, which deals with how this process can be executed in a test tube. In this case, science teachers should help students define clearly what science is and what is technology and guide them to see the relationships between them. In the above example, the social and cultural influences of NOS are evident. The issue that the example deals with is controversial in Islamic communities because Islamic scholars have points of view regarding cloning which may be different from the west. In Islam, there is a prohibition of human cloning that leads to human reproduction. However, cloning can be used in genetic engineering experiments that use bacteria and other microorganisms, plants, and animals. Science teachers should be aware of these constraints when disusing cloning. Figure 3 provides an example of this approach taken from a 12th-grade Omani biology textbook. Concept cartoons. The concept cartoon is a method which involves an everyday situation based on a specific aspect of science (Stephenson and Warwick 2002). Concept cartoons have been employed in a variety of ways for educational purposes

558

S. BouJaoude et al.

Title of the Topic: Cell Division is the Essence of Inheritance Step Descriptions of the step Introduction The teacher starts the lesson with a review of cell division and its two types. Identify the The teacher presents pictures that have similar human faces. Issue The Scientific x Students are asked to summarize information about meiosis as one Part type of cell division in the worksheet provided to them. x The teacher makes sure that students understand what is meant by meiosis and how it occurs. The Social x The teacher asks students to think about the following issue: A and Economic couple wants to have children identical to them in everything using Part the cloning process. What is the social and economic impact of this decision? x Students then identify the social and economic impact of this decision. The Ethical Students are asked to write the ethical and religious implications of the Part above decision. For example, they can address the following questions: x Do the parents have the right to determine the genetic traits they want for their children, which may not be compatible with the wishes of the children themselves? x Does an individual have the right to determine the identity and personality of another human being? x What are the possible implications of having a child with a handicap because of the process? x What are the implications of tinkering with the genetic content of an organism to the genetic content of future generations? The Argument The teacher conducts a discussion about the social, economic, and ethical aspects that students identify and encourages students to provide arguments supported with evidence in support of or opposing the parents' decision Propose Some Following the discussion, students summarize the arguments and Decisions propose a decision to be taken taking into consideration the scientific as well as the religious arguments in support of or against cloning. Select Best Students, as a group, choose the best decision along with the arguments Decisions in its support and keep in a classroom decisions record if the teacher so desires.

NOS Aspect

Social and Cultural Influences

Social and Cultural Influences

Tentative, Durable, SelfCorrecting Social and Cultural Influences

Fig. 3 Example of an ethical analytical approach (EAA) in teaching NOS aspects

such as the development of reading skills, enhancing problem-solving skills, motivating students, and eliciting tacit scientific knowledge (Keogh and Naylor 1999). They also can be used to develop students’ understanding of NOS. Teachers can use concept cartoons in different ways to elicit students’ understanding of NOS aspects. One way is to provide students with different views of fictional characters about a controversial issue and ask each student to select the view that he/she thinks reflects his/her opinion best (Minárechová 2016). Another way involves the teacher presenting a general statement or view about an NOS aspect, and then asking students to provide their opinion (i.e., there are no statements presented to students to select from). According to Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, and Duschl (2000), the lack of agreement among characters poses a problem that creates a condition for promoting argumentation and a discussion of NOS aspects. Figures 4 and 5 are examples of using concept cartoons to elicit students’ understanding of the social and cultural aspects of NOS. The first example (Fig. 4) is presented to students with statements or opinions in the bubble shape of the cartoons.

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

559

Cloning means producing identical copies of the origin.

Muna

I fully support cloning because it helps solve health problems.

I am totally against cloning because of my religion.

I support cloning in plants only; not in animals

Qusai

Said

Maram

Fig. 4 Example of concept cartoons with statements in the bubble shapes

Scientists have investigated the structure of matter for a long time

Sura

Ahmed

Ali

Mysoon

Fig. 5 Example of concept cartoons without any statements in the bubble shapes

Then, students are asked to select one statement from the three that are presented to them as comments on teacher Muna. Each student should identify his/her opinion by selecting one character (Maram, Qusai, and Said) who holds the opinion about

560

S. BouJaoude et al.

cloning that is most similar to the student’s own opinion. Teachers will then be able to know if students hold any misconceptions about the effects of social and cultural influences in science (e.g., the impact of social and cultural influences on how the cloning process is viewed). The second example (Fig. 5) was taken from a 10th-grade Omani science textbook using a second method of presenting the concept cartoons to students. In Fig. 5, students are asked first to choose one character from the cartoon (Mysoon, Ali, and Sura). Then, each student is asked to write his/her comment or opinion in the bubble shape of the character he/she selected. By using this method, the teacher can easily identify students’ understanding of NOS aspects that he/she plans to know. In this example, what the teacher is trying to convey is that scientists from all around the world contribute to developing science, which introduces social and cultural influences.

Nature of Science in International Handbooks on Science Education Before discussing the results presented above, it is important to put the study in the context of extant science education research on NOS, the best sources of which are the International Handbook of Science Education and the Second International Handbook of Science Education, edited by Fraser and Tobin and Fraser, Tobin, and McRobbie (1998 and 2012, respectively) and both volumes of the Handbook of Research on Science Education edited by Abell and Lederman (2007) and Lederman and Abell (2014) which include a number of chapters on the topic of NOS. The International Handbook of Science Education includes two chapters related to NOS one by Matthews and the other by Mellado. Matthews (1998) provided a historical overview of the inclusion of the history and philosophy of science (HST), of which understanding the nature of science is essential in the curriculum and discussed the stages through which this process passed. However, according to him, in the 1980s and 1990s, NOS became a component of scientific literacy, moving it from the realm of interest of the elite to an element of the education of all citizens. Other factors that contributed to the resurgence of interest in NOS included the emergence of the constructivist view of epistemology. Mathews ended his chapter by discussing the varying definitions of NOS and the different methods through which NOS should be taught. Finally, he asserted that “the nature of science is best approached inductively and tentatively, not didactically” (p. 995). In the same volume, Mellado (1998) reported on a case study conducted in Spain, which aimed to investigate pre-service science teachers’ conceptions about NOS and what influence these conceptions have on their classroom practices. For this purpose, two secondary and two elementary pre-service teachers at the close of their initial training were selected to participate in the study. The secondary teachers had degrees in science, while the elementary teachers were generalists with no specific specialization. Sources of data included videotaped microteaching and classroom teaching sessions, videotaped interviews, personal documents, classroom observations, and a

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

561

questionnaire. Results of the study showed that the teachers had no exposure to the philosophy of science and were not involved in explicit reflections about NOS resulting in having clichés such as the primacy of the scientific method. Results also showed that the pre-service teachers did not have coherent conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge, their NOS conceptions had no consistent influence on their classroom practices, and their educational background did not influence their conceptions of NOS. Mellado (1998) suggested that the philosophy of science should be integrated with content knowledge in a history of science context to ensure that teachers at all levels understand that it is an essential component of their knowledge base. Besides, he advocated the development of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a dynamic and continuously developing structure that includes all the elements needed for successful teaching. The Second International Handbook of Science Education (Fraser et al. 2012), as well as the two volumes of the Handbook of Research on Science Education (Abell and Lederman 2007; Lederman and Abell 2014), include chapters on NOS written by J. Lederman, N. Lederman, and F. Abd-El-Khalick. All the above researchers subscribe to the consensus view of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick 2012; Lederman et al. 2002) which claims that scientific knowledge is tentative; empirically based; theoryladen; partly the product of human inference, imagination, and creativity; and socially and culturally embedded. Moreover, this view emphasizes the distinction between observation and inference, the lack of a universal scientific method, and the distinction between scientific theories and laws. Because the remaining chapters published in the above handbooks are by Lederman and his colleagues, they will be reviewed in chronological order rather than in terms of their appearance in the handbooks. Lederman (2007) started by discussing the fluidity of the construct of NOS and emphasizing the absence of adequate understandings of NOS among educators even though it has been defined in reform documents such as the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council 1996). Consequently, he proposed that at a certain level of generality, there is agreement among philosophers, historians, and science educators that the aspects of NOS presented in the consensus view are accessible to K–12 students and relevant to their daily lives. Lederman then endeavors to differentiate between NOS and scientific inquiry because of the prevalent misconception that they are one and the same. According to Lederman, while “scientific inquiry involves various science processes used in a cyclical manner,” “NOS refers to the epistemological underpinnings of the activities of science and the characteristics of the resulting knowledge” (p. 835). The rest of the chapter reviews research on students’ and teachers’ conceptions of NOS, the teaching and learning of NOS, and the assessment of NOS. Results of this research showed that teachers’ and students’ conceptions are inadequate, an explicit-reflective approach is a preferred method to teach NOS, and teachers give less status to teaching NOS than content matter. Lederman concludes that an input-output model of teaching NOS is not appropriate because it does not provide the researcher with the opportunity to understand the thinking process of students and teachers during instruction about NOS.

562

S. BouJaoude et al.

Lederman and Lederman (2012) focus on the need for extensive and meaningful professional development for teachers to acquire the skills and attitudes required to teach NOS to their students. First, Lederman and Lederman re-emphasized the need to embrace a definition of NOS that is accessible to K–12 students, and according to them, the consensus view is the appropriate definition. They then discussed scientific inquiry, differentiated it from NOS, and asserted that both NOS and scientific inquiry should be essential components of teaching and learning science because they are central aspects of scientific literacy. Accordingly, they described three professional development projects, the first two of which were large scale, which were successful in increasing teachers’ understandings of scientific inquiry and NOS and enabled teachers to develop the same understandings in their students. Specifically, most teachers in the first large-scale project developed an adequate understanding of the tentative, empirical, inferential, creative, and subjective aspects of NOS, showed significant improvement in their understandings of scientific inquiry, and developed their pedagogical content knowledge related to NOS and scientific inquiry. Results of the second large-scale project showed that it was successful in improving students’ subject-matter achievement and knowledge about scientific inquiry. Besides, it helped students develop adequate understandings of the tentative, subjective, empirical, inferential, socially embedded, and creative and imaginative aspects of NOS. The third project involved teachers who were enrolled in a course on NOS/scientific inquiry and another on advanced teaching strategies. The course on NOS/scientific inquiry was a discussion-based seminar centered around reading and reflecting on various documents on NOS and scientific inquiry, while the advanced teaching strategies course focused on reform-based model lessons and allowed teachers to teach lessons focused on student thinking. Results showed that there was a significant improvement in teachers’ understanding of all NOS aspects and elements of scientific inquiry. Lessons learned from the projects reported above suggested the need for intensive long-term professional development activities that integrate NOS and scientific inquiry and that account for the fact that development of classroom practice lags behind the development of knowledge (Lederman and Lederman 2012), resulting in a focused need to provide teachers with opportunities to practice and reflect on their teaching. Lederman and Lederman (2014) focused in this chapter on updating the research on the teaching and learning of NOS regarding the conceptualization of the construct NOS and how it is taught, learned, and assessed. The section on the conceptualization of NOS centered around arguments in support of the consensus view of NOS and rebuttals of the suggestions that this view is lacking. The authors reiterate the argument that there is agreement among philosophers, historians, and science educators that the aspects of NOS presented in the consensus view and claim that “disagreements about the definition or meaning of NOS that continue to exist among philosophers, historians, and science educators are developmentally irrelevant to K–12 instruction” (p. 601). Concerning students’ conceptions of NOS, and how they are taught, learned, and assessed, the authors list the same findings presented in Lederman’s (2007) chapter, specifically that teachers’ and students’ conceptions are inadequate, an explicit-reflective approach is a preferred method to teach NOS, and

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

563

teachers give less status to teaching NOS than content matter. Lederman and Lederman (2014) maintain that there is a need for more in-depth research because the input-output models used in interventions that are used in teaching NOS do not provide useful information about the specific mechanisms and dynamics of change in students’ and teachers’ conceptions of NOS. Abd-El-Khalick (2014) conducted a comprehensive review of the instruments used to assess NOS between 1954 and 2013. Assessment instruments that were available in full text or published in refereed journals were included in the review, while others that claimed to measure attitudes and interests and other affective domains or were modified versions of existing instruments were not included. This process resulted in 32 instruments. Results of the analysis “revealed a clear pattern for the evolution of approaches to NOS assessment from theoretically driven to empirically driven forced-choice instruments and finally to open-ended assessment approaches” (p. 642). However, Abd-El-Khalick found that forced-choice instruments continue to be developed even though strong theoretical arguments and empirical evidence have shown that these instruments do not advance the field because of the threats to their validity. In response, he asserted that rather than spending time on developing forced-choice instruments, effort should be directed toward developing “valid and reliable as well as efficient ways to quantify student responses to open-ended instruments” (p. 642).

What We Wish to Discuss and Conclude The results above pose various concerns in terms of (a) levels of understandings about NOS, (b) inclusion of NOS in curricula and curricular materials, and lastly (c) the predominance of a consensus view of NOS as a framework for research, policy, and curriculum material (as opposed to other broader and more inclusive views as discussed below). Results of research studies conducted in the Arab world show that students’ views of NOS were mostly lacking and that textbooks and curricula address NOS to varying degrees, with the aspect social and cultural embeddedness of science being one aspect that is lacking in most reviewed curricula (Table 1). Moreover, this review shows that, while intervention studies show some evidence of success in enhancing students’ understanding of NOS, almost all these studies subscribe to the “consensus view” advocated by Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, and others (e.g., Lederman et al. 2002; Abd-El-Khalick 2005; Bell and Lederman 2003). Similarly, even as the activities in the section entitled “Culturally Sensitive Approaches to Teach NOS” have attempted to contextualize NOS in the local religious culture of the Sultanate of Oman, such activities still seem to focus on introducing aspects of NOS advocated in the “consensus view.” It is noteworthy that no studies were conducted in the Arab world on the social and cultural issues associated with NOS possibly because of the overwhelming focus on the “consensus view,” which provided a relatively straightforward method to introduce NOS to students and teachers. This situation calls for studies on the effect of culture and

564

S. BouJaoude et al.

social factors on students’ and teachers’ views in the cultural and religious context, which is shared by most Arab countries. As presented above, the consensus view presents a view of NOS that is comprised of several general aspects of science and scientific knowledge, supported by philosophers and historians of science, scientists, and science educators that focus on its cognitive and epistemic aspects. Specifically, the consensus view maintains that scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change); empirically based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world); subjective (theory-laden); partly the product of human inference, imagination, and creativity (involves the invention of explanation); and socially and culturally embedded. Two additional important aspects are the distinction between observations and inferences, and the functions of, and relationships between scientific theories and laws. The consensus view has been critiqued for advancing a “declarative knowledge of NOS” as opposed to students developing an appreciation of NOS ideas (Mathews 2012). Specifically, Matthews (2012) criticized the consensus view and suggested a move from the essentialist and epistemologically focused NOS to a more “relaxed, contextual, and heterogeneous” “Features of Science” (FOS) (p. 1) approach. For Matthews (2012), “Science is a human and thus historically embedded truth-seeking enterprise that has many features: cognitive, social, commercial, cultural, political, structural, ethical, psychological etc.” (p. 1). FOS focuses more on the empirical characteristics of science and considers the practices of scientists as essential for understanding NOS. FOS extended the consensus view by adding experimentation, idealization, and modeling (Matthews 2012). Matthews considered experimentation and idealization to be significant in a scientific enterprise and crucial in developing scientific theories. Nevertheless, the emphasis in FOS was still on the cognitive and epistemic aspects of science and scientific knowledge, with limited attention to science as a social enterprise. Similarly, Osborne, Ratcliffe, Collins, Millar, and Duschl (2003) suggested that there was no well-established consensus about NOS and that the components identified by Lederman et al. (2002) came from experts “drawn only from science educators and historians or philosophers of science” (p. 716). Alternatively, Osborne et al.’s findings came from a Delphi study that included research scientists, philosophers, and sociologists of science, science educators, those involved in the enhancement of public understanding of science, and science teachers. The themes identified by Osbrone et al. (2003) were scientific methods and critical testing, creativity, the historical development of scientific knowledge, science and questioning, diversity of scientific thinking, analysis and interpretation of data, science and certainty, hypothesis and prediction, and cooperation and collaboration. In summary, a consensus view with its adaptations, though informative and easy to introduce to learners, may have certain shortcomings when it comes to addressing cultural aspects in science education. Recently, the consensus view was also challenged by supporters of the family resemblance approach (FRA) introduced by Irzik and Nola (2011) and expanded by Erduran and Dagher (2014b). The expanded family resemblance approach (FRA) to NOS recognizes that a comprehensive understanding of NOS requires the

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

565

recognition of shared and distinct elements among different science domains that include cognitive, epistemic, social, and institutional factors. These elements include (1) scientific aims and values, (2) scientific practices, (3) scientific methods, (4) scientific knowledge, (5) scientific ethos, (6) social values, (7) social certification, (8) professional activities, (9) financial systems, (10) political power structures, and (11) social organization and interactions. The expanded FRA provides a comprehensive set of factors about science that are either partially addressed or not addressed by other NOS frameworks, especially by the consensus view of NOS. For example, it includes scientific practices (ignored in some frameworks as not part of the nature of scientific knowledge), expands what should students understand about scientific knowledge (by addressing growth in scientific knowledge and relationships between laws, theories, models, and explanations), includes aims and values (often left out in other frameworks), and attends to specific social-institutional aspects of science that are worthy of articulation in school science (BouJaoude et al. 2017). As importantly, Erduran and Dagher emphasize that the appeal of FRA lies in that while it consolidates the epistemic, cognitive, and social aspects of science, it does so in a non-prescriptive way that embraces wholesomeness and flexibility. As such, the expanded FRA provides a vehicle to integrate cultural issues and discussions of political power structures when teaching and learning NOS because of its comprehensive nature. The expanded FRA places the aims and values of science, its practices and methods, and scientific knowledge within the context of social values, the scientific ethos, professional activities, and social certification and dissemination. All these factors are then placed in the broader context of political power structures, financial systems, and social organizations and interactions (Erduran and Dagher 2014b). Recent research has shown that the expanded FRA has the potential to produce knowledge in a variety of science education topics. For example, the expanded FRA was used to analyze curricula (e.g., Erduran and Dagher 2014b; Kaya and Erduran 2015, 2016; Yeh et al. 2019), Kelly and Erduran 2019) and textbooks (e.g., BouJaoude et al. 2017; McDonald 2017), in teacher education (Kaya et al. 2019). Recently, Chaparian (2020) investigated the changes in grade 7 learners’ NOS understandings, as established by the expanded FRA, after engaging in reflective discussions following alternative information evaluation in the context of socioscientific controversial issues. Participants in this study were middle school students who were engaged in explicit instruction about information evaluation criteria (currency and accuracy) and argumentation components (claim, evidence, and counterargument). During instruction, participants were engaged in reflective discussions that were designed based on the categories of the FRA framework. The results of this study showed a remarkable change in the participants’ NOS views as articulated in the FRA framework. For example, they developed more informed views regarding the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, the tentativeness of personal explanations in science, the validity of information, scientific practices and knowledge construction, relationship of science with society, politics, economics, social organizations, and ethical issues in science.

566

S. BouJaoude et al.

Conclusions To sum up, Erduran and Dagher (2014b) have suggested that the FRA can provide much-needed focus zones in the science classrooms that support discussions of critical elements about science, which they believe can be potentially fruitful for science educators, teachers, and students. “It creates a much-needed space for conversation and dialog about science in a comprehensive way” (p. 24). They add that such diverse representation of science can potentially appeal to a wider range of students, especially students who may not have been drawn to the epistemic dimensions of science or a declarative view of NOS. Ultimately, we believe that the FRA provides more opportunities for diverse students and their teachers to discuss issues of power and oppression in science and how these may or may not be addressed. To accomplish the transformation to a more comprehensive view of NOS, science teacher preparation programs should equip teachers with profound understandings of NOS that pertain to both how their students are experiencing science through their culture and how the scientific knowledge is situated within the context of social values, the scientific ethos, professional activities, and social certification and dissemination. Therefore, FRA guided-instruction of NOS can promote fundamental aspects of multicultural science education, where science is taught in such a way that opposes alienation of diverse students and a more comprehensives picture of the cultural-historical development of science is presented.

References Abdallah A, Abboud A, Al-Hamdani A (2007) The extent of university students’ understanding of NOS and its relationship to scientific thinking and other variables. J Educ Sci (Mosul Univ) 14(1):186–203. (in Arabic) Abd-El-Khalick F (2005) Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: the impact of a philosophy of science course on pre-service science teachers’ views and instructional planning. Int J Sci Educ 27(1):15–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673810 Abd-El-Khalick F (2012) Examining the sources for our understandings about science: enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. Int J Sci Educ 34(3):353–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013 Abd-El-Khalick F (2014) The evolving landscape related to assessment of nature of science. In: Abell, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education, vol II. Routledge, New York, pp 621–650 Abd-El-Khalick F, BouJaoude S (2003) Lebanese students’ views of nature of science. Medit J Educ Stud 8:61–79 Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG (2000) Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 22:665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500690050044044 Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Lederman NG (1998) The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Sci Educ 82:417–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X (199807)82:43.0.CO;2-E Abdul-Majeed M (2004) The inclusion of nature of science domains and its processes in science curriculum content of the preparatory stage and students understanding of it. Sci Educ J 7(4): 103–144. (in Arabic)

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

567

Abell SK, Lederman NG (2007) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah Abu Azra S (2013) Female pre-service science teachers’ views of the nature of science. Int Interdiscip J Educ 2(4):346–363. Retrieved from http://www.iijoe.org/v2/IIJOE_03_04_02_ 2013.pdf. (In Arabic) Abu Jahjouh Y (2015) Level of understanding of the nature of physics and its relationship with emotional intelligence among secondary school physics teachers in Palestine. J Educ Psychol 48:222–252. Retrieved from https://platform.almanhal.com/Files/2/67261. (In Arabic) Al-Alwai K (2015) The impact of the ethical analysis approach on the development of decisionmaking skills and academic achievement among female twelve grade students in biology [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. (In Arabic) Al-Asmari I, Al-Shamrani S, Al-Shaya F (2014) The inclusion of nature of science domains in first secondary biology textbooks in Saudi Arabia. Message Arab Gulf J 134:85–104. Retrieved from https://storage.googleapis.com/abegsjournal/researchs/134/13404.pdf. (In Arabic) Al-Hajri H (2006) The level of science teachers understanding of the nature of science and its relation to their classroom practices [Unpublished master’s thesis].Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. (In Arabic) Alhosani S (2016) Perceptions of science teachers in the second cycle (grades 5–10) of the basic education about the nature of science and its relationship to gender and years of experience [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. (In Arabic) Al-Ismali H (2009) The inclusion of nature of science aspects in Omani science curriculum content of grades (8–10) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Yarmouk, Jordan. (In Arabic) Al-Jabr J, Al-Mufti ANM, Al-Shaya F (2016) The degree of inclusion of the domains of the nature of science in science textbooks of intermediate school level. J Educ Stud 7:271–310. Retrieved from http://fac.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/tby_llm_2.pdf. (In Arabic) Al-Janabi AHN (2016) Level of the relationship between realizing the nature of physics and the methodology of science for the teachers of physics in the preparatory stage. Basic Educ College Magazine Educ Humanit Sci 26:686–701. Retrieved from https://www.iasj.net/iasj? func¼fulltext&aId¼114205. (In Arabic) Al-Kadat M (2016) Science teachers’ understanding of nature of science according to (NSTA) standards in Jordan in the light of some variables [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Al al-Bayt University, Jordan. (In Arabic) Al-Mailabi L (2010) The level of understanding of the nature of science by intermediate schoolteachers and its relationship to science achievement [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Tibah University, Saudi Arabia. (In Arabic) Al-Omari A (2006) Science teachers’ views about nature of science, teaching, and learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Amman Arab University for Graduate Studies, Jordan. (In Arabic) Al-Saidi A (2004). The influence of explicit versus implicit instructional approaches during technology-based curriculum on students’ understanding of nature of science [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Carolina, South Carolina, USA. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305119703?pq-origsite¼gscholar&fromopenview¼true Al-Shuaili A, Ambusaidi A (2010) Sultan Qaboos University science student teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and its relationship to some variables. J Assoc Arab Univ 55:43–72. (In Arabic) Alsubai N, Omar S (2016) Science teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science. J Educ Psychol Sci 9(3):829–874. (In Arabic) Al-Za’aanin J (2015) The impact of using a laboratory guide on the performance of laboratory skills and understanding the nature of science of eleventh grade students in Gaza strip. Arab J Sci Technol Educ 3:51–71. (In Arabic) Al-Zoubi AS (2017) The effect of using Web Quest strategy in science teaching on development of scientific thinking skills and understanding the nature of science among eight grade students. IUG J Educ Psychol Sci 25(3):349–369. (In Arabic)

568

S. BouJaoude et al.

Ambusaidi A (2009) Investigating the effect of using critical incidents on Sultan Qaboos University science pre-service teachers’ views of the nature of science. Sci Educ J (Egypt) 12:205–225. (In Arabic) Ambusaidi A (2014) Prospective science teachers’ attitudes and views of using journal writing in the “methods of teaching science” course. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 10(6):625–635. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1224a Ambusaidi A, Al-Jabri M (2015) The effect of using an iterative inquiry approach on eleventh grade students’ understanding of the nature of science. Message Arab Gulf J 138:71–87. Retrieved from https://storage.googleapis.com/abegsjournal/researchs/138/13804.pdf (In Arabic) Ambusaidi A, Al-Shuaili A (2010) Science student teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and its relation to their perception of science laboratory environment. J Educ Psychol Stud 4(1):42–65. (In Arabic) Ambusaidi A, Al-Sinani M (2011) The effect of the problem solving method in chemistry on understanding the nature of science among 11th-grade students. Edu J (University of Kuwait), 25(100: part 2):47–78. (In Arabic) American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1994) Project 2061: science for all Americans. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC Atia M (2019) Why girls achieve academically more than boys in the Arab world? The effect of gender segregation and bullying in schools on gender achievement. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Twente, Enschede. Retrieved from https://essay.utwente.nl/79413/1/ Mina%20Atef%20Moussa%20Atia_MA_EST.pdf Aydeniz M, Baksa K, Skinner J (2011) Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-based scientific research program on high school students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. J Sci Educ Technol 20:403–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4 Bell RL, Lederman NG (2003) Understandings of the nature of science and decision making in science and technology based issues. Sci Educ 87(3):352–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063 Bell R, Matkins J, Gansneder B (2011) Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on pre-service elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 48:414–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20402 BouJaoude S (2002) Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: the case of Lebanon. Int J Sci Educ 24:139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066494 BouJaoude S, Sowwan S, Abd-El-Khalick F (2005) The effect of using drama in science teaching on students’ conceptions of nature of science. In: Boersma K, Goedhart M, de Jong O, Eijkelhof H (eds) Research and the quality of science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 259–2670 BouJaoude S, Dagher Z, Refai S (2017) The portrayal of nature of science in Lebanese 9th grade science textbooks. In: McDonald C, Abd-El-Khalick F (eds) Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: a global perspective. Routledge, New York, pp 79–97 Brown JC (2017) A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquirybased science education in K-12 settings: implications for advancing equitable science teaching and learning. J Res Sci Teach 54(9):1143–1173. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21401 Burgin S, Sadler T (2016) Learning nature of science concepts through a research apprenticeship program: A comparative study of three approaches. J Res Sci Teach 53(1):31–59. https://doi.org/10. 1002/tea.21296 Chaparian S (2020) Changes in grade 7 learners’ NOS understandings and argumentation skills after engaging in reflective discussions following alternative information evaluation in the context of socio-scientific controversial issues. [Unpublished master’s thesis], American University of Beirut, Lebanon Dagher Z (2009) Epistemology of science in curriculum standards of four Arab countries. In: BouJaoude S, Dagher Z (eds) The world of science education: Arab states. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 41–60 Dagher Z, BouJaoude S (2011) Science education in Arab states: bright future or status quo? Stud Sci Educ 47:73–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549622

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

569

Erduran S, Dagher ZR (2014a) Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Contemp Trends Issues Sci Educ 43: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_1 Erduran S, Dagher ZR (2014b) Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: potential new directions for curriculum and assessment development on nature of science. Irish Educ Stud 33(4):335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2014.984386 Fraser BJ, Tobin KG, McRobbie CJ (2012) Second international handbook of science education. Springer, Dordrecht Goff P, Boesdorfer SB, Hunter W (2012) Using a multicultural approach to teach chemistry and the nature of science to undergraduate non-majors. Cult Stud Sci Educ 7:631–651. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11422-012-9382-6 Goldston MJ, Nichols S (2009) Visualizing culturally relevant science pedagogy through photonarratives of black middle school teachers. J Sci Teach Educ 20(2):179–198. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43156502 Guessoum N (2010) Science, religion, and the quest for knowledge and truth: an Islamic perspective. Cult Stud Sci Educ 5:55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9208-3 Guessoum N (2018) Why Arab girls are crushing boys in science. Arab News. Retrieved from https://www.arabnews.com/node/1250991#.XvyCXibYjfk.email Haidar A (1999) Emirates pre-service and in-service teachers’ views about the nature of science. Int J Sci Educ 21(8):807–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290309 Haidar AH (2002) Emirates secondary school science teachers’ perspectives on the nexus between modern science and Arab culture. Int J Sci Educ 24(6):611–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500690110074053 Harbali A (2000) Content analysis of grades 7 and 10 science textbooks of the new Lebanese science curriculum for scientific literacy themes. [Unpublished master’s thesis], American University of Beirut, Lebanon Hmayda A (2013) Understanding of nature of science by third- and fourth-year students in faculties of science in Palestinian universities. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Birzeit University, Palestinian Authority. (In Arabic) Ibrahim B (2016) Science teachers’ beliefs in UNRWA schools in Jordan about the nature of science and its relationship to some variables. J Educ Psychol Sci 24(3):1–15. (In Arabic) Irzik G, Nola R (2011) A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Sci & Educ 20(7–8):591–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4 Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, Rodriguez AB, Duschl R (2000) “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Sci Educ 84:757–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X (200011)84:6%3C757::AID-SCE5%3E3.0.CO;2-F Kaya E, Erduran S (2015) Missing pieces and holes in the Turkish middle school science curriculum: towards a reconceptualized holistic account of NOS. Paper presented at the international history, Philosophy and Science Teaching Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Kaya E, Erduran S (2016) From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Sci & Educ 25:1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3 Kaya E, Erduran S, Aksoz B, Akgun S (2019) Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. Int J Sci Educ 41(1):21–47. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1529447 Kelly R, Erduran S (2019) Understanding aims and values of science: developments in the junior cycle specifications on nature of science and pre-service science teachers’ views in Ireland. Irish Educ Stud 38:43–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1512886 Keogh B, Naylor S (1999) Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation. Int J Sci Educ 21(4):431–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290642 Khalidi M (2010) An exploratory study of Palestinian science teachers’ views of the nature of science [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/13380/1/537807.pdf

570

S. BouJaoude et al.

Khishfe R (2013) The transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. Int J Sci Educ 35(17):2928–2953. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09500693.2019.1596329 Khishfe R (2014) Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. Int J Sci Educ 36(6):974–1016. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004 Khishfe R (2015) A look into students’ retention of acquired nature of science understandings. Int J Sci Educ 37:1639–1667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1049241 Khishfe R, Abd-El-Khalick F (2002) Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented instruction on sixth grader’s view of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39:551–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036 Klopfer LE, Watson FG (1957) Historical materials and high school science teaching. Sci Teach 24: 264–293 Kotob M (2007) The influence of history of science on students’ attitudes and conceptions of the nature of science (unpublished master’s thesis). American University of Beirut, Lebanon Kumar B, Zusho A, Bondie R (2018) Weaving cultural relevance and achievement motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educ Psychol 53(2):78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520. 2018.1432361 Lederman NG (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. J Res Sci Teach 29(4):331–359 Lederman NG (2007) Nature of science: past, present, and future. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 831–879 Lederman NG, Abell SK (eds) (2014) Handbook of research on science education, vol II. Routledge, New York, NY Lederman NG, Lederman JS (2012) Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: instructional capacity through professional development. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin K, McRobbie CJ (eds) Second international handbook of science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 335–359 Lederman NG, Lederman JS (2014) Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In: Lederman NG, Abell SK (eds) Handbook of research on science education, vol II. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 600–620 Lederman N, Abd-el-Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS (2002) Views of nature of science questionnaire: towards valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39:497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034 Mansour N (2010) Science teachers’ interpretations of Islamic culture related to science education versus the Islamic epistemology and ontology of science. Cult Stud Sci Educ 5:127–140. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9214-5 Marcus R (2018) Education and gender norm change. ALIGN, London. Retrieved from https:// www.alignplatform.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/align_education_thematic_guide_-_format ted_v4.pdf Martinez-Aznar M, Ibanez T (2005) Solving problems in genetics. Int J Sci Educ 27(1):101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673801 Matthews MR (1994) Science teaching. Routledge, New York Matthews MR (1998) The nature of science and science teaching. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 981–999 Matthews MR (2012) Changing the focus: from nature of science to features of science. In: Khine MS (ed) Advances in nature of science research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–26 McComas WF, Olson JK (1998) The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In: McComas WF (ed) The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 41–52 McDonald CV (2017) Exploring representations of nature of science in Australian junior secondary school science textbooks: a case study of genetics. In: McDonald CV, Abd-El-Khalick F (eds)

21

Teaching Nature of Science with Multicultural Issues in Mind: The Case of. . .

571

Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: A global perspective. Routledge, New York, pp 98–117 Mellado V (1998) Pre-service teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 1093–1106 Meyer X, Crawford BA (2011) Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6(3):525–547. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9318-6 Minárechová M (2016) Using a concept cartoon© method to address elementary school students’ ideas about natural phenomena. Eur J Sci Math Educ 4(2):214–228. Retrieved from http:// scimath.net/articles/42/429.pdf Mohammad MM (2016) Science teachers’ understanding level of the nature of science according to (NSTA) standards in Jordan in the light of some variables. [Unpublished master’s thesis], Al al-Bayt University, Jordan. (in Arabic) Monk M, Osborne J (1997) Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Sci Educ 81(4):405–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X (199707)81:43.0.CO;2-G National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2000) NSTA position statement: the nature of science. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx Osborne J, Ratcliffe M, Collins S, Millar R, Duschl R (2003) What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the ‘expert’ community. J Res Sci Teach 40(7):692–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105 Owens DC, Sadler TD, Friedrichsen P (2019) Teaching practices for enactment of socio-scientific issues instruction: an instrumental case study of an experienced biology teacher. Res Sci Edu 1–24. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9799-3 Park J (2007) A study of new models for scientific inquiry activity through understanding the nature of science (NOS). J Korean Assoc Res Sci Educ 27:153–167. Retrieved from https:// www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO200717347316575.pdf Petty G (1998) Teaching today: a practical guide. Stanley Thornes Publishers Limited, Cheltenham Reece I, Walker S (1997) Teaching training and learning: a practical guide. Business Education Publications, Sunderland Ridge N (2014) Education and the reverse gender divide in the Gulf States: embracing the global, ignoring the local. Teachers College Press, New York Ruse M (2015) Religion, misallodoxy and the teaching of evolution: the influence of Michael Matthews. Sci Educ 24:815–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9747-9 Rutherford FJ, Holton G, Watson F (1970) The project physics course: text. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York Saleh I, Khine M (2014) Examining the views about the nature of science among elementary pre-service teachers. Int Rev Contemp Learn 3(2):63–70. https://doi.org/10.12785/IRCLR/ 030202 Samara N (2015) Understanding of the ‘nature of science’ among undergraduate students at Mutah University in Jordan. Eur Sci J 11(8):290–302. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3768.7763 Santourian G (2009) The effect of using thought experiments on grade 8 students’ physics achievement and views of nature of science [Unpublished master’s thesis]. American University of Beirut, Lebanon Shahada S (2008) Nature of science concepts and its processes in 9 grade science curriculum and students’ acquisition of them [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gaza, Islamic University, Palestinian Authority. (In Arabic) Stephenson P, Warwick P (2002) Using concept cartoons to support progression in students’ understanding of light. Phys Educ 37(2):35–41. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/ 0031-9120/37/2/306

572

S. BouJaoude et al.

Swelmeen M (2018) Effectiveness of using interactive media on understanding the nature of science in teaching physics among the high basic stage students in Jordan. IUG J Educ Psychol Sci 27(6):316–334. (In Arabic) Walls L (2012) Third grade African American students’ views of the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 49(1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20450 Walls L (2014) Science education and females of color: the play within a play. In: Atwater MM, Russell M, Butler MB (eds) Multicultural science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–59 Yacoubian HA, BouJaoude S (2010) The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 47(10):1229–1252. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20380 Yeh YF, Erduran S, Hsu YS (2019) Investigating coherence about nature of science in the science curriculum documents in Taiwan. Sci & Educ 28:291–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-01900053-1

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse Multicultural Classrooms

22

Amy Ricketts, Minjung Ryu, Jocelyn Elizabeth Nardo, Mavreen Rose S. Tuvilla, and Camille Gabrielle Love

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What the Literature Says . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Dispositions Toward Emergent Multilingual Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engaging in Scientific Sense-Making Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Utilizing Human Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaps in the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question (RQ) 1: What Instructional Practices do RHS Teachers Use to Facilitate EL Students’ Science Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RQ2: How do EL Students Experience Teachers’ Implemented Instructional Practices? . . . RQ3: What Are the Challenges of Linguistic Super-Diversity that Existing Literature does not Sufficiently Address? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

575 576 577 577 579 580 581 582 583 583 586 589

A. Ricketts Department of Science Education, California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Ryu (*) University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. E. Nardo Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. R. S. Tuvilla · C. G. Love Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_25

573

574

A. Ricketts et al.

Points of Interest to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges of Implementing Instruction in Multilingual and Multicultural Settings . . . . . . Opportunities for Encouraging Multiculturalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

591 591 593 594 595

Abstract

American schools are becoming more linguistically diverse as immigrants and resettled refugees who speak various languages and dialects arrive at the United States from around the world. This demographic change shifts US classrooms toward super-diversity as the new norm or mainstream in all grade levels (Enright 2011; Park, Zong and Batalova 2018; Vertovec 2007). In super-diverse classroom contexts, students come from varied migration channels, immigration statuses, languages, countries of origin, and religions, which contribute to new and complex social configurations of the classroom. Super-diversity thus encourages educators and researchers to draw on nuanced understandings of the complexity that it brings to bear in educational settings and reconsider instructional approaches that we have believed to be effective. This chapter provides an insight into the complexity of teaching science in linguistically super-diverse classrooms with the case of Riverview High School. Riverview High is located on the outskirts of a metropolitan city in the Midwest. In the past decade, Riverview High has been a popular destination for many immigrants, many of whom are former refugees, from various countries, including but not limited to Myanmar, Congo, Syria, and Honduras, among others. As a result, students at Riverview High speak more than 30 different languages to include languages of Myanmar, such as Burmese, Hakha, Zomi, Zophei, Falam, and Lautu, Spanish, Kurdish, and Arabic. Over an academic year, we collected ethnographic data through interviews of emergent multilingual students who are classified by the school as limited English proficient, teachers who teach science and English as a New Language (ENL) classes, and school administrative personnel, as well as participant observations of science and ENL classrooms. In this chapter, we first review the literature on science education for emergent multilingual learners to provide a knowledge base as to which instructional practices and curricular features are recommended in supporting their science learning. Then, we present findings of our data collected from Riverview High focusing on (1) what are instructional practices that science teachers implement to facilitate emergent multilingual students’ science learning, (2) how those implemented instructional practices support or do not support their learning, and (3) what are new challenges that existing literature does not sufficiently address. Our findings show that teachers at Riverview High adopted several research-recommended teaching practices to provide linguistic support for emergent multilingual students; however, some students reported needing additional or different forms of support, especially those who use languages not commonly spoken in the United States. Additionally, some classroom practices intended as support had unintended or negative impacts on students’ sense of belonging. By juxtaposing research recommendations and a case

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

575

of super-diverse classrooms, we aim to address a gap that exists in the science education literature and provide a nuanced understanding of the complexity that super-diversity may bring to science classrooms. Based on our findings, we suggest several directions for curricular and school cultural reforms. These reforms should include developing curriculum, assessments, and activities that center students’ sense-making and a nurturing school culture in which all students view their emergent multilingual peers from asset-oriented perspectives. In addition, we call for more research on science teaching practices that facilitate emergent multilingual students’ learning and empower them in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. Keywords

Multilingual science classroom · Multicultural teaching · Emergent multilingual learners · English learners · Super-diversity · Ethnography

Introduction American schools are becoming more linguistically diverse as immigrants and resettled refugees who speak varied languages and dialects arrive in the United States from around the world, shifting US classrooms toward super-diversity as the new norm or mainstream in all grade levels (Enright 2011; Park et al. 2018). In super-diverse classroom contexts, students come from varied migration channels, immigration statuses, languages, countries of origin, and religions, which contribute to new and complex social configurations of the classroom (Vertovec 2007). Superdiversity thus encourages educators and researchers to draw on nuanced understandings of the complexity that it brings to bear in educational settings and reconsider instructional approaches that we have believed to be effective. Our chapter provides insight into the complexity of teaching science in linguistically super-diverse and multicultural classrooms with the case of Riverview High School (RHS). Figure 1 indicates how RHS’s student population has changed significantly over the last decade as immigrants and refugees from countries such as Myanmar/Burma, México, Honduras, Syria, and the Congo have relocated to the metropolitan Midwestern United States city where RHS is located. At the time of our study, 65% of RHS students spoke English only; 17.6% were fluent in multiple languages, including English; and the school district classified 17.4% as English learners (ELs) based on their beginning levels of English proficiency. More than 30 different languages were spoken by RHS students, including many Burmese and central African languages, Spanish, and Arabic. In this chapter, we first review the literature on science education for multilingual learners to provide a knowledge base as to which instructional practices and curricular features are recommended in supporting science learning within a multicultural classroom. Then, we present the findings of our data collected at RHS, focusing on (1) the instructional practices teachers use to facilitate EL students’ science learning,

576

A. Ricketts et al.

2008-2009

2018-2019 Multiracial 6%

Multiracial 2% American Indian 0.2%

White 48%

Black 7%

Black 13%

White 73%

Asian or Pacific Islander 4% Hispanic 8%

Hispanic 19%

Asian or Pacific Islander 20%

Fig. 1 Shifts in RHS Enrollment by Ethnicity. (Note. Data from State Department of Education website)

(2) how EL students experience these instructional practices, and (3) new challenges that existing literature does not sufficiently address. By juxtaposing research recommendations and a case of linguistically super-diverse and multicultural classrooms, we aim to address a gap that exists in the science education literature, provide a nuanced understanding of the complexity that super-diversity may bring to science classrooms, and suggest a future direction for research and practices that specifically respond to the teaching in multicultural settings. We use two different terms in this chapter: emergent multilingual learners and English language learners. Both terms refer to students who attend schools where the language of instruction is different than their native language(s) and who are in the developing stages of acquiring proficiency in the language of instruction. The term English learners refers specifically to emergent multilingual students who attend schools where English is the language of instruction. Neither term refers to multilingual students who are fluent in both their native language(s) and the language(s) of instruction. We support recent calls for moving away from deficit-oriented terms, such as English language learners, toward more asset-oriented terms, such as emergent multilingual learners (González-Howard and Suárez 2021). Thus, in our synthesis of literature review and discussion, we use the term emergent multilingual learners. However, when citing literature, we reflect the term used by the authors in the original source. Thus, English language learner (ELL) is used in some cases. Please note that in American schools, EL is generally interchangeable with ELL. We refer to the student participants in our study as ELs to reflect the language used by their particular school district.

What the Literature Says This review of the literature focuses on strategies broadly recommended for teaching science to emergent multilingual students. To identify relevant literature, we used databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar and keywords, including

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

577

science education, language education, bilingual education, multilingual education, super-diversity, and English language learners (ELLs). We also searched directly in researcher- and practitioner-oriented literature focused on science education (e.g., Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, Cultural Studies of Science Education, The Science Teacher), language education (e.g., Language and Education, Language Teaching Research, TESOL Quarterly, TESOL journal, Linguistics and Education, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism), and general education research (e.g., American Educational Research Journal, Review of Research in Education). We included studies of both elementary and secondary schools, and we ended our search process when we reached a saturation point of recommended strategies. Because we used ELL as one of our keywords, much of the literature we found was set in American schools, but this chapter also includes studies set in linguistically diverse schools in South Africa, Luxembourg, Colombia, Sweden, and Catalonia. Within this literature, we identified four themes: teacher dispositions toward emergent multilingual students, engaging students in authentic sense-making practices, designing classroom assessments, and utilizing human resources. We organize this section accordingly.

Teacher Dispositions Toward Emergent Multilingual Students Teachers’ dispositions toward emergent multilingual students have important implications for their science engagement and learning. For example, in a large-scale study, Johnson et al. (2016) found that ELs’ improved performance on a state science assessment was attributed, in part, to a transformational shift in teachers’ attitudes toward their ELs which was facilitated by their participation in a Transformative Professional Development program. Thus, it is essential for teachers to maintain an asset-based view of emergent multilingual students and their ability to learn science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, NASEM 2018). Science education researchers have uncovered several important dimensions of teachers’ asset-based views of emergent multilingual students (Bianchini 2018), including holding high expectations for emergent multilingual students’ success (Buxton 2005; Johnson and Bolshakova 2015), seeing emergent multilingual students as willing and able to learn science and the language of instruction (Kang and Zinger 2019; Suriel and Atwater 2012), and valuing emergent multilingual students’ experiences and knowledge (Moore 2008; Rivera Malucci 2009). Furthermore, teachers who hold an asset view of ELs recognize that as a group, ELs are heterogenous in many ways (Smetana and Heineke 2017; Buck et al. 2005).

Engaging in Scientific Sense-Making Practices Recent consensus documents in science education emphasize the importance of engaging students in science practices (e.g., National Research Council 2012). Engaging in these practices authentically requires students to use language in

578

A. Ricketts et al.

demanding ways such as engaging in evidenced-based science. Teachers may worry that students with emerging English proficiency will not be able to successfully participate in these language-intensive practices. However, a growing body of research in both science education (e.g., NASEM 2018) and second language acquisition (e.g., Swain and Deters 2007) has demonstrated that during the period when emergent multilingual students are still developing proficiency in the language of instruction, they can indeed engage in rigorous science sense-making (Rosebery et al. 1992; Maerten-Rivera et al. 2016). Lee et al. (2019) further concluded that “language learning occurs not as a precursor but as a product of using language in social interaction” such as in science learning settings (p. 318). Thus, engaging students in science practices with appropriate scaffolds provides a context for emergent multilingual students to use language for a specific purpose, thereby providing opportunities for their science and language learning. That being said, simply including ELs in classroom activities that are designed to engage students in science practices will not in itself support EL’s participation or science learning, nor their English language development. Instead, teachers need to use a repertoire of pedagogical strategies designed specifically to support ELs’ participation in language-intensive science practices, in a number of different contexts, using a variety of linguistic resources (NASEM 2018; Buxton et al. 2018). To engage students in language development and science learning simultaneously, science teachers should provide explicit opportunities to engage emergent multilingual students in partner, small group, and whole group talk (Lee et al. 2019). Engaging in a variety of participation structures requires emergent multilingual students to use different registers such as specialized versus informal, which helps them understand how to use various forms of language to meet the demands of different contexts (Lee et al. 2019). Emergent multilingual students also need opportunities and encouragement to use multiple modalities for engaging with science ideas, including linguistic aspects such as speaking, listening, reading, writing, and non-linguistic modes to include gestures, drawings, symbols, and graphs (Grapin 2019; Tang et al. 2011). In science, non-linguistic modes such as graphs, tables, and charts “are not simply scaffolds or supports; they are the essential semiotic tools” of the discipline that all students (including emergent multilingual students) should learn to use strategically based on their particular affordances and constraints (Grapin 2019, p. 34). Teachers, too, should use multiple modes of communication, including every day and scientific discourse (Zhang 2016), drawings, visualizations, videos, and technology (Buck Bracey 2017; Ünsal et al. 2018; Ryoo et al. 2018; Márquez et al. 2006) to make input more comprehensible for emergent multilingual students (Echevarría et al. 2017; Krashen 1988). Moreover, emergent multilingual students should be encouraged to use all of their language resources, including everyday talk, home language(s), and cultural practices (Gómez Fernández 2019; Karlsson et al. 2018; Moore et al. 2018; Msimanga and Lelliott 2014; Siry and Gorges 2019). For example, Josiane Hudicourt-Barnes (2003) found that Haitian Creole students were able to draw on their common cultural practice of bay odyans to engage in scientific argumentation successfully. Furthermore, Pierson and Clark (2018) found that emergent multilingual students’

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

579

reflective use of translanguaging (García 2009), or moving fluidly across languages, provided “resources for meta-representational thinking that could be leveraged as they engage in modeling” (Pierson and Clark 2018, p. 4). As discussed above, teachers can only leverage students’ multilingual and multicultural practices if they recognize them as assets. Finally, while engaging emergent multilingual students in scientific practices, teachers must attend to the specific ways in which language functions in science (Tolbert et al. 2014). This attention to language includes instruction on the specialized vocabulary used uniquely in science which is sometimes referred to in the literature as “tier-three words,” such as electronegativity and acceleration, and should strive to build science “word consciousness” by examining prefixes, suffixes, roots, cognates, and nominalizations (Buxton et al. 2018; Gebhard et al. 2014; Snow 2008). Vocabulary instruction should also include “tier-two” words “those that are encountered in academic discourse but are not specific to any particular field or discipline.” Examples of “tier-two” words are compare, exemplify, characterize, therefore, thus, and conceivably (Snow 2008, pp. 72). However, vocabulary instruction alone is simply not sufficient for supporting ELs’ use of language to engage in science practices, comprehend science texts, or re-construct science knowledge (NASEM 2018; Buxton et al. 2018). Emergent multilingual students also need opportunities to analyze scientific text, attending to scientific uses of every day non-scientific words such as organic, as well as the tone, purpose, goals, and perspective of the author (Buxton et al. 2018; Tolbert et al. 2014). In turn, emergent multilingual students need opportunities to apply what they learn from this analysis to construct authentic scientific texts of their own, including lab reports, explanations, and arguments (Tolbert et al. 2014). In general, science teachers, especially in secondary classrooms, will need to consider both science- and language objectives in their planning (Bautista and Castañeda 2011), view themselves as teachers of both content and language, and develop the pedagogical language knowledge necessary to support emergent multilingual students’ use of language in science class (Bunch 2013).

Classroom Assessment Classroom assessment plays an important role in supporting ELs in science, by providing both teachers and students with important feedback about teaching and learning (NASEM 2017). When assessing emergent multilingual students in science, the challenge for teachers is to provide an opportunity for students of all levels of language proficiency to demonstrate what they have learned (Lyon et al. 2012). To this end, teachers are urged to use frequent, flexible, and culturally valid formative and summative assessments that use a variety of task formats with built-in language support (Buxton et al. 2019; Turkan and Liu 2012). Formative assessment for emergent multilingual students can include informal methods such as observations of student behavior and student-teacher or student-student interactions (Heritage and Chang 2012) or asking students to draw their ideas and explain them in their own

580

A. Ricketts et al.

words. Assessment involving verbal interaction is particularly suited for emergent multilingual students (Siry and Gorges 2019), as it provides opportunities for teachers to “modify their own language as well as scaffold their students’ language comprehension and production,” as needed, in real-time (NASEM 2018, p. 227). Formative assessment can also take a variety of performance-based forms, especially those with built-in language support. For example, Kopriva (2014) described a set of high school science assessments known as ONPAR that used “computerinteractive novel presentation and response formats designed to communicate challenging content to and from students” (p. 2). Buxton et al. (2019) designed a middle school science assessment that included text in multiple languages and included a variety of text formats. For example, the text within single item clusters began with concrete contexts and used less condensed language and then shifted to more abstract, generalizable statements, using more condensed and symbolic language. They found that these intentional language formats served as scaffolds for students’ responses, as students used language directly taken from the question in their constructed responses. The authors note that some students were not yet able to include the more abstract language to demonstrate generalizable understandings and pointed out the importance of attending to these kinds of shifts or “semantic waves” in classroom instruction. Although multiple-choice tests are not particularly endorsed in the science education literature, they are still commonly used in schools, and teachers sometimes modify these tests for emergent multilingual learners. To that end, Castañeda and Bautista (2011) point out that, “Modifying for ELLs does not mean compromising or lowering the content of the lesson or the difficulty of the assessment task; it requires making the content or the task comprehensible and attainable” (p. 43). Noble et al. (2016) identified four concrete strategies for adapting assessments to make content more accessible to ELs, including adding visuals (to questions and to answer choices), removing forced comparison terms (e.g., best, least likely), replacing vague references to previous sentences (e.g., “these conditions”) with more specific terms (e.g., “the lights on”), and avoiding non-technical words that do not appear routinely in grade-level texts and are unlikely to be explicitly taught in science class. They also note that interviewing ELs about individual test items can uncover challenges not otherwise perceived by test writers.

Utilizing Human Resources Depending on the human resources available in a school or district, there may be opportunities for science teachers to collaborate with colleagues (such as ESL teachers, aides or coaches, and home language interpreters) to support emergent multilingual learners better. This collaboration could take many forms, including co-planning and coteaching, as well as pull-out services, in which emergent multilingual learners leave the mainstream classroom for small-group or one-on-one instruction. In the multilingual education literature, inclusive (or push-in) services during which emergent multilingual learners remain part of the mainstream

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

581

classroom are preferable over pull-out models because pull-out models can result in “a disconnected instructional experience, lack of increased achievement, and no sense of belonging” (Dove and Honigsfeld 2010, p. 9). While coteaching between language and science teachers may hold promise for supporting student learning, it is a complex process that often generates multiple challenges (Arkoudis 2003; Valdés-Sánchez and Espinet 2020). In addition to logistical limitations such as insufficient staffing or incompatible teaching and/or planning schedules between potential co-teachers (Tan 2011), collaboration can also be limited by power differentials in which ESL teachers have less agency and authority to significantly impact the pedagogical practices of content-area teachers (Arkoudis 2003), especially in content areas of high status, like science (Arkoudis 2006). Furthermore, science teachers (especially at the secondary level) often do not identify as language teachers (Tan 2011). They may not have had sufficient preservice education or professional development around the functional use of language in science that would support their collaboration with ESL teachers (NASEM 2018; Rutt et al. 2021). To mitigate such contextual variability, Dove and Honigsfeld (2010) propose seven different models that can be used flexibly, depending on the goal of instruction and the needs of the particular learners. Regardless of specific coteaching models, a clear conceptualization of the task is crucial, including explicit roles and responsibilities of each educator, explicit goals for language development in the curriculum, and explicit mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, and feedback (Davison 2006).

Gaps in the Literature While the existing literature provides a wide variety of research-based recommendations for supporting emergent multilingual learners in science, we noticed two critical gaps. First, most of the studies and recommendations we found were situated within classrooms where most emergent multilingual learners spoke the same native language. Some studies from Europe (e.g., Siry and Gorges 2019), South America (e.g., Garzón-Díaz 2018), and Africa (e.g., Msimanga and Lelliott 2014) do report on classrooms where students spoke a few different native languages. However, these studies do not sufficiently address the complexity of super-diversity and multiculturalism brought by students who have a wide variety of migration stories, languages, and countries of origin. Second, we noticed a surprising lack of students’ voices. That is, existing studies tend to center on teacher’s dispositions and practices or limit student data to measures (or observations) of student performance. Only a few studies centered on the experience of the students themselves, as told in their own words (e.g., Garzón-Díaz 2018). In the few studies that do focus on emergent multilingual students’ experiences in science class, those students tended to speak the language of instruction at higher levels of proficiency, giving little voice to newcomers and/or students with beginning fluency. Our study attempts to address these important aspects of the literature around supporting the science learning of emergent multilingual students within multicultural classrooms. Most importantly,

582

A. Ricketts et al.

we aim to give voice to multilingual students of all levels of language proficiency who are learning science in linguistically super-diverse schools, especially where their teacher does not share their native language(s).

Our Study Given this literature backdrop, we ask the three following research questions (RQ): RQ1: What instructional practices do RHS teachers use to facilitate EL students’ science learning? RQ2: How do EL students experience teachers’ implemented instructional practices? RQ3: What are the challenges of linguistic super-diversity that existing literature does not sufficiently address? The current study is part of a larger research project that aims to design and provide science teachers’ professional learning focused on improving their support for ELs in linguistically super-diverse and multicultural classrooms. To design professional learning experiences supported by an ethnographic understanding of RHS, we visited RHS once per week over one school year during the first year of a 4-year project. In our visits, we engaged as participant observers (Spradley 1980) in 88 class periods in science and English as a New Language (ENL) classrooms, writing field notes (Emerson et al. 2011) for each class period. We included ENL classrooms to observe any potential differences in student engagement compared to the science classes. We also conducted ethnographic interviews (Spradley 1979) with 11 science teachers, 4 ENL teachers, 2 school tutor/translators, 2 school administrators, 2 district personnel in the department of English Learners, and 23 multilingual students who were classified by the school as ELs. Students’ English proficiency levels included Level 1, Entering (2 students); Level 2, Emerging (7); Level 3, Developing (7); and Level 4, Expanding (7). Student participants included speakers of 20 different languages, including several Burmese languages (Hakha, Burmese, Zomi, Zophei, Falam, and Lautu), Spanish, Kurdish, Arabic, Swahili, Kibembe, and Kinyarwanda. Twelve students spoke three to six languages, and five students utilized interpreters to facilitate their interviews. We analyzed our data thematically (Braun and Clarke 2006). We inductively generated codes to analyze the raw interview data with respect to answer RQ1 and RQ2, resulting in 11 codes (e.g., translanguaging, peer interactions). We then organized those codes into four categories, driven by the themes from the literature review (i.e., teacher dispositions, engaging in authentic sense-making practices, classroom assessment, and utilizing human resources). We then looked across preliminary findings of the various data sets (student interviews, teacher interviews, admin/staff interviews, classroom observations) for connections between teacher practices and student experiences. The original codes that were not addressed by the literature such as the complexities of grouping in a super-diverse setting were included in the findings of RQ3.

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

583

Our Learning We present our findings to the three research questions. While we drew on all of the different data sources we collected (teacher/staff interviews, student interviews, classroom/school observations, especially in answering RQ3), the primary source of data is interviews with teachers (RQ1) and students (RQ2). In answering RQ1 and RQ2, we organize the findings within the four areas of practice recommended in the literature: teacher dispositions, sense-making, assessment, and utilizing human resources. Our answer to RQ3 reports some aspects of teaching science in linguistically super-diverse classrooms that have not been adequately addressed in the literature, focusing on using materials written in students’ home language(s) and peer collaboration.

Research Question (RQ) 1: What Instructional Practices do RHS Teachers Use to Facilitate EL Students’ Science Learning? Teacher Dispositions. Science teachers at RHS implemented instructional practices grounded in positive dispositions toward teaching ELs, such as building relationships, connecting to students’ personal experiences and interests, and challenging EL students in science. Many teachers at RHS were supportive of the linguistic super-diversity and multiculturalism in their school. As Ms. Lanza shared, “You can hear multiple languages in the hallway just standing on hall duty. And so, that’s really neat and I think it adds just worldliness to the building that’s really cool.” Accordingly, Ms. Zurskey stressed the importance of interpersonal relationships with students, saying, “I think that what it all boils down to is having a good relationship with kids no matter where they are, who they are, where they come from.” Some teachers tried to connect to students’ experiences to further their learning. For instance, Ms. Lanza explained that in her life science class, she chose ecosystem examples from countries that some of her students came from, such as Burma and Guatemala. This practice of drawing from students’ experiences recognizes that EL learners have different and useful knowledge that would be meaningful to include in science discussions. Finally, RHS teachers recognized ELs’ potential and held them to high standards. Ms. Sharp explained, “I’m like, ‘I know you’re able to do more than you’re doing right now. I’ve seen you write; I’ve seen you answer questions. You can do a little bit more than you’re doing right now.” Challenging ELs cognitively appears to help them gain a sense of responsibility that does not patronize and essentialize them to their EL status. Scientific Sense-Making. Science teachers at RHS supported students’ sensemaking by utilizing peer interactions and promoting multimodal expressions. For instance, science teachers sometimes paired/grouped students in their classrooms to foster students’ peer interactions. Ms. Shale extensively employed students’ group work to create a cooperative learning environment in her classroom where students could leverage any student in the space to support science learning: “All my classes are pretty active, and we work in groups all the time. My kids understand what the

584

A. Ricketts et al.

expectations are, and they understand that they’re here to help one another.” In particular, she built a cooperative learning environment by setting norms (i.e., expectations) that students are there to help one another accomplish learning goals. In assigning students to groups, Ms. Lanza considered students’ English proficiency, saying, “I would make sure that their [ELs’] partner was a native speaker [of their shared home language]. When one doesn’t understand it in English, the other one really quickly says it in their native language, and they’re like, ‘Oh, okay good.’” Moreover, science teachers talked about how students use visuals and multiple languages to communicate scientific ideas. For example, Ms. Shale explained that in her physical science course, she allowed students to draw ideas if they could not write about them, “I think [ELs are] totally capable of drawing it and showing what it means. So, I [let students draw] a lot for new concepts.” In one class, we observed Ms. Lanza encouraging a student to use a term from the student’s native language (Spanish) on a written assignment when she could not recall the word in English. Ms. Lanza explained that she took the responsibility to look up these words when reading the students’ responses. Here, Ms. Shale and Ms. Lanza share the multimodal labor with the students by allowing them to present their sense-making in different ways. While we acknowledge that RHS teachers supported ELs’ sense-making by utilizing peer interactions and promoting multimodal expressions, we also recognized that their classroom practices (as represented in our field notes, collected curricular artifacts, and student interviews; see below) did not always align with recommendations from the literature for engaging students in scientific practices, wherein students share the responsibilities of knowledge co-construction. In RHS science classrooms, scientific knowledge was generally provided by the teacher to the students, with the teacher positioned as the primary evaluator of student knowledge. For example, we observed PowerPoint presentations that included mainly Initiation-Response-Evaluation discourse (Mehan 1979), verification labs (see Herman 1998), and classwork that involved rote problem-solving. Classroom Assessment. Science teachers at RHS commonly used multiple-choice summative assessments (e.g., chapter tests) and, in many cases, created alternative (modified) versions for ELs. In particular, the biology teachers collaborated to create an EL version of every chapter test over the course of the school year. In addition, science teachers sometimes made these modifications in “real time” if a student expressed confusion over wording, while they were completing the assessment. Most often, the modifications included reducing the number of answer choices, simplifying the language of the questions and/or answer choices, and/or allowing more time. A few teachers, however, incorporated multimodality in assessing students’ learning by allowing students to use verbal rather than written responses. Ms. Shale explained, “A lot of times it’s trying to figure out are they better at putting it down on paper, or are they better at speaking it to me? There are students that I know can come up to the board and do a problem, and explain it, but then when they sit down for their tests, I can see that they’re struggling with actually getting those thoughts out on paper. So, sometimes I’ll just ask them, and have like a verbal

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

585

[conversation] then I know if they know it. It’s like, okay, I can kind of assess them in different ways.” Overall, most assessment practices at RHS did not necessarily align with practices recommended in our literature review, as RHS teachers had not yet received any professional learning support specifically targeted at designing assessments for ELs. Several teachers explicitly expressed a desire for support in this area. Utilizing Human Resources. To better support its many ELs, RHS utilized educators in two main roles: English as a New Language (ENL) teachers (licensed to teach English as a Second Language as a content area) and tutor-translators. ENL teachers taught ELs who were assigned to ENL classes according to their English proficiency level (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment [WIDA] level 1–4). They engaged their students in real-world language use, such as creating an event flier (ENL 1) and writing college applications (ENL 4). They also served as resources to content area teachers whose classes included ELs and collaborated with them through co-planning and coteaching. For example, Ms. Pratt co-designed and taught a lesson with social studies teachers in which students represented their immigration stories using large world maps. However, such coteaching was infrequent and limited to social studies and English language arts teachers. RHS employed three tutor-translators who are fluent in English and one or more languages spoken by RHS students. While multilingual oral proficiency was a hiring criterion, tutor-translators were not required to have formal post-secondary preparation in education or any particular core content area. Tutor-translators supported ELs in a number of different ways. Instructionally, they provided one-on-one or small group support to ELs, either in core content classrooms or in the tutor-translators’ office. They frequently supported ELs taking classroom assessments by reading the questions (and, if applicable, answer choices) aloud in the students’ native language. They also served as language interpreters during meetings between school staff and parents. In some cases, they served as cultural brokers, helping both parents and staff understand each other’s cultural practices and ways of knowing. For example, Htet, fluent in English, Burmese, Hakha, and Falam, explained that on one occasion, she mediated a conversation between a school counselor and Chin parents regarding how to perceive their different cultures and respond to students’ mental health issues in very different ways. While ENL teachers and tutor-translators played a critical role in supporting ELs in their own capacities, a collaboration between science teachers, ENL teachers, and tutor-translators was limited by a number of factors, including logistics and lack of explicit structure or support. For example, RHS’s teaching schedule did not allow co-planning or coteaching between many ENL and science teachers. Moreover, the ENL department chair Ms. Pratt was told by the school’s administration, “Don’t go beating people [content area teachers] over the head. Let people come to you.” As a result, the interactions between ENL and content area teachers tended to be somewhat superficial and limited to exchanging information about particular EL students (e.g., their English proficiency level), as opposed to discussing instructional strategies for ELs. Similarly, tutor-translators had limited interactions with teachers. Htet explained, “the only time the teacher will contact us will be if they need the students

586

A. Ricketts et al.

to take a test in the [Tutor-translators’] office.” Neither ENL teachers nor tutortranslators had been offered professional learning support to expand their collaboration with science teachers in the service of supporting ELs’ science learning.

RQ2: How do EL Students Experience Teachers’ Implemented Instructional Practices? Teacher Dispositions. Student responses emphasized the importance of having a caring teacher who intentionally attempts to connect with them, makes them comfortable to ask questions, and assumes that they want to learn, even when they are silent. Aung described Ms. Zurskey in this very way, saying: When I struggle, and I don’t want to say [that I am struggling], I stop doing anything, and I just sit still, [even though] I still have a question that I need help. She come to me and ask me, ‘What do you need help with?’ She just really kind, she look every student if they’re on the right track and if they’re like, left behind.”

Alongi argued that teachers should make more efforts to connect with students to help their learning. When asked what he wants science teachers to know to help English learners, he said, “First, for them [teachers] to know that there’s a barrier. . .a language barrier. Like, he [an EL] doesn’t speak English, will not get up or talk too much and would just stay quiet and just doing his own stuff. Maybe he wants to learn something.” Alongi’s response emphasizes that teachers of ELs should not mistake ELs’ silence in the class for a lack of wanting to learn. He further suggested, “So you [teachers] have to make him [an EL] a plan to discuss it. To make him more comfortable. Like, to work with him, to discuss with him more often.” A few students’ responses also reminded us of the importance of teachers being familiar with their students’ cultures and understanding how multicultural assumptions and practices can interact with science learning at school. For example, Aung, a Burmese student, explained how some aspects of the RHS biology curriculum made her feel uncomfortable, especially when taught by a teacher of a different gender: “In biology, the sex cell, those stuff, it’s uncomfortable. When he say it, he’s a guy, and then when he talks, it, like – I don’t know. In Burma, we don’t really talk about [that]. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful to talk about it.” Aung suspected that her teacher was not aware of her discomfort or the potential discomfort of her Burmese peers. Scientific Sense-Making. When asked about their classroom learning experiences, students talked about the general instructional routines of their science classrooms, the multimodal affordances of science labs, and working with other students. When describing their typical experiences in science class, students talked mostly about taking notes, reading, doing worksheets, and taking quizzes/tests, which aligned with our own observations of science classroom practices. Dominic summarized this routine by saying, “She [my science teacher] gives us worksheets to

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

587

work on, two to three papers a day, and we just look on the book that she gives us and look up the answers in there for tests and things. So, pretty much the same thing every day.” Two exceptions to this routine that students described included lab work and class partner/group work. Overwhelmingly, students appreciated opportunities to learn in the science lab, often citing the visual affordances that the lab offers. As Adnan described, “Here in America, he [my science teacher] show me everything. Like, if he’s talking about DNA, he show me DNA, what is it. But in my country, he just like explain. Just words, and that’s it.” In addition, students generally appreciated opportunities to work on class assignments and activities with partners or a small group (as opposed to working alone). For example, Nibban explained, “I want to work with others, because they help me sometime. . . one of the white boys, he is so good in Physics, so he help me a lot. Everything I don’t know, . . . he explain and show the work.” When working with newcomer students who speak the same language, ELs often helped them by providing translations in class. Mereyem shared, “an Arabic girl, she kind of need a little bit help. And I speak to her in Arabic and told her, like, what to do. And how, like, to finish her homework.” While Mereyem liked to translate for other students, Dominic pointed out the drawbacks of working with peers in this way. He explained, “Last year, there was a kid that didn’t speak English, so [my teacher] told me if I could help him, and I was translating for him and everything. I was like, ‘Hm. I’m not doing my work because of this.’ I understand that he needs help and all that, but I’d rather do my work. Last year, I didn’t really had time in class when I had to translate.” We highlight that a closer look at students’ interviews suggests how they perceived the nature of learning. For example, in Jacques’ description of partner work, he notes, “if you feel like this [answer] is supposed not to be like this, then we’d get to ask a teacher.” Here, his description suggests that he might view teachers as having the sole authority to evaluate knowledge. Similarly, Mereyem explained that she would ideally like to do a lab, “like every three weeks, but not, like, all the time. Because it would be good if we have a little bit of time to kind of learn about words, definition, and how things work. And then just do an experiment to see how it look like in real life.” Mereyem seemed to perceive that science learning is mastery of definition and declarative knowledge through teachers’ lectures, and lab activities are opportunities to verify science content previously introduced in class. We note that this transmission approach to learning and teaching (Cohen 1988) is consistent with our observation of classrooms (as discussed in the RQ1 findings above). Furthermore, we argue that students’ perception of learning as knowledge transmission is also shown in how they often described peer collaboration as “helping” (e.g., Nibban, Mereyem, and Dominique). That is, the purpose of peer collaboration is to deliver knowledge from more knowledgeable (often native English speakers or ELs with advanced English proficiency) to less knowledgeable students (ELs in all proficiency levels, but particularly in lower proficiency levels), as opposed to collective engagement in authentic sense-making practices and co-construction of knowledge.

588

A. Ricketts et al.

Classroom Assessment. The students had varying experiences with RHS science teachers’ assessment practices. For example, Meryem expressed appreciation for her teacher’s willingness to provide assessment support on-the-fly, saying, “She does not just give you the answers. She asks, ‘What do you remember of this?’ So it’s still me, the one who is doing it, but it’s better when someone kind of explains to me, and asks me.” While many students appreciated having an EL version of an assessment, a few students reported that being given the EL version of a test made them feel “othered” (MacQuarrie 2010), especially when the EL version was printed on a different color than the unmodified tests their peers were given. Aung explained, “One time my teacher would give Test A and B, right? I’m the only one B, and the color’s different. Why do I have to have a different color?” Utilizing Human Resources. While coteaching is highly recommended in the literature, none of the students we interviewed experienced any coteaching and other types of collaboration between their science and ENL teachers. However, many students described a wide variety of perceptions of and experiences with the school’s tutor-translators. Some students regularly visited the tutor-translators’ office for language support on homework and especially for assessments or expressed a desire for a tutor-translator who spoke their language (e.g., Kinyarwanda, or Zomi) at RHS. Other students reported that they had no desire for a tutor-translator who speaks their language at RHS, never visited the tutor-translators’ office, or did not wish that a tutor-translator would visit their science classroom. They offered multiple explanations for these dispositions. For instance, Nin explained, “I don’t have time to go there” [the tutor-translators’ office]. Even in their science class, San pointed out, “[If] I’m going to ask [my teacher] that, then the interpreter would have to explain to me, so it kind of takes long [time].” Suu expressed a different perspective, in terms of valuing his personal freedom at school. He explained that while he might utilize the tutor-translator during a test, he would not visit their office during his study hall, because, “Study hall’s my free time, so I relax and I sleep.” He also explained his resistance to in-class support in terms of feeling surveilled, saying, “If he [the tutortranslator] come in every time in the class, I don’t want someone who is always watching me.” Nin explained that he would not utilize a tutor-translator in his science class, “because I get more understanding point from teachers than by asking [a tutor-translator].” Perhaps, this is because the tutor-translators are not necessarily trained in content areas. Some students described their resistance to utilizing the tutor-translators in terms of not wanting to feel othered, especially if they were the only EL or the sole speaker of their native language in the class. For example, Mar contrasted his previous (positive) experience with in-class support at a previous school versus his reluctance to utilizing an RHS tutor-translator’s support: So in my old school, the difference is we are about five students who has very limited English. So we all are in the same class and I feel better, and then we have a special teacher for us. But here, every classmate that I have are good in English. So the reason why I don’t like being helped [in class by a tutor-translator] here is because I don’t have other friends that would be with me.

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

589

One of the tutor-translators (Htet) corroborated Mar’s experience, saying: A lot of kids, they don’t want to ask for help because they feel different from the other students. Even if they have questions they won’t really talk because they are sitting with other students and we have to go beside them and talk to them in their own language. They won’t ask questions. They’re just trying to fit in.

RQ3: What Are the Challenges of Linguistic Super-Diversity that Existing Literature does not Sufficiently Address? Using materials written in students’ home language. The research literature recommends that teachers of emergent multilingual learners use multilingual curricular materials written both in the language of instruction and students’ home languages, to fully utilize students’ literacy proficiency (Buxton et al. 2019; García 2009). At RHS, this recommended practice is complicated by a number of considerations. From a practical standpoint, the sheer volume of languages spoken by students at RHS, in this case over thirty, creates obstacles to translation and interpretation. For example, the school and district employed only a few tutor-translators; thus, they did not speak all of the students’ various home languages. Furthermore, the head of the district’s English learners department made clear that the tutor-translators were hired based on their oral but not their written language expertise and should not be asked to translate written materials from English to other languages. Another issue of translated materials that surfaced during student interviews is the degree of linguistic difference between English and some students’ home languages. For example, when asked whether they would prefer to use instructional and/or assessment materials written in their home language(s), Kinyarwanda speaker Luc replied, “Yes but not everything. ‘Cause there’s some words in English that there’s not [in Kinyarwanda].” Other students pointed out that translated materials would not be helpful to them, because they do not read or write in their home language(s). As Nyein shared, “Zophei, we don’t know how to write it.” Taken together, these issues complicate the notion of using instructional or assessment materials written in students’ home languages (see Buxton et al. 2019 for an example). It would be practically challenging and a costly undertaking for the district to provide materials in all of the home languages spoken by RHS students. Furthermore, translation of content materials can be useful if the target languages are closely linguistically “related” to English (e.g., Germanic or Latin-based languages), and Western science is practiced in that target language. Otherwise, a simple translation of materials might not be adequately supporting student learning. Even with the best translations, students whose schooling and thus home-language literacy have been delayed, disrupted, or altogether nonexistent would have little use for such materials. While we do concur with the existing literature that providing students with materials written in their home language can support their science learning, our study sheds light on the constraints to this approach in linguistically super-diverse and multicultural contexts.

590

A. Ricketts et al.

Peer Collaboration. While literature recommends intentionally assigning students to pairs/groups in ways that engage them in collaborative science sense-making and develop English proficiency, our study highlighted complexities around this recommendation. Our student participants talked in detail about pair/group work, highlighting that with whom they worked was critical to their experience. Namely, (1) speakers of their home language(s), (2) monolingual, native English speakers (NESs), and (3) English learners with whom they did not share a home language such as a native Hakha speaker working with a native Spanish speaker. Although most students agreed with the importance of the linguistic background of partners, their preferences varied widely. For example, many students prefer to work with fellow speakers of their home language, because they can best communicate with them about challenging science concepts. Hakha speaker Nyein shared: They [NESs] say English, they explain it really hard. They understand [the science], but if they’re [explaining] to somebody else it’s really hard to say that. But a Hakha person, if she speaks to me in Hakha, it’s more easier to understand what’s [explained].

In contrast, Luc explained that he would not feel comfortable speaking Kinyarwanda to fellow native speakers in class, “Cause every time I speak Kinyarwanda, everyone being like, ‘What you saying? What? What?’” He suspected that students’ reactions stemmed from the relative novelty of Kinyarwanda at RHS, as well as “how we speak” – referring to the enthusiastic gestures and volume typical of Congolese language practices. Students also talked about a wide range of experiences in working with NESs. They explained that she prefers working with NESs because “I get a lot more done.” Other students talked about leveraging opportunities to work with NESs to develop their English skills. Meryem explained, “he [a NES] would talk to me even though it was really hard for me to understand. But it kind of helped me because he was helping me to learn English. He was benefiting me.” However, not all students enjoyed working with NESs for a variety of reasons. A number of students reported being laughed at by NESs when trying to speak English with them in the past and thus were now hesitant to work with them in general. Other students attributed their reluctance to the ways in which White, native English-speaking students interacted with them. Phan explained, “I’m strange about White people, I’m not racist or something, but I kind of think, like, they’re bossy or something. . . We [Zomispeaking students] don’t talk to each other like that.” Finally, the students generally reported positive experiences working with fellow ELs who do not share their home language. For example, Yavin shared: It’s easy to talk to someone that English is not his first language. You know? ‘Cause he can understand you and you can understand him, ‘cause it’s not his first language. So the accent going to be like, not perfect and like, he would get it.

When asked about their preferences for working with others, several students pointed out that relationship between students is more important than their native

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

591

languages or English proficiency. Mar explained his pairing preferences, referring to his relationship with a particular native English speaker (versus students who share his home languages): It all depends on whether we get along, because the guy who helped me with my English, he’s really nice and he’s always willing to help me. So, whether they speak Burmese or Zomi, if they’re not willing to help, it doesn’t work.

These students’ responses remind us of the delicate and complicated nature of intentionally pairing and grouping students. On the one hand, students must have opportunities to use their home language(s) with others in the service of engaging in science class more meaningfully. On the other hand, students also need opportunities to use the language of instruction for this engagement and to hear the language of instruction language modeled by people other than just their teachers. Moreover, students’ responses suggest that some students might have experienced discrimination and micro-aggression on the basis of language (Lippi-Green 2012). Beyond language considerations, successful pairing/grouping also depends on interpersonal relationships and cultural norms both in and out of the classroom. Thus, a teacher’s “intentional” pairing/grouping of students is likely to have both pros and cons for individual students, requiring teachers to consider the various affordances of pairing/ grouping choices and to be flexible with those choices.

Points of Interest to Consider The faculty and staff of RHS and its school district have worked very hard to support the school’s rapidly and constantly changing student population over the last decade, as immigrants and refugees from all over the world have resettled in the Riverview area. Such multicultural support includes creating an ENL department, providing a daily planning period for ENL department chair to support content area teachers, and hiring tutor-translators in several most commonly spoken non-English languages. However, teachers’ and students’ experiences at RHS highlight the importance of understanding the nuances and complexity that linguistic super-diversity and multiculturalism bring to bear on science instruction. Here, we discuss the challenges and opportunities for supporting science instruction in linguistically super-diverse and multicultural learning environments.

Challenges of Implementing Instruction in Multilingual and Multicultural Settings Linguistic and cultural super-diversity make it challenging to adopt some instructional practices recommended for teaching emergent multilingual students. As we articulated in the previous section, providing translated materials to students is not

592

A. Ricketts et al.

only impractical but also questionable in terms of its usefulness when students’ home languages and countries do not practice Western science. Publicly available translation services such as Google Translate do not contain the vocabulary and linguistic nuances necessary for accurately translating Western science concepts to language dialects like Hakha, Zomi, Zophei, Falam, and Lautu. Some students within our study even identified that they do not read or write in their home language(s), making translated materials completely ineffective. Furthermore, Fredholm (2019) found that overall using translated materials did not lead to long-term vocabulary development for students, negating positive pedagogical effects. Because learning is a product of using language within social interactions rather than a precursor (Lee et al. 2019), providing translated materials is not the ultimate solution for supporting emergent multilingual learners in science learning and language acquisition. As a field, we are in urgent need of identifying teaching practices that engage emergent multilingual students in learning science and English while also maximizing their linguistic resources in linguistically superdiverse and multicultural classrooms. Linguistically Super-diverse and multicultural classrooms can also complicate the facilitation of peer-to-peer interactions. While teachers may want to group students to maximize the use of students’ linguistic resources, other factors such as language proficiency, home language, and social identities play a role in determining the success of peer collaboration. For example, teachers may be eager to pair students with similar national origins as a good classroom management solution, but this could only be successful if they realize, and plan for, the influence of language proficiency and home dialect on peer collaboration. Emergent multilingual learners are not a monolithic group, so even when students share the same native language or dialect, they can differ on migration channels, immigration statuses, countries of origin, and religions. Differences in migration histories and educational backgrounds also tend to influence how students are perceived by their peers in the classroom. Often peers’ perceptions as well as students’ understanding of how they are positioned in the classroom shape how they engage in their classes and interact within peer collaborations. There can be tensions between students from different ethnic or religious groups that would make peer collaborations become contentious if not properly facilitated by teachers. Within our study, teachers like Ms. Shale encouraged their science students to actively move around the classroom, setting expectations that students need to work together to learn. Ms. Shale did not restrict students to a set group; instead she allowed emergent multilingual learners the flexibility to make decisions based on their own preferences. Learning environments like those fostered by teachers like Ms. Shale conceptualize group work as a collaborative, co-constructive endeavor. However, the majority of the group work at RHS in science classrooms did not appear to support knowledge co-construction, but rather served as another channel of knowledge transmission from self-perceived “more knowledgeable” students to “less knowledgeable” students and more English-proficient to less English-proficient students. In some cases, this channel of transmission reinforced differential power dynamics between and among ELs.

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

593

In addition, our observations and interviews suggest that science teachers at RHS often take traditional science teaching approaches wherein teachers deliver knowledge to students as the sole authority. Some teachers found it challenging to draw out emergent multilingual students’ experiences of scientific phenomena, as they did not have knowledge about the rich experiences students bring from their home countries. Specifically, many of the experiences which emergent multilingual students bring to the classroom may differ from the examples teachers typically use in less diverse classrooms. Science teachers’ lack of knowledge with the experiences which emergent multilingual students bring with them can greatly affect participation in laboratory experiments to a point that the purpose of labs to explore and investigate becomes confined to replication or confirming learned knowledge. Despite the efforts of science education policy makers, scholars, and district-level specialists to incorporate science and engineering practices in K12 science education, it appears that such efforts are not yet translated into regular practice in many science classes. Limited curricular resources and professional learning opportunities constrain teachers’ abilities to facilitate their students’ engagement in authentic sense-making through laboratory experiments and to foster students’ epistemic agency.

Opportunities for Encouraging Multiculturalism School-wide and classroom-wide culture are crucial in successfully supporting emergent multilingual students and newcomers. While teachers at RHS appreciated the diversity in the school and demonstrated positive disposition to EL students, our student participants reported feeling othered when the support provided intentionally or unintentionally marked them as different. Such feelings of othering appear to be more severe for students who use infrequently spoken languages, especially when they are the sole speakers of the language in a classroom such as Kibembe. As described above, well-meaning instructors within linguistically super-diverse and multicultural settings may feel inclined to just group them with other non-native English speakers without realizing the specific needs of their emergent multilingual learners. Our study shows that emergent multilingual learners have their own preferences when collaborating with peers that teachers may not be aware of. If flexible collaborative groups like those found in Ms. Shale’s classrooms cannot be achieved, we encourage science teachers to involve emergent multilingual learners in the designing of their learning environments. For example, some students like Nyein mentioned that they enjoy working with fellow Hakha speakers because they can translanguage while learning challenging science topics. However, some students like Luc do not feel comfortable speaking Kinyarwanda because other students are always curious about what they are saying. Most importantly, students like Meryem explained that they actually prefer working with native English speakers because they are able to get more work done and practice their English. Although it may not be possible to fulfill all their preferences, by involving them in the designing of their learning environments, teachers and students can have opportunities to learn about

594

A. Ricketts et al.

the concerns and perspectives of students and find ways to improve the activity structures to facilitate everyone’s learning. Meryem’s insights, as noted above, illustrate two additional points: (1) emergent multilingual learners often serve as informal translators for less English-proficient students, which can become burdensome for the more English-proficient students, and (2) learning English is a major goal, not just a means to an end, for some emergent multilingual learners. Leveraging emergent multilingual learners’ languages and multicultural practices as assets should not include using other EL students merely as supplemental instructors. While students supporting one another’s learning are highly encouraged, multilingual learners with higher English proficiencies should not be held responsible for the learning of their peers with lower English proficiencies. Instead, it is the responsibility of instructors to support the development of intercultural competence to foster cultural awareness and collaborative practices within their classrooms. Intercultural competence refers to “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff 2004, p. 184). Schwarzenthal et al. (2020) argue that the presence of a diverse group alone does not automatically promote intercultural learning. Encouraging intercultural learning can be accomplished through explicitly incorporating cultural content in the course curriculum. For example, Mensah (2021) found that by developing professional learning communities within an intensive science methods course, preservice teachers learned to “see the benefit of teaching science as Transformation and Social Action not only for their students but also for themselves as multiculturally-minded science curriculum developers” (p. 25). Although Mensah’s study has direct implications for preparing future science teachers, it also illustrates how teachers who are working within linguistically super-diverse and multicultural settings can position themselves as a professional learning community (PLC) that is committed to supporting emergent multilingual learners. Such PLCs could include the expertise of both science teachers and English as a New Language (ENL) teachers to integrate more cultural content within science curricula.

Conclusion We are not yet at a place to offer concrete answers to these concerns as science teaching in linguistically super-diverse and multicultural contexts has not been much researched. Yet, drawing on literature, we would like to suggest a few pedagogical and cultural reforms within a school, with caution. First, we believe that supporting emergent multilingual students’ science learning requires high-quality curricula and assessments designed to center student sense-making, combined with intensive, long-term, job-embedded professional learning support for teachers. Thus, teachers’ professional learning should go beyond tips and tricks of teaching emergent multilingual students, supporting teachers to reconceptualize teaching and learning as co-construction of knowledge that engages students of all backgrounds. Second,

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

595

successful students’ interaction (including the use of multiple languages for sensemaking) requires the design of more group-worthy tasks, with embedded supports and explicit training for students to communicate and evaluate ideas within the group (Cohen and Lotan 2014). Third, we believe that while it is important for teachers to hold asset-based dispositions toward working with emergent multilingual students, it is equally important for students (especially native English speakers) to view their emergent multilingual peers from an asset perspective, to maximize partner/group work. Finally, providing supportive mechanisms for emergent multilingual students as they transition from emergent to proficient multilingual learners would be helpful. These supports could include (1) providing individualized guidance that considers learner’s strengths and needs beyond English language proficiency when assigning them to a defined cohort; (2) creating formal and informal peer mentorship structures; and (3) engaging with students’ families and other local support networks to learn about more about students’ cultural funds of knowledge (Moll et al. 1992). Having reviewed our existing data, we have many remaining (and new) questions about supporting emergent multilingual students in linguistically super-diverse and multicultural science classrooms. For example, which strategies work best for teachers to build relationships with students who speak little of the language of instruction in class? How can teachers best pair/group students to maximize emergent multilingual students’ participation in collaborative sense-making and to develop their literacy skills in multiple languages? What kinds of classroom community-building activities support asset-based views of emergent multilingual students, especially among White, native-English speaking students? How might science teachers and ENL teachers best leverage each other’s expertise, and what supports would that collaboration require? How might the tutor-translators (or other classroom paraprofessionals) be best utilized to support emergent multilingual students’ science learning? How can science learning itself be understood multiculturally? How can the school, teachers, and fellow students accommodate the needs of emergent multilingual students in ways that do not make them feel like “others”? What kinds of curricular materials and assessments best support emergent multilingual students’ participation in authentic science sense-making, and what kinds of professional learning opportunities best support teachers in leveraging these resources? Acknowledgments This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF DRL # 1813937).

References Arkoudis S (2003) Teaching English as a second language in science classes: incommensurate epistemologies. Lang Educ 17(3):161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780308666846 Arkoudis S (2006) Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. Int J Biling Educ Biling 9(4):415–433. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb337.0 Bautista N, Castañeda M (2011) Teaching science to ELLs, part I. Sci Teach 78(3):35–39

596

A. Ricketts et al.

Bianchini JA (2018) Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about English learners and their impact on STEM learning. Paper commissioned for the committee on supporting English learners in STEM subjects. Board on science education and board on children, youth, and families, division of behavioral and social Sciences and education. Available: http://www.nas.edu/ELinSTEM. (October 2018) Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Buck Bracey ZE (2017) Students from non-dominant linguistic backgrounds making sense of cosmology visualizations. J Res Sci Teach 54(1):29–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21337 Buck G, Mast C, Ehlers N, Franklin E (2005) Preparing teachers to create a mainstream science classroom conducive to the needs of English-language learners: a feminist action research project. J Res Sci Teach 42(9):1013–1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20085 Bunch GC (2013) Pedagogical language knowledge: preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Rev Res Educ 37(1):298–341. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0091732X12461772 Buxton C (2005) Creating a culture of academic success in an urban science and math magnet high school. Sci Educ 89(3):392–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20057 Buxton C, Cardozo Gaibisso L, Xia Y, Li J (2018) How perspectives from linguistically diverse classrooms can help all students unlock the language of science. In: Bryan L, Tobin K (eds) 13 questions: reframing Education’s conversation: science. Peter Lang, New York, pp 273–291 Buxton C, Harman R, Cardozo-Gaibisso L, Jiang L, Bui K, Allexsaht-Snider M (2019) Understanding science and language connections: new approaches to assessment with bilingual learners. Res Sci Educ 49:977–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9846-8 Castañeda M, Bautista N (2011) Teaching science to ELLs, Part II. Sci Teach 78(3):40–44 Cohen DK (1988) Teaching practice: plus Ça change. (Issue paper 88–3). Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education, East Lansing Cohen EG, Lotan RA (2014) Designing Groupwork: strategies for the heterogeneous classroom, 3rd edn. Teachers College Press, New York Davison C (2006) Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: how do we know when we are doing it right. Int J Biling Educ Biling 9(4):454–475. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb339.0 Deardorff DK (2004) The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University. Retrieved from the North Carolina State University Library. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/5733 Dove M, Honigsfeld A (2010) ESL coteaching and collaboration: opportunities to develop teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL J 1:3–22. https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2010. 214879 Echevarría J, Vogt M, Short D (2017) Making content comprehensible for English learners: the SIOP model, 5th edn. Pearson, Boston Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL (2011) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226206851.001.0001 Enright KA (2011) Language and literacy for a new mainstream. Am Educ Res J 48(1):80–118. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210368989 Fredholm K (2019) Effects of Google translate on lexical diversity: vocabulary development among learners of Spanish as a foreign language. Revista Nebrija 13(26):98–117. https://doi.org/10. 26378/rnlael1326300 García O (2009) Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: what’s in a name. TESOL Q 43(2):322–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x Garzón-Díaz E (2018) From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. Int J Biling Educ Biling 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018. 1456512

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

597

Gebhard M, Chen I-A, Britton L (2014) “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization:” English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguist Educ 26: 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x Gómez Fernández R (2019) Translanguaging and equity in groupwork in the science classroom: adding linguistic and cultural diversity to the equation. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14(2):383–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09919-w González-Howard M, Suárez E (2021) Retiring the term English language learners: moving toward linguistic justice through asset-oriented framing. J Res Sci Teach 58(5):749–752. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.21684 Grapin S (2019) Multimodality in the new content standards era: implications for English learners. TESOL Q 53(1):30–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.443 Heritage M, Chang S (2012) Teacher use of formative assessment data for English language learners. University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles Herman C (1998) Inserting an investigative dimension into introductory laboratory courses. J Chem Educ 75(1):70–72. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p70 Hudicourt-Barnes J (2003) The use of argumentation in Haitian creole science classrooms. Harv Educ Rev 73(1):73–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.73.1.hnq801u57400l877 Johnson CC, Bolshakova VLJ (2015) Moving beyond “those kids”: addressing teacher beliefs regarding the role of culture within effective science pedagogy for diverse learners. Sch Sci Math 115(4):179–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12120 Johnson CC, Bolshakova VLJ, Waldron T (2016) When good intentions and reality meet: largescale reform of science teaching in urban schools with predominantly Latino ELL students. Urban Educ 51(5):476–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914543114 Kang H, Zinger D (2019) What do core practices offer in preparing novice science teachers for equitable instruction. Sci Educ 103(4):823–853. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21507 Karlsson A, Larsson PN, Jakobsson A (2018) Multilingual students’ use of trans-languaging in science classrooms. Int J Sci Educ 2049–2069. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018. 1477261 Kopriva RJ (2014) Second-generation challenges for making content assessments accessible for ELLs. Appl Meas Educ 27(4):301–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2014.944311 Krashen SD (1988) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Prentice-Hall International Lee O, Llosa L, Grapin S, Haas A, Goggins M (2019) Science and language integration with English learners: a conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development. Sci Educ 103:317–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21498 Lippi-Green R (2012) English with an accent: language, ideology and discrimination in the United States, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203348802 Lyon EG, Bunch GC, Shaw JM (2012) Navigating the language demands of an inquiry based science performance assessment: classroom challenges and opportunities for English learners. Sci Educ 96(4):631–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21008 MacQuarrie C (2010) Othering. In: Mills AJ et al (eds) Encyclopedia of case study research, vol 2. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 635–639. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397 Maerten-Rivera J, Ahn S, Lanier K, Diaz J, Lee O (2016) Effect of a multiyear intervention on science achievement of all students including English language learners. Elem Sch J 116(4): 600–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/686250 Márquez C, Izquierdo M, Espinet M (2006) Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle. Sci Educ 90(2):202–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20100 Mehan H (1979) Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 Mensah FM (2021) “Now, I see”: multicultural science curriculum as transformation and social action. Urban Rev 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-021-00602-5

598

A. Ricketts et al.

Moll LC, Amanti C, Neff D, Gonzalez N (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Pract 31(2):132–141. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534 Moore FM (2008) The role of the elementary science teacher and linguistic diversity. J Elem Sci Educ 20(3):49–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174708 Moore E, Evnitskaya N, Ramos-de Robles SL (2018) Teaching and learning science in linguistically diverse classrooms. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13(2):341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422016-9783-z Msimanga A, Lelliott A (2014) Talking science in multilingual contexts in South Africa: possibilities and challenges for engagement in learners home languages in high school classrooms. Int J Sci Educ 36(7):1159–1183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.851427 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) English learners in STEM subjects: transforming classrooms, schools, and lives. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25182 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Noble T, Bowler C, Kachchaf R, Sireci SG, Rosebery A, Wang Y (2016) Addressing the linguistic challenges of assessing ELs: a state and research organization partnership. In: Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC Park M, Zong J, Batalova J (2018) Growing Superdiversity among young U.S. dual language learners and its implications. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/growing-superdiversity-among-young-us-dual-lan guage-learners-and-its-implications Pierson A, Clark D (2018) Emerging bilingual students and science practices: can Translanguaging resources be leveraged to support modeling? In: Cukurova M, Hunter J, Holmes W, Dimitrova V (eds) Practitioner and industrial track proceedings of the 13th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS18). University College London, London. 23–27 June Rivera Malucci MS (2009) Language experience narratives and the role of autobiographical reasoning in becoming an urban science teacher. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6:413–434. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11422-011-9323-9 Rosebery AS, Warren B, Conant FR (1992) Appropriating scientific discourse: findings from language minority classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 33:569–600. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327809jls0201_2 Rutt A, Mumba F, Kibler A (2021) Preparing preservice teachers to teach science to english learners: a review. J Res Sci Teach 58(5):625–660. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21673 Ryoo K, Bedell K, Swearingen A (2018) Promoting linguistically diverse students’ short-term and long-term understanding of chemical phenomena using visualizations. J Sci Educ Technol 27(6):508–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9739-z Schwarzenthal M, Schachner MK, Juang LP, Van De Vijver FJ (2020) Reaping the benefits of cultural diversity: classroom cultural diversity climate and students’ intercultural competence. Eur J Soc Psychol 50(2):323–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2617 Siry C, Gorges A (2019) Young students’ diverse resources for meaning making in science: learning from multilingual contexts. Int J Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1625495 Smetana LK, Heineke AJ (2017) Preparing science teachers for English learners: a targeted and integrated approach to preservice teacher education. In: Oliveira AW, Weinburgh MH (eds) Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9 Snow C (2008) Essay: what is the vocabulary of science? In: Rosebery AS, Warren B (eds) Teaching science to English language learners: building on students’ strengths. NSTA Press, Arlington, pp 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53594-4 Spradley JP (1979) The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York Spradley JP (1980) Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

22

Science Teaching and Learning in Linguistically Super-Diverse. . .

599

Suriel RL, Atwater MM (2012) From the contribution to the action approach: white teachers’ experiences influencing the development of multicultural science curricula. J Res Sci Teach 49(10):1271–1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21057 Swain M, Deters P (2007) “New” mainstream SLA theory: expanded and enriched. Mod Lang J 49 (s1):820–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00671.x Tan M (2011) Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Lang Teach Res 15(3):325–342. https://doi.org/10.17226/25182 Tang K-S, Tan SC, Yeo J (2011) Students’ multimodal construction of work-energy concepts. Int J Sci Educ 33(13):1775–1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.508899 Tolbert S, Stoddart T, Lyon EG, Solís J (2014) The next generation science standards, common Core state standards, and English learners: using the SSTELLA framework to prepare secondary science teachers. Issues Teach Educ 23(1):65–90 Turkan S, Liu OL (2012) Differential performance by English language learners on an inquirybased science assessment. Int J Sci Educ 34(15):2343–2369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693. 2012.705046 Ünsal Z, Jakobson B, Molander B-O, Wickman PO (2018) Science education in a bilingual class: problematising a translational practice. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13:317–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-016-9747-3 Valdés-Sánchez L, Espinet M (2020) Coteaching in a science-CLIL classroom: changes in discursive interaction as evidence of an English teacher’s science-CLIL professional identity development. Int J Sci Educ 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1710873 Vertovec S (2007) Super-diversity and its implications. Ethn Racial Stud 30(6):1024–1054. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465 Zhang Y (2016) Multimodal teacher input and science learning in a middle school sheltered classroom. J Res Sci Teach 53(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21295

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

23

S. Lizette Ramos de Robles and Alejandro J. Gallard Martínez

Contents Background for Our Contribution: Contextualizing the Unseen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Status of Foreign Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Directions for Bilingualism, Multilingualism, and Plurilingualism in Science Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where Does Multicultural Science Education Go from Here? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

602 606 608 612 613

Abstract

In this chapter, we argue for the criticalness of inclusiveness by creating educational spaces for multiple cultures and languages. We suggest the need to understand that science teaching takes place in contextualized complex conversational spaces, especially when these spaces are characterized by different languages and students with different cultural and identity trajectories. In this chapter, we use the term bilingualism/multilingualism/plurilingualism (BMP) as one. There is a deliberateness in combining these precise and theoretically separate terms as they all underscore the need for respecting the linguistic and cognitive tools a student brings to the science classroom. A student’s language, coupled with social interaction and collaboration in an educational space where otherness is respected and included, can enrich and facilitate a student’s learning to include science. We question if in a society when a dominant language, such as English, is considered the lingua franca of science teaching, how does this influence the beliefs that science teachers have about teaching science through a BMP filter or model? S. L. Ramos de Robles Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] A. J. Gallard Martínez (*) Georgia Southern University, Savannah, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_20

601

602

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

Keywords

Bilingualism/multilingualism/plurilingualism (BMP) · Educational spaces · Contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) · Multicultural · Plurilingual · Hegemony

Background for Our Contribution: Contextualizing the Unseen In educational spaces used for teaching and learning science, we wish to draw attention to the idea that science is taught in a sociocultural, economic, historical, and -political contexts, which we refer to as macrogenic contextual mitigating factors (CMFs). CMFs are “a continuous set of socio-historical, -political contextual constructs which are fluid and dynamic, simultaneously interweaving community, education, family, gender/identity, and other socially constructed domains” (Gallard et al. 2018, p. 2). Perhaps one of the more influential CMFs is teaching science in a language that ignores students’ mother tongues and multiple cultures. As Cupane and Taylor (2010) reflect on the role of Portuguese in Mozambique, we also question the usefulness of insisting on one language of instruction (e.g., English) in today’s world. We are not against teaching content material in a language such as English, but we do resist hegemonic pedagogical practices based on the language a student does not speak instead of the language(s) they do speak. However, if a language such as English is “used to situate and position the English language as a dangerous hegemonic force that serves to reinforce unequal divisions of power based on English proficiency,” then language itself becomes a CMF because it is a critical tool for negotiating all meanings (Lodge 2020). We start with the assumption that science teaching is to teach today’s science, which is very likely the science found in textbooks. Besides surface how to, how else do the teachers’ editions of textbooks provide room for students to become critical thinkers or bring their science knowledge to the table represented in their home languages? Ignoring what students bring to the learning space adds to the contextualized complexity of teaching and learning science. Another way of thinking about this is that there is a strong possibility that science teaching will happen in such a fashion that the rich experiences students bring to the learning space are ignored. Limiting a student’s ability to negotiate learning by using all of the sense-making resources they have accumulated is a form of disenfranchisement and a loss of agentic action (Lodge 2020). “To think and act critically implies always to have in consideration both individual and society. Individuals can act and think critically if they are allowed to have freedom as well as power” (Cupane and Taylor 2010, p. 439). We propose the need to analyze science teaching contexts as complex conversational spaces (Ramos 2010), even more so when these spaces are characterized by the use of different languages and students with different cultural and identity trajectories. Given the worldwide shifts in populations and their languages and ways of knowing, where does bilingualism/multilingualism/plurilingualism (BMP) fit into the teaching and learning of science today? How do the multiple cultures

23

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

603

(multiculturalism) that emerge in a plurilingual science classroom establish interactional dynamics that modulate the participants’ agency if one culture dominates all of the others? What does a sociocultural perspective and the concept of CMFs offer to interpret plurilingual and multicultural spaces used for science education? In this chapter, we use the term bilingualism/multilingualism/plurilingualism (BMP) as one. There is a deliberateness in combining these specific and theoretically separate terms. When we developed the acronym BMP and related it to science teaching/learning, we realized it was like mixing oil and water. For example, if a dominant language, such as English, is considered the lingua franca of science teaching, how would this influence the beliefs that science teachers have about teaching science through a BMP filter? We cannot answer this complex question at this time. But we know that a student’s language coupled with social interaction and collaboration in an educational space where it is respected and encouraged can enrich and facilitate a student’s learning to include science (Vygotsky 1978). Sewell (2004) reminds us to recognize that there is a dynamic fluidity when language is associated with a person’s culture and other identities, which are aspects of the multiple cultural and social capitals brought into the science classroom. Some scholars argue that language is inseparable from identity. They say that language is an interaction in that it represents an entity whose existence lies not only in words but in all modes of representation and participation present in a given situation. This vision of language encompasses everything that accounts for the ways of being in the world, ways of life that are integrated by acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, identities, gestures, body positions, words, and paralinguistic processes, as examples (Gee 1999; Roth 2005). Additionally, given the diversity of students’ languages in today’s classrooms, the spectrum can go from one to two to plural languages embedded in multiple cultures. We posit that BMP notions, such as differences and otherness, enter the scientific enterprise as a disempowered entity. As Kayumova et al. (2019) indicate, “Achieving equitable learning opportunities and outcomes for, and among all students is one of the most pressing challenges facing science education” (p. 8). One of the mitigating factors adding to the complexity of inclusiveness is that BMP is not the foundation of nor the underpinning of science or science teaching. BMP is an add-on thought that becomes subducted by the scientific enterprise’s rules and a science teacher’s beliefs about cultural and linguistic differences within a science student population. If BMP students perceive science as a foreign language, then science teachers are teaching science as an abstract and decontextualized discipline. This perception is underscored by science teachers who insist on ignoring a student’s mother tongue and are adamant that they “learn” science through science vocabulary in the dominant language. We are well aware that many science teachers communicate only in the dominant language. Out point is more nuanced and begs the question as to why students who do not know the dominant language are not provided with the linguistic pedagogical resources necessary to incorporate what they can communicate in the learning process. For some students, learning science as a foreign language, especially in English, can be rewarding as they already have the linguistic

604

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

foundation that simply requires adding vocabulary. However, for those whose mother tongue is not English or another dominant language, and they are denied the ability to incorporate their mother tongue into the formal learning spaces, they are only learning science words without the conceptual connections. Some will argue that they need to learn English or the dominant language and that the best way is through learning the vocabulary of science. We ask them to “think about learning in terms of learning to speak a language by participating in speaking it (where the mother tongue generally and the vernacular more specifically already constitute a linguistic foundation)” (Roth 2005). Echoing Roth is Lemke’s (1998) notion that science does not speak of the world using only isolated decontextualized words. Science words are conceptually contextualized, and language is the union of various modes of communication. “The natural ‘language’ of science is a synergistic integration of words, diagrams, pictures, graphs, maps, equations, tables, charts, and other forms of visual and mathematical expressions” (Lemke 1998, p. 3). The notion of subduction is underscored by Stevenson (2013) in a bilingual classroom (English/Spanish), where, in a teacher-centered science classroom, students “mostly used English, with occasional Spanish added in. Conversely, when interacting within their student peer groups, Spanish predominated” (Stevenson 2013, p. 979). An implication is that there is a tension in this learning space between the English language and Spanish, which can convey to students that power/prestige is associated with English and science and not the linguistic tools you use to make sense and create images about science. These students seemed to fulfill their learning needs by using Spanish among themselves for meaning-making. What seemed to be lost by the science teacher was that inserting BMP into science teaching has the potential for the development of a co-existence between the differences in the outside world (student’s worlds) and the world of science. Their use of a more academic or formal language register was limited to the definition of scientific concepts and vocabulary in the lessons. The requirement that students use academic language for these tasks left a disconnect between the students’ informal understandings and their parroting of memorized formal definitions. (Stevenson 2013, p. 986)

This type of thinking and/or attitude ignores the rich experiences that students whose first language is not English have accumulated by attaching words and their meanings to mental images. It is a form of disinclusion, disenfranchisement, disempowerment, and the theft of one’s agency. Of greatest importance, in relation to placement for STEM learning, is their prior knowledge about STEM subjects, but children are not typically assessed for their content knowledge when entering U.S. schools. Instead, their identification and course placement, at least at the secondary level, is typically determined by their level of English proficiency. (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018, Chap. 2)

It is essential to highlight the complexity that characterizes the educational spaces and the possible sociocultural implications for a foreign language’s role in science teaching and learning. “In the science classroom, the issue of language becomes a bit

23

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

605

more complicated. Not only is there the issue of whether to use the English language but also whether to use the language of science and of the teacher” (Gallard 1993, p. 175). The question that arises is if we substitute the learning of science with the teaching of science vocabulary in English or another dominant language, is this an act of disempowerment? We believe the answer is yes because it is a form of “epistemological arrogance” (Pouliot 2019, p. 226) in which one view of the world supersedes all other beliefs. In a sociocultural contextual sense, it is not about adding BMP into the science classroom nor respecting the languages that students use to make sense of the world but more about transforming science teaching such that differences or otherness is recognized, respected, learned from, and used to inform science learning as well as teaching. Transforming science teaching and learning is not about surface acceptance of otherness or differences – it is about having a critical understanding of how science teaching and learning are positioned by sociocultural CMFs in the social spaces within which it is situated (Gallard et al., 2018). CMFs – such as science teachers insisting that science should be taught through vocabulary or that English be the only language of learning – are influential and in “School science can mitigate or exacerbate the inherently oppressive and hegemonic reality of schooling” (Verma et al., 2019, p. 190). Power as an oppressing CMF allows us to question how, in a multicultural science classroom, the role of language is played out. The importance of developing a theoretical framework using critical sociocultural perspectives brought to light for us the implications of a bilingual or plurilingual class, situated within multicultural contexts in the development of new literacies that transcend beyond the domain of a disciplinary content or a language associated with the teaching and learning of science. For example, the Banks model (1995) allows us to analyze conceptually multilingual spaces and understand the implications related to the dynamics of asymmetries of power, agency, and cultural differences as framed by other scholars. The Banks model (1995) is framed by five multicultural education dimensions: content integration, knowledge construction, prejudice reduction, equitable pedagogy, and empowering school culture. Mary Atwater (1996) suggests that integrating social constructivism with multiculturalism will allow for individual student realities, based on cultural experiences, to be converted into science realities. Atwater’s suggestion leads us to ask, when students step away from their out-ofschool worlds and enter the classroom, do they comprehend that the hegemony of science questions their realities? Also implied in Atwater’s work is that an individual’s home language is an integral part of their identity and how the self is defined, with other characteristics, by the social contexts in which one is positioned (Block 2014). Consequently, the learning of new languages coincides with, but cannot be reduced to, communicative or functional-communicative approaches, which start from the general principle that learning a new language is learning to communicate with it. Thus, Nussbaum (2001) proposes a pragmatic vision of a language and conceives it as a system whose primary purpose is to build and communicate meanings. For this to occur, language must be inserted into significant tasks and

606

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

real situations, that is, contextualized forms of use. Language and communication are some of the most complicated aspects of human behavior. Suppose we conceive of language as a resource and a tool to communicate and learn simultaneously. In that case, the ability to use a language will be much more than knowing its words and grammar and speaking perfectly formed sentences and will consist in the search for a communicative use: the achievement of effective communicative competence. In this sense, “competence in a foreign language means, first of all, being able to communicate in that language and not knowing how to speak as a native individual” (Nussbaum 2001, p. 33).

The Status of Foreign Language Since its origins, foreign languages’ teaching has experienced the influence of both political and cultural factors, even becoming a contested and controversial social phenomenon. According to Nussbaum (2001), a clear example of this is the representations that revolve around prestige, value, and/or the devaluation of language learning, which are examples of CMFs. To exemplify, he takes up the case of the flourishing of German science and philosophy throughout the nineteenth and first third of the twentieth century and how, consequently, learning German became an indicator of social prestige for certain Spanish elites. Bernaus and Escobar (2001) point out that foreign languages in Europe began in the sixteenth century and are associated with elitist purposes resulting from political changes. At that time, languages such as French, English, or Italian gradually displaced Latin as the sole language of oral and written communication in the education, commercial, religious, or political worlds. Since then, and given the overwhelming development of media, the status of foreign language learning is mitigated by demand and need, which is a very minimal perspective of its potential purpose. The result is that foreign language learning has progressed rapidly in recent years, to the point that it has become a right and a basic form of competence in the development of individuals. Yet as in the past, there is greater or lesser prestige for those who learn foreign languages and the language they learn. In science in the United States, it is English. Coste et al. (2009) refer to plurilingual competence as: the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social actor, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experiences of several cultures. This is not seen as the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences, but rather as the existence of a complex or even composite competence on which the social actor may draw. (p. v)

Being multilingual/plurilingual means having developed communication skills (e.g., oral, written) in different languages, which can be used in various educational and social settings (Moree et al., 2017). It is clear that language learning transcends beyond its domain and recognizes its value by allowing new ways of knowing, expanding existing identities, accessing new cultures and content such as eastern and

23

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

607

indigenous science. This type of recognition goes beyond seeing language as only cognitive but also allows for cultural aspects to be mixed in the classroom during teaching and learning. After several decades of a curricular emphasis on teaching a foreign language, we note that English was the language that was positioned as the “universal language” of communicative exchanges (Moore & Dooly 2010). An English emphasis is probably framed by economic needs associated with market globalization and its influence on work and educational spaces. The implication is that English is the language that prevails, as a form of hegemony, in both international academic events and publications. In short, English has become the primary language for education, research, and commerce, among other activities paradigmatically. However, in recent decades, there has emerged a need to promote learning English as a foreign language and other languages, emphasizing multilingualism (Diamond 2010). We believe this recent emphasis is also associated with globalization and the mobilization of people from different countries into an international workforce dominated by the English language to support a global economy. Xuesong Gao (2019) questions the boundaries that are often assumed to differentiate languages and draws attention to the possibility of facilitating language learners to utilize these linguistic resources in pursuing effective communication. This approach leads us to rethink the boundaries of languages and affirm the significance of the linguistic resources that language learners bring with them in learning science (Saraceni and Jacob 2019). The main implication of acknowledging that students can avail themselves of different linguistic resources to include in their learning process is to recognize that classrooms are social spaces where complex communication situations develop and that the use of language is closely linked to specific social functions. This implies an understanding of discourse’s criticalness in the science community and its limitations (Gee 2006). The integration of multiple languages is a complex set of sociocultural interactions between the teacher and student (Cupane 2011; Risager 2011). In these interactions, we must understand that science meaning is language/vocabulary specific. This raises the question as to how, in classrooms that are BMP, meaning-making can be facilitated by integrating multiple languages in the learning spaces that perhaps are competing with each other (Karlsson et al. 2019). Researchers of foreign language teaching advocate that new approaches are needed, recognizing the need to consider incorporating all linguistic resources in learning spaces that could be made available to students. For example, codeswitching as a resource (Moore and Dooly 2010) helps construct and negotiate meaning (Gumperz 1982). Nilep (2006) defines code-switching “. . .as an alternation in the form of communication that signals a context in which the linguistic contribution can be understood” (p. 17). One of the linguistic pedagogical methods that seem to be inclusive of many languages is translanguaging. According to García (2009), the pedagogy of translanguaging is defined as an approach to teaching and learning in which students’ whole language repertoires are used as valuable resources for constructing meaning and developing academic competencies in the language of instruction.

608

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

Translanguaging pedagogy also refers to the multiplicity, fluidity, mobility, locality, and globality of semiotic resources drawn on by bilingual individuals for engaging in complex meaning-making processes (García & Wei 2014). As a pedagogical strategy, translanguaging helps students and teachers face the challenge of unearthing the intercultural manifestations present in the classroom (Wei 2017; Gao 2019). An essential aspect of translanguaging is the development of intercultural competence, which, rather than being defined, can be understood as a process that is developed through four main steps: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Learning about cultural differences Deconstructing cultural differences Reconstructing knowledge and attitudes Seeking creative solutions to communication problems (Zheng & Gao 2019)

Within translanguaging, recognizing intercultural manifestations such as identity, differences, and cultures is fundamental because, during foreign language learning, students can strengthen their own identity while developing other cultural identities through learning a new language. However, some studies argue that the identity associated with the mother tongue is not always strengthened (Bamberg et al., 2011). But as Karlsson et al. (2019) reason, “a translanguaging science classroom (TSC) generally offers multilingual students increased opportunity to relate the subject matter to their first language and prior experience” (p. 19). According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009), for the construction of new translanguaging models that lead to intercultural competence recognition, teachers and researchers must consider integrating theoretical-methodological conceptual approaches from anthropology, sociology, and political and social studies based on their epistemology. As an example, Risager (2011) demonstrates through the approaches of theorists such as Gumperz (1982), Hymes (1962), Vygotsky (1978), Wertsch (1989), Fairclough (1992), and others that some scholars have been able to document the cultural dimensions of language teaching, including exploring the complex dimensions that develop during classroom interactions. Developing and integrating new sociological frameworks imply proposing new epistemologies that are not limited to solely explaining cognitive processes but should also be inclusive of sociocultural factors. This process involves using a polysemic framework to reflect and pose new questions that result in multiple interpretations and/or beliefs around the research object in question (Fellner & Siry 2010).

New Directions for Bilingualism, Multilingualism, and Plurilingualism in Science Teaching and Learning To understand BMP, we must engage multiple sociocultural perspectives that will allow us to analyze classrooms as forms of cultures represented and deployed (enacted) in a variety of formally or informally constituted (Roth & Tobin 2006). For Bourdieu (1990), “the structure of the field is a state of the relation of forces

23

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

609

between the agents or the institutions that intervene. This same structure, which is at the base of the strategies aimed at transforming them. . .is always in play” (p. 136). Understanding cultural productions in fields is recognizing that “the objective cultural capital does not exist and does not subsist as material and symbolically acting cultural capital except in and for the struggles that take place in the field of cultural production fields (artistic or scientific)” (Bourdieu 1988, p. 225). Based on this vision, other authors have used the concept of field and define it as a site of production and cultural representation constituted by structure – including space, time, goals, individuals, materials, and social categories such as age, gender, race, and class (Tobin 2009; Sewell 1992, 1999). We agree with Moree et al. (2017), who recognize that “educational institutions, and communities more generally, face the enormous challenge of educating the school population for active participation in a diverse, interconnected and everchanging world, in which monolingual competences and monocultural worldviews are insufficient” (p. 350). In this sense, they argue that it is time to position linguistic diversity as the norm. Yet, as Siry and Gorges (2019) notice, through the lens of the agency/structure dialectic, interactions in a multilingual science classroom are representative of a multitude of resources plurilingual students can use when interacting in the classroom if they are empowered to do so. However, Siry and Gorges’ idea is contingent on how different classroom structures afford or hinder a student’s agency from invoking these resources. In this same sense, Makalela (2018) recognizes the need to value classrooms’ cultural and linguistic diversity to promote the value of rural African communities where indigenous literacy patterns can still be discerned that make sense of their world. The use of indigenous literacies in education can constitute a bottom-up language planning initiative, and these literacies can be part of the mainstream schooling system. Extracting from the “funds of knowledge based in Africa, we are able to build an educational framework by theorising language use, literacy and latent educational techniques which is more appropriate for local rural communities than the approach introduced by colonial powers” (Makalela 2018, p. 840). It is essential to recognize that in science classrooms where students can be either monolingual or BMP, the asymmetric dynamics of cultural production unfold. Each student puts into play the different resources and levels of mastery of science and languages. That is to say that in the learning process, each field provides and demands a specific use of resources. The implication is that the agents within a field see themselves as those who should deploy their capacities (agency) for action to achieve their goals, which are forms of cultural production. Therefore, each field is the product of a series of inter- and intra-tensions that simultaneously share and configures the social space with other fields. These tensions are, in turn, CMFs. The following scheme visualizes the dynamic tensions among the following aspects: monolingual/bilingual-multilingual-plurilingual, monoculture/pluricultural, and mono-agency/pluriagency. The stratagem is a set of aspirational pedagogical goals for including multicultural, BMP, and perhaps disenfranchised students in the process of learning science. In the simplest of terms, the goal is to create fluidity within educational spaces that transform learning from monolingual to bilingual,

610

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

multilingual, or plurilingual environments. The learning of science then becomes situated within profoundly rooted opportunities for students to use all of their linguistic and cultural resources to develop their agency during the learning process. However, as other scholars in this chapter have pointed out, there are complex CMFs involved in this transformation. Perhaps the most complex issue is teaching science in a language that students do not understand through vocabulary. The following figure raises the need to move toward more comprehensive plurilingual science teaching contexts, in which one goes from (a) a monolingual vision to a plurilingual vision in which each language has the same value and importance within communicative exchanges; (b) from a monoagency vision to a vision in which collective agency (pluriagency) is critical and not individual achievements; and (c) from a monocultural to a pluricultural vision that values the richness that students bring to the classroom which is based on their experiences and the sociocultural aspects that characterize their experiences. We propose that the pluricultural union, pluriagency, and plurilingüe will allow the building of real spaces to construct multiple pieces of knowledge that can encompass areas beyond the teaching and learning of science and foreign languages, learning that incorporates cultural and collective values (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize the dynamics of power asymmetries of the dialectical tensions in each classroom. Contextually mitigating the tensions is the inequity in the distribution of resources within the fields and each participant’s agency. Individuals’ ability to use and mobilize resources belonging to social fields is called agency and represents the power that their actions have to conduct social life (Tobin 2007). Thus, when the agent participates in different fields, it is necessary to mobilize resources to achieve the goals. In these actions, it is possible to identify great creativity by using the resources in new ways in the same field or by extending and adapting their original use in other fields. This agency is unstable, evading prediction of exactly how far it can be transferred from one field to another. Sewell (1999) adds that this versatility of agents is also manifested in applying a wide range of different and even incompatible resources to access others of heterogeneous orders. In this sense, the classroom is one of the social fields where resources are most evident since most of the activities carried out in situ have the specific purpose of offering their participants possibilities of using these resources to achieve particular goals. In the words of Tobin (2008), the challenge of educational activities is “Creating structures that expand the agency of all participants, affording their action possibilities and opportunities for success” (Tobin 2008, p. 85). A structure such as translanguaging pedagogy contributes to the development of students’ agency in BMP classrooms (García 2009). Translanguaging is an approach to teaching and learning in which students’ whole language repertoires are used as valuable resources for constructing meaning and for developing academic competencies in the language of instruction. The relevance of translanguaging has since been extended beyond education to studying social life in linguistically diverse communities more generally (Moree et al., 2017).

23

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

611

Pluricultural

Monolingual

Monoagency

Learning arni Science

Pluriagency

Monocultural

Bilingual-Multilingual-Plurilingual

Fig. 1 Representation of an ideal flow dynamics of a plurilingual science teaching and learning environment

According to Chang (2019), the new theory of language practice is characterized by the trans-turn, within which the goal is to develop a theory of language that goes beyond structuralist orientations, which implies vision changes in four main aspects: (a) crossing linguistic borders, (b) crossing communicative borders, (c) crossing disciplinary borders, and (d) crossing social borders. Consequently, the achievement of translanguaging a science classroom “improves the probability that students’ understanding of the subject will increase and seems to create a space in the multilingual classroom in which the students can relate their everyday experiences to the science subject matter” (Karlsson et al. 2020, p. 19). Also, as argued by Li (2018), taking a trans-approach to pedagogy “empowers both the learner and the teacher, transforms the power relations, and focuses the process of teaching and learning on making meaning, enhancing the experience, and developing identity” (p. 15). For many science teachers questioning the multicultural and plurilingual elements present in a classroom, these approaches from a sociocultural perspective may be a challenge to their pedagogical practices. However, today diversity constitutes the norm, and acting against it and in favor of homogenizing positions would perhaps highlight an incomplete understanding of the trans-approach’s value. Attention to diversity and the valuation of students’ knowledges and cultures is one way to reduce the gap between school and everyday life and make learning useful for

612

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

individuals and society. Such attention can be accomplished when in education, a fair and inclusive society is achieved – a society in which languages can coexist and be situated by mutual respect.

Where Does Multicultural Science Education Go from Here? Plurilingual classrooms, where science is taught, represent social spaces filled with opportunities to value the richness of conceptual images of science in multiple languages. By a richness of conceptual images, we mean understanding not only through Western science but through all sciences, cultures, languages, and identities. However, to take advantage of these resources developed through rich life experiences, science teachers should develop an awareness of how they and the science content they teach have been positioned and situated by English hegemony. We believe that it is essential that when science teachers rethink science teaching, they must be willing to embrace transformative practices and a deep understanding of the sociocultural CMFs that position their practice. One of the CMFs is implied by Lemke (1998) when he discusses the “natural language of science” (p. 3). As long as teaching science is conceptualized as learning a foreign language, then it seems that an emphasis on learning the language of science would take precedence over the conceptual understanding of scientific phenomena and the intersection of science disciplines. Additionally, science teachers who insist that science is a foreign language and have students learn science by memorizing English science vocabulary should consider and understand that the underlying theoretical frameworks for teaching a foreign language may not parallel those of teaching science content. However, suppose they discard the idea of teaching English science vocabulary and embrace creating an environment in which students may bring all of their linguistic and cognitive tools to the learning table. In that case, pedagogical concepts such as translanguaging can become critical in the newly created learning space. Accordingly, the union of the teaching of science with that of foreign languages in a plurilingual science classroom has the potential to reimagine educational spaces to be inclusive of the sociocultural factors that students who occupy these spaces bring with them. A complex host of languages, cultures, and identities creates tensions between what a science teacher wants to teach and how to teach what they want to teach. No, we are not trivial, but research indicates how important it is today to approach teaching in an interdisciplinary manner. We believe that educational scenarios can provoke transformative processes for both research and teaching in plurilingual science classrooms. For example, in their study, Valdés-Sánchez and Espinet (2020) call for the development of interdisciplinary co-teaching teams of a science teacher and a foreign language or English teacher, and they explain that co-teaching allows teacher professional identity development. They argue that such an arrangement can enrich the understanding of the complexities of plurilingual science classrooms. However, whether it is translanguaging or interdisciplinary team

23

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

613

teaching, teachers must have an awareness and understanding of how the world’s demographics have entered science classrooms and are rich pedagogical resources. Accordingly, the spaces of an educational system in which science teaching is enacted must be recognized as a complex set of resources that one can use to promote agency for each student in terms of their learning (Ramos 2010). To accomplish this, the framework for science teaching and learning must be sociocultural, and otherness must be championed as an invaluable resource within the learning space. Otherwise, ignoring what valuable assets a student brings to the table by insisting on ignoring the experiential aspects students bring to the learning table simply becomes a means to enslave people intellectually. As a final thought, unless otherness is respected, then the term multicultural is meaningless. By otherness, we mean each student’s totality in a science classroom is not only respected but celebrated. By totality, we mean their mother tongue, science knowledge, science images, and identities must be recognized as an invaluable resource for learning. Yes, we are deliberately repeating the word their as a way of underscoring the idea that all resources should be made welcome and included within educational social spaces.

References Atwater M (1996) Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. J Res Sci Teach 33(8):821–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33: 83.0.C.O.;2-Y Bamberg M, De Fina A, Schiffrin D (2011) Discourse and identity construction. In: Schwartz S, Luyckx K, Vignoles V (eds) Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer, New York, pp 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_8 Banks J (1995) Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. J Negro Educ 64(4):390– 400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967262 Bernaus M, Escobar C (2001) El aprendizaje de las lenguas extranjeras en el medio escolar. In: Nussbaum L, Mercì Bernaus M (eds) Didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras en la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Síntesis Educación, Madrid, pp 39–77 Block D (2014) Second language identities (Bloomsbury classics in Linguistics ed.). Bloomsbury Academic, New York Bourdieu P (1988) La Distinción. Criterio y bases sociales del gusto. Taurus, Madrid Bourdieu P (1990) Le sens pratique. Ed. de Minuit, Paris Chang S (2019) Beyond the English box: constructing and communicating knowledge through translingual practices in the higher education classroom. Engl Teach Learn 43:23–40. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0014-4 Coste D, Moore D, Zarate G (2009) Studies towards a common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching. Council of Europe Language, Strasbourg Cedex. (French version originally published in 1997) Cupane AF (2011) Towards an understanding of the role of language in the science classroom and its association with cultural identity development in the context of Mozambique. Cult Stud Sci Educ 6:435–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9283-5 Cupane AF, Taylor PC (2010) Finding a sustainable cultural identity as a science teacher educator: a Mozambican perspective. In: Proceedings of the XIV IOSTE Symposium, June 13–18, Bled Diamond J (2010) The benefits of multilingualism. Science 330(6002):332–333. https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.1195067

614

S. L. Ramos de Robles and A. J. Gallard Martínez

Fairclough N (ed) (1992) Critical language awareness. Longman, London Fellner G, Siry C (2010) Reconceptualizing the relationship between universities and schools: a dialectic and polysemic approach. Cult Stud Sci Educ 5:775–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-010-9285-3 Gallard AJ (1993) Learning science in multicultural environments. In: Tobin K (ed) The practice of constructivism in science education. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp 171–180 Gallard M, Pitts AJ, Brkich W, Ramos de Robles SL (2018) How does one recognize contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) as a basis to understand and arrive at better approaches to research designs? Cult Stud Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9872-2 Gao X (2019) The goals and focus of the English language teaching program: section introduction. In: Gao X (ed) Second handbook of English language teaching. Springer, Basel, pp 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_63 García O (2009) Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective. Wiley, Oxford, UK García O, Wei L (2014) Translanguaging: language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765 Gee J (1999) An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. Routledge, London Gee JP (2006) Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses, 2nd edn. Routledge Falmer, New York Gumperz J (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Hymes D (1962) The ethnography of speaking. In: Gladwin T, Sturtevant WC (eds) Anthropology and human behavior. Anthropology Society of Washington, Washington, DC, pp 13–53 Karlsson A, Larsson PN, Jakobsson A (2019) Multilingual students’ use of translanguaging in science classrooms. Int J Sci Educ 41(15):2049–2069. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018. 1477261 Karlsson A, Larsson PN, Jakobsson A (2020) The continuity of learning in a translanguaging science classroom. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09933-yz Kayumova S, Avraamidou L, Adams JD (2019) Diversity, equity and the big picture. In: Bryan L, Tobin K (eds) Critical issues and bold visions for science education. The road ahead. Brill | Sense, Boston, pp 285–297 Lemke JL (1998) Talking science: language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing, Stamford Li W (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Appl Linguis 39(1):9–30. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx044 Lodge WG (2020) What’s in a name? The power of the English language in secondary school science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:287–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-01909941-y Makalela L (2018) “Our academics are intellectually colonised”: multi-languaging and fees must fall. S Afr Linguist Appl Lang Stud 36(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018. 1452877 Moore E, Dooly M (2010) “How do the apples reproduce (themselves)?” how teacher trainees negotiate language, content, and membership in a CLIL science education classroom at a multilingual university. J Lang Identity Education 9(1):58–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15348450903523591 Moree E, Evnitskaya N, Ramos-de Robles SL (2017) Teaching and learning science in linguistically diverse classrooms. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13:341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0169783-z National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) English learners in STEM subjects: transforming classrooms, schools, and lives. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25182 Nilep C (2006) “Code switching” in sociocultural linguistics. Colo Res Linguist 19:1–22. https:// doi.org/10.25810/hnq4-jv62 Nussbaum L (2001) El discurso en la clase de lenguas extranjeras. In: Nussbaum L, Bernaus M (eds) Didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras en la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Síntesis Educación, Madrid, pp 137–172

23

A Sociocultural View of Multiculturalism in Plurilingual Science Classrooms

615

Pouliot C (2019) Being a science education researcher and a concerned citizen against epistemological anesthesia. In: Bryan L, Tobin K (eds) Critical issues and bold visions for science education. The road ahead. Brill | Sense, Boston, pp 221–231 Ramos SL (2010) Contextos CLIL para la formación inicial del profesorado de ciencias: análisis de la interacción desde una perspectiva sociocultural (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona Risager (2011) The cultural dimensions of language teaching and learning. Lang Teach 44(4):485– 499. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000280 Roth W-M (2005) Talking science. Language and learning in science classrooms. Rowman y Littlefield Publishers, New York Roth W-M, Tobin K (2006) Announcing cultural studies of science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ 1: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-005-9005-6 Saraceni M, Jacob C (2019) Revisiting borders: named languages and de-colonization. Lang Sci 76: 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.05.007 Sewell W (1992) A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation. Am J Sociol 98:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967 Sewell W (1999) The concept(s) of culture. In: Bonnell V, Hunt L (eds) Beyond the cultural turn: new directions in the study of society and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 35–61 Sewell W (2004) The concepts of culture. In: Spiegel G (ed) Practicing history. New directions in historical writing after the linguistic turn. Routledge, London, pp 76–96. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9780203335697 Siry C, Gorges A (2019) Young students’ diverse resources for meaning making in science: learning from multilingual contexts. Int J Sci Educ 14:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019. 1625495 Spitzberg BH, Changnon G (2009) Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In: Deardorff DK (ed) The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 2–52 Stevenson AR (2013) How fifth grade Latino/a bilingual students use their linguistic resources in the classroom and laboratory during science instruction. Cult Stud Sci Educ 8:973–989. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9522-7 Tobin K (2007) Collaborating with students to produce success in science. J Sci Math Educ Southeast Asia 30(2):1–43 Tobin K (2008) Structuring success in science labs. In: Rodríguez AJ (ed) The multiple faces of agency: innovative strategies for effecting change in urban contexts. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 83–102 Tobin K (2009) Sociocultural perspectives on science and science education. Enseñanza de las ciencias, Número extra. VIII Congreso internacional sobre investigación en la didáctica de las ciencias, Barcelona Valdés-Sánchez L, Espinet M (2020) Coteaching in a science- CLIL classroom: changes in discursive interaction as evidence of an English teacher’s science- CLIL professional identity development. Int J Sci Educ. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693. 2019.1710873 Verma G, Puvirajah A, Douglass H (2019) Examining the mediation of power in informal environments. In: Bryan LA, Tobin K (eds) Critical issues and bold visions for science education. The road ahead. Brill | Sense, Boston, pp 187–202 Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Wei L (2017) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Appl Linguis 39(1):9–30. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx044 Wertsch JV (1989) Introduction to a special issue of cultural dynamics devoted to “sociocultural approaches to mind”. Cult Dyn 2(2):137–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/092137408900200201 Zheng X, Gao Y (2019) Promoting intercultural competence in English language teaching: a productive bilingualism perspective. In: Gao X (ed) Second handbook of English language teaching. Springer, Basel Switzerland, pp 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_63

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding Translanguaging in Multicultural Settings

24

A Meta-synthesis Approach Noushin Nouri, Alma D. Rodríguez, and Maryam Saberi

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Language in Science Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content and Language Integrated Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translanguaging Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translanguaging and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How We Collected and Analyzed Our Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What We Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge About Pedagogical Methods on How to Teach Linguistically Diverse Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rationale for Incorporating Translanguaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges Incorporating Translanguaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Science Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Science Teacher Preparation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

618 619 621 621 622 624 625 626 627 629 630 631 632 633 636 638 641 642 643 644 645 645

N. Nouri (*) · A. D. Rodríguez College of Education and P-16 Integration, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. Saberi Ministry of Education, Shiraz University, Drab, Fars, Iran © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_24

617

618

N. Nouri et al.

Abstract

The increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in today’s classrooms calls for science teachers to facilitate science learning for all students. Drawing from a sociocultural framework that values diverse students’ cultures and languages, a translanguaging pedagogy has been identified as one way to help linguistically diverse students develop science concepts. A meta-synthesis of studies exploring translanguaging pedagogy in science classrooms was conducted to create a framework for the competencies needed by science teachers to incorporate a translanguaging pedagogy in their instruction. The resulting framework consists of six competencies: (1) The teacher should know pedagogical methods on how to teach bilingual students, (2) the teacher believes in the importance of using translanguaging pedagogy and has professional dispositions, (3) the teacher can identify the rationale for using translanguaging pedagogy, (4) the teacher possesses professional skills to implement translanguaging pedagogy, (5) the teacher selects appropriate pedagogical approaches and instructional strategies to apply translanguaging pedagogy, and (6) the teacher is aware of challenges of using translanguaging pedagogy and is able to handle them. We contend that this framework can be useful in science teacher preparation programs to equip science teacher candidates with the necessary competencies to teach science in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. Keywords

Translanguaging · Science · Translanguaging pedagogical competencies (TPC) · Meta-synthesis · Multilingual and multicultural classrooms

Introduction Classrooms are continuously becoming more culturally and linguistically diverse (García and Wei 2014). Many learners’ languages are different than the language of instruction and the language of their classmates and of their instructor. Due to the abstract nature of science and its demand to know specific terminology and skills, linguistically diverse learners are faced with a double challenge in the science classroom (Lemmi et al. 2019; Martin et al. 2012). The effects of these challenges can be seen in test scores of language learners (Lyon et al. 2012), and in the underrepresentation of language learners in STEM fields, both in number of college graduates and in the labor force (Riegle-Crumb et al. 2011). The academic performance of linguistically diverse students is not solely the result of the nature of science but on the influence of social, political, and socioeconomic factors on the achievement of linguistically diverse students (García et al. 2017b). Science educators have been paying more attention to methods and strategies that can facilitate learning science in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. For example, a postmodernist shift to understanding bilinguals as possessing a single,

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

619

complex, and dynamic linguistic repertoire rather than two distinct named languages (García et al. 2017b) has resulted in the science education community exploring the incorporation of a translanguaging pedagogy in science classes for linguistically diverse students. In a translanguaging science classroom (TSC), both teachers and students are encouraged to use every available language resource to develop conceptual learning of science (Karlsson et al. 2019). According to Margie Probyn (2015), “whereas code-switching and translation reflect a temporary (and sometimes illicit) deviation from a monolingual ideal, the notion of translanguaging reflects acceptance of a heteroglossic/bilingual reality and more comprehensive and flexible use of the classroom language resources to mediate learning” (p. 221). Ofelia García (2009), therefore, explains that terms that have been traditionally used to refer to students’ languages, such as first language (L1) and second language (L2), reflect a monolingual perspective of bilingualism and are not aligned with the heteroglossic perspective in which translanguaging is grounded. Therefore, in this chapter, similarly to Ünsal et al. (2018a), we use the term majority language to refer to the dominant language of instruction, English, and minoritized languages to refer to languages other than English, to reflect the status of these languages in society and schools. Borrowing the term translanguaging and its concept from other fields, some researchers in the science education field have analyzed teachers’ translanguaging practices both in K–12 settings and universities and provided suggestions for teachers and teacher educators. Despite the somewhat rich empirical literature related to applying translanguaging pedagogy in science classrooms, a meta-synthesis of the literature that depicts the results in an organized way does not yet exist to guide teacher educators on what science teachers need to know to be effective instructors for linguistically diverse students. To prepare educators who are ready to enact a translanguaging pedagogy and develop translanguaging classrooms, it is necessary to compile a workable list of translanguaging pedagogical competencies (TPC) that we expect science educators to acquire and demonstrate. Therefore, we embarked on a review of existing empirical research to synthesize findings and provide recommendations for the competencies science teachers should possess to develop translanguaging science classrooms. In the following section after a short explanation on the importance of language in science classrooms, defining translanguaging, and introducing translanguaging classrooms and translanguaging pedagogy, we explain our methodology and then move to our findings which propose a framework for the competencies teachers need to have to enact a translanguaging pedagogy.

Importance of Language in Science Classes The main goal of science education is preparing scientifically literate citizens (DeBoer 2000). Knowing about the characteristics of science is part of scientific literacy. One characteristic of science is its culturally and socially embeddedness (NGSS Lead States 2013). In science classes, we are trying to depict what real

620

N. Nouri et al.

science looks like, so using the cultural resources of the students, including language, in science classes is a necessity. Wolf-Michael Roth (2007), similarly, connected language to scientific literacy by mentioning: Knowing a language is indistinguishable from knowing your way around the world more generally. In this framing, “being literate” could be interpreted to mean knowing your way around the world as the powers that be define it. . .“Being literate” has to imply that one is ready to produce new cultural forms, new communicative forms, ever-new resources that expand possibilities for acting and interacting with others. (pp. 392–393)

Besides, as Jay Lemke (1990, p. 153) points out, “the mastery of science is mainly a matter of learning how to talk science.” Learning science heavily involves learning the language of science and its terminology which mostly involves the vocabulary that may be unfamiliar for students. This makes it crucial to help linguistically diverse students to make sense of these new words by using all their linguistic resources, such as their personal experiences. Using students’ languages is also important because common words like energy, power, and work are part of one’s everyday language as well as the language of science, but their definitions in these two contexts are different (Wellington and Osborne 2001). Learning science also involves using science process skills such as observing, comparing, classifying, and inferring, as examples. All of these science process skills involve using the language of science. This specific science teaching context presents “discipline-specific linguistic challenges” for students who are not speaking the same language as the language of instruction in science classes (Lemmi et al. 2019). The same authors warn about the misunderstanding of students’ performance in classrooms: Teachers may ask students to show what they know in a science class through engaging in experimentation, interacting with their peers, and communicating in groups that are as diverse linguistically as they are demographically varied. Here, where students are expected to showcase what they know and their skill set, acceptable language practices to represent who can “do” science and be seen as a science learner is influenced by teachers’ perspectives toward how their students utilize specific language types. (p. 855)

In addition, language plays a fundamental role in communication, interaction, and transforming ideas and, as Moore et al. (2018) mentioned, “in creating scientific models of the world” (p. 349). William S. Carlsen (2007) also called language a tool for participation in a community of practice which is a fundamental part of science. When multilingual people are doing science, English is the taken-for-granted language (Tonkin 2011). As Mazak and Herbas-Donoso (2015) pointed out, the tension between English and the learner’s first language “creates a sociocultural context ripe for translanguaging” (p. 699). The literature supports many reasons for allowing students to draw on their full repertoires of knowledge in two languages to support them in the learning of science content (Poza 2018). Translanguaging classrooms create opportunities for students to access science vocabulary as well as ways of talking about science in two named languages (Espinosa and Herrera 2016). Through a translanguaging pedagogy, students can access scientific content

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

621

leveraging their entire linguistic repertoire while incorporating it into their developing majority language (García and Wei 2014). Creating a learning environment in which all students can draw on their funds of knowledge via translanguaging pedagogy can facilitate teaching science in multilingual and multicultural science classes.

Content and Language Integrated Learning According to Edgar Garzón-Díaz (2021), content and language integrated learning (CLIL), as it can be interpreted from its name, integrates language learning with teaching content which in the context of this chapter is science. Steve Walsh (2011) defines CLIL as “teachers’ and learners’ ability to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” (p. 158). CLIL is an educational approach that takes advantage of the authentic communicative contexts that the subject provides to teach students the language of instruction (Lo et al. 2020). It is interesting that culture is the central part of a CLIL classroom even though teachers often struggle with including culture as a part of their lessons (Garzón-Díaz 2021). According to Richard Donato (1994), teachers and students’ rich knowledge resources are critical in this method. Looking at the bigger picture, CLIL supports translanguaging pedagogy. According to Moore et al. (2018), “in CLIL classrooms, teachers facilitate students’ understanding of disciplinary knowledge and subject-specific discourse, promote students’ meaningful engagement and participation in this joint process, and, finally, guide them in the effective and creative use of their language repertoire in displaying their learning and in participating” (p. 348–349). Teachers are a central part of a CLIL classroom because they use a variety of instructional strategies and make proper adjustments to their instruction (Walsh 2006). Previous research showed several benefits to a CLIL classroom: 1. Development of language proficiency in the language of instruction (Pérez-Vidal 2011; Ruíz de Zarobe 2008) 2. Increased achievement in the subject area that is the content of instruction, such as science, history, etc. (Ullmann 1999; Wode 1999) 3. Simulating cognitive processing which can result in better student performance in the content area (Jäppinen 2005; Fernández-Sanjurjo et al. 2019) 4. Narrowing the achievement gap between monolingual and bilingual students (Bergroth 2006) 5. Content assessment in both the language of instruction and the home language that considers cognitive and language dimensions of the content (Lo et al. 2019)

Theoretical Perspectives The concept of translanguaging refers to “the flexible use of linguistic resources by bilinguals in order to make sense of their world” (García et al. 2015, p. 200). A bilingual person is “a free and active subject who has amassed a repertoire of

622

N. Nouri et al.

resources and who activates this repertoire according to his/her need, knowledge or whims, modifying or combining them where necessary” (Lüdi and Py 2009, p. 159). García (2009) also describes translanguaging as the “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds” (p. 45). García and Kleyn (2016) explain that translanguaging has been conceptualized from an internal perspective of the bilingual person him- or herself. Mazak (2017) defines translanguaging as a language ideology derived from the premise that bilingual individuals have an integrated language repertoire, making bilingualism the norm. When seen from an outside perspective aligned to societal norms, bilinguals have two “named languages” such as Spanish and English; however, from an internal perspective, bilinguals have a single linguistic system. Therefore, the concept of two languages does not apply in a translanguaging theory (García and Kleyn 2016). Translanguaging goes beyond the traditional notion of code-switching. Codeswitching is aligned with a monoglossic perspective of bilingualism that sees named languages as separate linguistic systems (García and Kleyn 2016). Generally, code-switching involves short switches from one named language to another. While code-switching and translation are just temporary shifts from monolingual instruction, translanguaging presupposes that bilingualism should be involved in every part of the instruction (Probyn 2015) and supports learners both in accessing and developing academic knowledge and valuing and fostering their bilingual identities (García et al. 2017a). Translanguaging is aligned with a dynamic view of bilingualism and “refers to the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire, which does not in any way correspond to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages” (García and Kleyn 2016, p. 14). In the last two decades, educators (e.g., García 2009; García and Wei 2014) have enhanced this concept and presented it as a pedagogy. In the field of education, translanguaging refers to an especial pedagogical approach for both content and language instruction (Canagarajah 2011; Creese and Blackledge 2010; García 2009).

Translanguaging Pedagogy Nearly 40% of students around the world experience schooling in a dominant language other than their home language (Prax-Dubois and Hélot 2020). Given this reality, UNESCO (1989) emphasizes applying forms of bilingual education in classrooms that support students’ home languages. Nevertheless, the organization of bilingual education programs reflects the language hierarchies that exist in society by prioritizing dominant languages and perpetuating the hegemony of English as the language of power (García et al. 2017b). To this end, it is important that instruction for linguistically diverse students not only transcend the boundaries that named languages can create but focuses on using all students’ linguistic resources as opportunities. Translanguaging pedagogy (García 2009) provides this opportunity by introducing an approach in which students’ language resources and repertories are used for constructing meaning and concept development. The Council of Europe (2001) highlights how the aim of language education has been modified by stating:

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

623

It is no longer seen as simply to achieve “mastery” of one or two, or even three languages, each taken in isolation, with the “ideal native speaker” as the ultimate model. Instead, the aim is to develop a linguistic repertory, in which all linguistic abilities have a place. This implies, of course, that the languages offered in educational institutions should be diversified and students given the opportunity to develop a plurilingual competence. (p. 5)

Likewise, translanguaging pedagogy challenges monolingual ideologies that keep named languages separate for instruction by valuing the linguistic resources of diverse students (Canagarajah 2016; Horner and Tetreault 2017). Translanguaging was first conceptualized as a pedagogy by Welsh educator Cen Williams in the 1990s. He believed students had a single bilingual identity. His pedagogical strategy afforded bilingual students the opportunity to draw from their entire linguistic resources to perform tasks in English or Welsh (García and Kleyn 2016). Most recently, García et al. (2017a) have proposed a translanguaging pedagogy for translanguaging classrooms. García et al. (2017a) define a translanguaging classroom as “any classroom in which students may deploy their full linguistic repertoires, and not just the particular language(s) that are officially used for instructional purposes in that space” (p. 1). Translanguaging classrooms do not have to be officially bilingual. Monolingual classrooms can also be translanguaging classrooms. In fact, monolingual teachers can also use translanguaging (García and Wei 2014). The two key dimensions of translanguaging classrooms are the identities and abilities of students and the teacher’s instructional decision-making for translanguaging. In addition, García et al. (2017a) have identified four purposes for the translanguaging pedagogy they propose: (1) supporting students in content comprehension, (2) affording students opportunities to develop linguistic practices for academic contexts, (3) incorporating students’ bilingualism, and (4) supporting students’ bilingual identities. They also propose three dimensions for the enactment of a translanguaging pedagogy: the teachers’ stances, designs, and shifts. Teachers’ translanguaging stances refers to their beliefs that students’ linguistic resources should be leveraged and constitute a resource for learning. A translanguaging stance is also based on the belief that students have the right to use their language practices together. A teacher’s translanguaging stance is enacted through their translanguaging design of instruction and assessment in ways that connect students’ language practices at home and the language practices of schools. Inasmuch as a translanguaging pedagogy requires that teachers design instruction and assessment in intentional and strategic ways, teachers in translanguaging classrooms must remain flexible to respond to students’ voices and to support students’ access to content and language learning. That flexibility gives way to translanguaging shifts or moment-to-moment decisions made by teachers in translanguaging classrooms (García et al. 2017a). Translanguaging allows linguistically diverse students to engage in meaning-making conditions while they co-construct and codevelop ideas through the hybrid use of different strategies and learners’ knowledge about content, context, and language, which together play a role in a social and interactive environment (Ryu 2019). Using

624

N. Nouri et al.

students’ linguistic resources leads to the development of academic competencies in the language of instruction. Additionally, there are sociocultural dimensions to translanguaging as explained by Li (2011) in that translanguaging: creates a social space for the multilingual language user by bringing together different dimensions of their personal history, experience and environment, their attitude, belief and ideology, their cognitive and physical capacity into one coordinated and meaningful performance, and making it into a lived experience. (p. 1223)

Wei refers to these spaces as translanguaging spaces (García and Kleyn 2016). Translanguaging spaces are created for translanguaging as well as by translanguaging (Wei 2011). Traditionally, instruction and assessment have been restricted to certain permitted linguistic features, resulting in social and educational inequity for speakers of minoritized languages (García and Kleyn 2016). Translanguaging spaces afford students the opportunity to develop creativity and criticality (Wei 2011). Translanguaging pedagogy can be transformative by empowering students to value and be proud of their linguistic identities. Teachers who embrace a transformative translanguaging pedagogy can enact it in a variety of contexts. For instance, when the language of instruction is the minoritized language, a translanguaging pedagogy affords students the possibility of reclaiming their bilingualism. Translanguaging becomes much more than just a scaffold to give students access to content and language learning. Through a translanguaging pedagogy, students develop linguistic capital as they develop their bilingual identities to transform their future possibilities (Espinosa and Herrera 2016). Likewise, because the language practices of minoritized students are often stigmatized, translanguaging makes way for resistance and social justice (García and Wei 2014).

Translanguaging and Social Justice The four purposes of translanguaging pedagogy as proposed by García et al. (2017a) “work together to advance social justice” (p. 8). Translanguaging pedagogy makes multilingual learners that have been oppressed and silenced more powerful, and it promises to liberate the voices that have been shut down by monolingual ideologies (García and Wei 2014). It provides bilingual students with a voice for performing in a meaningful way in everyday pedagogical experiences (Panagiotopoulou et al. 2020). According to Panagiotopoulou et al. (2020) in a multilingual setting, translanguaging and social justice are completing each other, and connecting them together is critical for the future of education. This inclusion of students’ foundation of knowledge, language resources, and promoting social justice also need special attention to linguistic ideologies, as well as the sharing of knowledge and evaluation (Shohamy 2006). However, teachers neither are prepared in a way that helps them to recognize the importance of multilingual education, and the connection between

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

625

cultural diversity and social justice (Piller 2016) nor are ready to become the main player in this issue (Prax-Dubois and Hélot 2020). Teachers who apply and benefit from social justice pedagogy in the classrooms “aim to equip their students with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to transform society into a place where social justice can exist” (Charalambous et al. 2020, p. 109). Generally, we can say based on the huge body of the literature, the educational benefits of translanguaging pedagogy are so great that it can be considered as “the best way to educate bilingual children in the 21st century” (Beres 2015, p. 103). It is essential, then, that teachers of linguistically diverse students possess the necessary competencies to enact a translanguaging pedagogy in their science classrooms.

Teacher Competencies A competency is “a knowledge, skill, or attitude that enables one to effectively perform the activities of a given occupation or function to the expected standards of an occupation” (Birnbaum and Daily 2009, p. 1). According to Blömeke and Delaney (2014), it is “having the cognitive ability to develop effective solutions for job-related problems and, in addition, having the motivational, volitional and social willingness to successfully and responsibly apply these solutions in various situations” (p. 227). In teacher education, a teacher competency “is defined as the study of specific knowledge or ability, which is believed to be important to succeed as a teacher” (Al-Mutawa and Al-Dabbous 1997). Specifically, the competencies that teachers possess are vital because they directly impact student learning (Vikstrom 2008). Various frameworks have been developed to categorize teacher competencies. Cebrián and Junyent (2015), in the context of education for sustainable development, suggested competencies regarding knowledge, practical skills, ethical values, attitudes, and emotions should be obtained by teachers. Baumert et al. (2010) created a framework for math teachers’ competencies, which consisted of pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and content knowledge. Alake-Tuenter et al. (2012) drafted science teachers’ competencies for teaching inquiry and argued that understanding of teacher competencies in science specifically recognizes aspects of competency beyond teachers’ knowledge to include skills/practices and their attitudes/dispositions. Blömeke and Delaney (2014) more holistically frame this distinction between knowledge and skills through their framework for teacher competencies to better understand the impact of affective-motivational teacher characteristics. Blömeke and Delaney (2014) divided teachers’ competencies into two subcategories including cognitive abilities (professional knowledge) and affective-motivational characteristics (professional beliefs, motivation, and selfregulation). In their model, cognitive abilities, which are referred to as professional knowledge, include content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge. The cognitive abilities aspect is clearly borrowed from Lee Shulman (1985). The affective-motivational characteristics include beliefs about the subject and the teaching and learning of it, professional motivation, and

626

N. Nouri et al.

self-regulation. They adopted the affective-motivational characteristics part from Richardson (1996) and Thompson (1992). In science education, Nouri et al. (2021) used Blömeke and Delaney’s (2014) model of competencies to provide a framework for teaching nature of science to preservice and in-service teachers. Their model has 20 sub-competencies and nine main competencies. From our perspective, having competencies for teaching every subject is a necessary condition for being an effective teacher. Combing this perspective with our previous discussion about the importance of translanguaging pedagogies for science teachers of bilingual students, we adopted Blömeke and Delaney’s (2014) model of competencies to look at the literature related to translanguaging in science classrooms. In other words, we looked at the literature on translanguaging in science classrooms as an aggregate, through the lens of teacher competencies, to construct a framework of translanguaging pedagogical competencies (TPC) that science teachers of bilingual students should possess.

How We Collected and Analyzed Our Data Qualitative meta-synthesis is a research method that aims to create larger interpretive renderings of the group of studies examined in a target domain while remaining faithful to the interpretive rendering in each particular study (Wolf 1986). We chose the meta-synthesis method because we were interested in creating a framework for competencies needed for using translanguaging pedagogy by aggregating the results of studies that examined using this pedagogy in science classrooms. The goal of qualitative meta-synthesis is to maintain a faithful rendering of the original data and findings while achieving broader conclusions based on the aggregate of studies (Barroso et al. 2003). As a methodological conceptual framework, we applied the steps suggested by Sandelowski and Barroso (2006) for conducting a meta-synthesis as summarized in Table 1. Following the steps mentioned above, we first decided about our research problem which was proposing a framework that can lead instructors in applying a Table 1 Methodological procedures recommended in qualitative meta-synthesis studies (based on Sandelowski and Barroso 2006) Procedure A. Define the research problem B. Conduct an appropriate literature search C. Analyses D. Synthesis E. Check the validity of the findings

Activities Define a research purpose that leads to coherent and comprehensive use of the ideas emerging from the literature and addresses a significant research Review the literature systematically to select key articles that are key to the research problem Meta-summarize findings by extracting codes related to the research problem, classifying and grouping data Integrate findings to offer a novel and unique interpretation Investigate the validity of the research especially the synthesis section

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

627

translanguaging pedagogy in science classrooms. Then we started the literature search using the metrics of the Scopus database to identify peer-reviewed articles of qualitative or mixed-method studies, using translanguaging and science as our search words without any limitation in the publication years. The search resulted in 52 articles. After carefully reading the abstract of these resources, we omitted the ones that were not related to science, and the word science appeared in them in conjunction with other fields like computer science. We also omitted the resources that were not written in English, the ones that were quantitative, and the resources that were not empirical articles. As a result, 25 articles were selected. At that point, we started analyzing and synthesizing articles that had elements of teachers’ competencies as introduced by Blömeke and Delaney’s (2014) model. As mentioned in Blömeke and Delaney’s (2014) model, teachers’ competencies are divided into two subcategories including cognitive abilities, such as content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge, and affective-motivational characteristics, such as professional beliefs and motivation and self-regulation. We created categories for each of these components to fill them with extracted codes from the articles. However, we did not limit ourselves to these components and just used them as a leading structure. Instead, we looked in the articles to find any phrase and sentence that had a component which knowing it was fundamental for an instructor to apply translanguaging pedagogy. After extracting every code that we found was useful, we read them carefully again and grouped them together. At this stage, we recognized that we needed different categories than those in Blömeke and Delaney’s (2014) model. For example, we reached the conclusion that having a category for challenges that a teacher may confront, while using this method, is necessary. Eventually, from total codes, we created six main themes or competencies. Table 2 depicts an example of initial codes and basic themes created from these codes which are the actual proposed sub-competencies. These basic themes (sub-competencies) grouped together to make organized themes (competencies) which are the elements of the main competencies. Eventually, in our meta-synthesis, following the last step suggested by Sandelowski and Barroso (2006), we guaranteed the validity of our synthesis. Our team had regular meetings in which we discussed the search procedure, codes and outcomes, and our final competencies. In these meetings, we negotiated consensus in areas of concern while we documented all procedures.

What We Learned This study aimed to discover the competencies that science teachers who teach linguistically diverse students should possess to incorporate translanguaging pedagogies into their instruction. Our meta-synthesis of the 25 selected studies resulted in these six themes: • Knowledge about pedagogical methods on how to teach bilingual students • Teachers’ dispositions

628

N. Nouri et al.

Table 2 Example of codes, categories, and themes

Initial codes She went over the concept, extended the dialogue, and encouraged students to make connections to their everyday life or to other concepts, with discussion taking place in both languages At this point, if they are allowed to translanguage, they can draw on their familiar linguistic resources to construct their meanings Drawing on students’ experiences, comparing two cultures, two experiences, even appearance to help students to make an identity Translanguaging provided means of creating a lively interactional space for discussion of everyday knowledge and values in the classroom. In formal terms about “tooth decay,” the discussion connects students’ Personal narratives to science knowledge and skills. The languages students use in their daily lives are used as a tool to introduce new concepts and circumvent the potential barrier of the language of chemistry The teacher used everyday language and concrete examples from everyday life when describing and explaining the science content Teachers (such as Teacher B in this study) may adopt IRF triadic dialogue to elicit student contributions/points of view during the process of developing the target thematic patterns

Basic themes (sub-competency) Making connections from text to children’s personal experiences either by the teacher or other students who are more advanced in language

Using everyday knowledge, value, and language and letting students contribute and use it to explain science

Use students’ linguistic resources to elicit students’ contributions/points of view/previous knowledge

Organized theme (competency) Translanguaging for extracting prior knowledge

Main theme (main competency) Instructional strategies

24

• • • •

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

629

Rationale teachers present for incorporating translanguaging in science class Skills teachers possess when incorporating translanguaging in science class Instructional strategies in the translanguaging science class Challenges teachers encounter when incorporating translanguaging in science class

In the following sections, we will present data for each theme and in some cases its competencies and sub-competencies. We will then illustrate each theme using examples and quotes from the meta-synthesized articles.

Knowledge About Pedagogical Methods on How to Teach Linguistically Diverse Students Our meta-synthesis revealed that teachers of linguistically diverse learners should understand the pedagogical methods on how to teach their linguistically diverse students. Table 3 depicts five basic themes created based on initial codes extracted from the meta-synthesis for knowledge about pedagogical methods. Teachers should recognize that not allowing students to use their languages in science class would limit students’ ability to participate in activities, discussions, and argumentation (Ünsal et al. 2018a). In addition, teachers of linguistically diverse learners should realize that students’ use of scientific terms does not necessarily mean that students have understood the concept. Instead, “students need to be offered possibilities to argue, explain, discuss and generalize in order to gain a deeper understanding of science” (Ünsal et al. 2018a, p. 1028). This is particularly evident when students are not familiar with the concept in their context (Ryu 2019) and when a word has several meanings in one language – everyday use vs. scientific use (Ünsal et al. 2018a). It is also important for teachers of linguistically diverse learners to understand that students usually use their linguistic resources to form ideas and that scientific sense-making and linguistic sense-making support each other. That is, when linguistically diverse learners encounter a new term, they often resort to their peers to collectively make sense of the concept (Ryu 2019). Moreover, it is important for teachers of linguistically diverse learners to know that Table 3 Themes related to pedagogical methods on how to teach linguistically diverse students Main theme Knowledge about pedagogical methods on how to teach bilingual students

Basic themes KL1- Students have a limited chance to participate KL2- Student knows both concept and terminology KL3- Students’ minoritized languages for forming ideas KL4- Scientific sense-making and linguistic sense-making support each other KL5- Usefulness of students’ minoritized languages

N 1 2 1 1 1

630

N. Nouri et al.

students’ linguistic resources support instruction. For instance, students’ languages can be used to comprehend concepts at a deeper level and help students better their communication skills (Charamba 2019). Students also typically use their home language when they were “forming ideas” and the language of instruction for “displaying the formulated ideas” (Ryu 2019, p. 1315).

Teacher Dispositions The meta-synthesis of existing studies also revealed that teachers who incorporate translanguaging in science instruction have certain dispositions. Table 4 shows data about five themes related to teacher dispositions. Teachers who incorporate translanguaging are open to various ways of verbal and written expression (Lemmi et al. 2019). They also challenge linguistic hierarchies and ideologies and elevate the status of linguistically diverse learners in their classes by valuing multilingualism and all of their students’ linguistic resources (Ryu 2019). Another disposition displayed by these teachers is that they believe in fostering safe learning spaces (Poza 2018) and a rich learning community in which all students participate and are recognized (Esquinca et al. 2014) by sharing their ideas and experiences (Karlsson et al. 2019). In sum, “rather than single beliefs about language. . . [these teachers hold] systems of beliefs that can influence behaviors and worldview” (Lemmi et al. 2019, p. 858). Lemmi et al. (2019) in their sociolinguistics research identified that secondary science teachers in multilingual schools demonstrate two language ideologies (which means teachers’ beliefs and assumptions about language) in their practices as follows: (1) language-exclusive ideology that contends “certain forms of language are expected in a science class, and others are not appropriate” and (2) languageinclusive ideology that contends “multiple forms of language use are acceptable in science classrooms.” The result of their research shows that teachers’ language ideologies “impact their assessment practices and how they interpret their students’ responses, particularly for students from linguistically diverse or marginalized communities” (pp. 855–856). In addition, science teachers’ language ideologies also influence teachers’ expectations about the way that students display their science knowledge and skills as well as “acceptable language practices to represent Table 4 Themes related to teacher dispositions Main theme Teacher dispositions

Basic themes DI1- Openness to various ways of verbal and written expression DI2- Challenge linguistic hierarchy and ideologies that teens and facilitators brought to the setting DI3- Acknowledge linguistically diverse students’ rich linguistic and knowledge resources DI4- Rich learning community and safe space in which all participants are recognized DI5- Having language-inclusive ideology

N 1 1 3 4 3

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

631

who can ‘do’ science and be seen as a science learner” (p. 857). So these researchers believe that the language-inclusive “approach finds synergies with the literature on translanguaging,” and they “argue that science teacher educators should consider teachers’ language ideologies as they prepare professional development and preservice teacher education curriculum materials” (p. 854).

Rationale for Incorporating Translanguaging There are multiple reasons for which science teachers incorporate translanguaging into their instruction. Table 5 displays the basic themes created based on 104 initial codes extracted from meta-synthesis for rationale. As shown in Table 5, the most salient reason science teachers incorporate translanguaging in their instruction is to promote students’ better understanding of instruction. Ünsal et al. (2018a) state that “Spanish enabled [students] to learn science in a way that might not have been possible if the lessons had been conducted exclusively in English” (p. 1029). Other important reasons are to help students contribute to group discussions, to increase students’ self-confidence, and to access students’ personal stories. For instance, Karlsson et al. (2019) explain that “translanguaging practices in multilingual science classrooms increase the ability of students with limited possibility to express themselves in the language of instruction to argue, discuss, and explain their ideas” (p. 4). Moore et al. (2018) also summarized the function of classes in which language and science are integrated as follows:

Table 5 Themes related to rationale Main theme Rationale

Basic themes R01- Helps better understanding of science and enriches the science experience R02- Facilitates learning science terminology R03- Facilitates learning language R04- Activates meaning-making resources R05- Facilitates access to more resources R06- Increases self-confidence and sense of solidarity R07- Helps contributing to the group discussion R08- Creates an emotionally safe environment in which students can share their feeling R09- Helps access to personal stories, examples, and prior knowledge R10- Supports small groups interactions R11- Supports students center approach R12- Bridges borders between cultures R13- Increases motivation R14- Welcomes other languages in science

N 25 3 7 8 2 16 18 4 12 5 1 1 1 1

632

N. Nouri et al.

In CLIL classrooms, teachers facilitate students’ understanding of disciplinary knowledge and subject-specific discourse, promote students’ meaningful engagement and participation in this joint process and, finally, guide them in the effective and creative use of their language repertoire in displaying their learning and in participating. (pp. 348–349)

The meta-synthesis revealed other reasons for the incorporation of translanguaging including activating meaning-making resources, such as using their entire linguistic repertoire (Gómez Fernández 2019; Licona and Kelly 2015) and drawing on their own prior experiences (Karlsson et al. 2019). Translanguaging also facilitates language learning (Gómez Fernández 2019). Translanguaging in the science classroom helps students share feelings, promotes equity, and bridges borders between cultures. As Charamba and Zano (2019) explain, “the use of multiple languages and, principally, the languages of the students in class provides a humanizing, emotionally safe environment to be themselves and gain positive schooling experience. . .” (p. 304). Translanguaging motivates students and helps them build a sense of solidarity. In sum, it promotes a student-centered approach to science instruction and welcomes other languages in science thus enriching the science experience.

Teacher Skills Teachers who integrate translanguaging into the science classroom have developed certain skills. Table 6 shows basic themes created based on 14 initial codes extracted from meta-synthesis related to skills. The most salient skill these teachers possess is facilitating academic tasks. These teachers have the skill to use translanguaging to help students engage in the completion of their assignments by providing directions and introductions to tasks using translanguaging. That is, they use translanguaging to open spaces for learning by using translanguaging as a scaffold for students’ understanding of complex science contexts and texts (Licona and Kelly 2015). In addition, these teachers are able to bridge gaps between everyday language and academic discourse. As Probyn Table 6 Themes related to skills Main theme Skills

Basic themes SK1- Recognize a proper time for translanguaging SK2- Bridge the gaps between everyday and academic discourse. SK3- Use interaction as a tool for learning. SK4- Maintain classroom culture. SK5- Facilitate the academic task SK6- Frame epistemic practices SK7- Provide a supportive environment SK8- Use translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms

N 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 1

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

633

(2015) explains, this skill allows students to connect their common sense to scientific understanding which results in improved science learning. Teachers in translanguaging science classrooms also have the skills to use student interactions as a tool for learning. In those interactions, students’ linguistic resources become key for participating and demonstrating their knowledge (Moore et al. 2018). These teachers also have the skill to maintain classroom culture. That is, they use translanguaging to maintain the “norms and expectations” in their classroom resulting in effective classroom management and friendly learning environments where respect permeates (Licona and Kelly 2015, p. 6). One more skill displayed by teachers in translanguaging science classrooms is the use of translanguaging to frame epistemic practices. That is, translanguaging was used in “scientific argumentation about socioscientific issue” (Licona and Kelly 2015, p. 2). Finally, these teachers are able to recognize the instances when the use of students’ linguistic resources is more appropriate (Probyn 2015). Teachers with translanguaging skills are able to create a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) opportunities for students by providing the opportunity for learning language in the context of science. Moore et al. (2018) explain that in a CLIC environment, “teachers and students – are active collaborators in the co-construction of content and language knowledge, including the academic discourse” (p. 348). The authors also emphasize that this approach leads to “high-quality classroom interaction and thereby make the teaching-learning process more efficient, in particular in linguistically heterogeneous contexts” (p. 349).

Instructional Strategies Our meta-synthesis resulted in the identification of numerous instructional strategies incorporated into translanguaging science classrooms, which were further organized into 10 themes: (1) translanguaging for conceptual learning of science content, (2) translanguaging for learning language, (3) translanguaging for small groups, (4) translanguaging for identity, (5) translanguaging for accessing to the larger scientific community, (6) translanguaging in different stages of instruction, (7) translanguaging for developing classroom culture, (8) translanguaging and classroom equipment, (9) translanguaging for assessment, and (10) translanguaging for extracting prior knowledge. Table 7 shows the basic themes related to each of the 10 organizing themes which we created for instructional strategies. A total of 194 codes related to instructional strategies were identified. As shown in Table 7, teachers use minoritized languages and the majority language of instruction strategically to make science content accessible to students. For instance, teachers use students’ minoritized languages to explain English terms, they use students’ languages to explain what was read in English, and they summarize points in both languages on the board, among other strategies. Language learning strategies and games provide opportunities to learn the language in the science classroom (Langman 2014). Translanguaging use in small groups is another

634

N. Nouri et al.

Table 7 Themes related to instructional strategies Organizing theme A- Translanguaging for conceptual learning content of science

B- Translanguaging for learning language (L2)

C- Translanguaging in small groups D- Translanguaging for identity E- Translanguaging for accessing to the larger community F- Translanguaging in different stages of instruction

Basic themes S01- Using students’ minoritized languages to explain terms in the language of instruction S02- Using students’ minoritized languages for debriefing of the scientific content S03- Reading in the language of instruction and explaining in the students’ minoritized languages S04- Providing an opportunity for discussion to gain an understanding of science S05- Shaping learner’s contributions S06- Facilitating learning figures/tables, for example, using students’ minoritized languages to synthesize their key information of a graph S07- Engaging students with various ways and resources to help them to learn new science ideas and use both languages (e.g., worksheet in students’ languages) S08- Summarizing and explaining students’ points by teacher S09- Writing students’ thoughts using all their linguistic resources S10- Summarizing the lesson in both the language of instruction and minoritized languages S11- Checking for comprehension cues from the students who were silent S12- Giving voice to students S13- Let student ask questions in minoritized languages and receive answers in the language of instruction S14- Using important words in both languages S15- Whole class discussion S16- Doing scientific practices S17- Incorporating language learning strategies S18- Pronouncing English acronyms in minoritized languages S19- Playing a language game S20- Using the language of instruction in small groups in multilanguage classes S21- Problem-based approach inside groups S22- Earning identity via helping peers in group S23- Keeping the fundamental terms in English to facilitate access to the scientific community S24- Using remediation activities in minoritized languages S25- Using context-embedded activity S26- Using translating and/or code-switching

N 11 9 6 1 2 5

3

7 2 5 2 4 1

1 1 1 5 1 1 9 1 1 5 1 2 6

(continued)

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

635

Table 7 (continued) Organizing theme

G- Translanguaging for developing culture of classroom

H- Classroom facilities

I- Translanguaging for assessment

J- Translanguaging for extracting prior knowledge

Basic themes S27- Using the proper stages across of a lesson for minoritized languages S28- Facilitating language shifts S29- Providing opportunities to talk for developing the dominant language of instruction S30- Social interactions in both languages S31- Encouraging students to express themselves in their minoritized languages and create relationships between the two languages S32- Reading students’ silence as an alarm that they are not learning S33- Using minoritized languages to establish classroom norms S34- Announcing before switching to students’ minoritized languages S35- Using objects and facilities (dictionaries, 3D objects) S36- Having course materials in both languages S37- Using oral presentations, online blogging or video production, and short writing while they can use their minoritized languages in the process of production S38- Using student-generated self-assignments and giving them a feeling of authorship of their own work to make an agency S39- Using multimedia/multilanguage assignments S40- Using formative assessments like clarifying questions in minoritized languages S41- Making connections from text to children’s experiences S42- Discussing everyday knowledge and values in the classroom S43- Letting student approach the concept from their personal life and experience lens S44- Using minoritized languages to elicit students’ contributions/points of view/previous knowledge S45- Using familiar terms in students’ minoritized languages by students and encouraging them to expand their communicative repertoire S46- Filling gap between earlier experiences and the present ones

N 5 8 7 5 5

1 1 1 12 7 3

4

2 1 24 5 1 1 4

4

effective strategy. As an example, students can also share experiences in small groups in minoritized languages prior to sharing them in English with the whole class (Pujol-Ferran et al. 2016). Another theme related to instructional strategies is the use of translanguaging to access the larger community such as knowledge of key

636

N. Nouri et al.

terms in English which gives students access to the scientific community (Mazak and Herbas-Donoso 2015). Translanguaging strategies facilitate access to English terms when instruction is delivered in students’ minoritized languages. Students can also use the Internet or reference materials to access technical terms. It is essential that when teachers use terms in English, they explain the meaning to students; in that way, the scientific conversation becomes bilingual. Moreover, translanguaging can be “a source of empowerment that enabled them to affirm their identity through mutual sharing and support against the broader society in which their ethnic identity has often been marginalized” (Lin and He 2017, p. 235). Probyn (2015) recommends the use of translanguaging across each stage of a lesson. In their work, minoritized languages are used more in the introduction, monitoring group discussion, inside group discussion, and the first conclusion, while English is used more in the main instruction, groups setup, reports, whole group discussion, and the final conclusion. Building a classroom culture that values students’ linguistic resources is essential for linguistically diverse students. For instance, Moore et al. (2018) recommend to create “opportunities or ‘spaces for learning’ in which to contribute to classroom interaction, by using effective eliciting strategies, increasing wait-time to permit learners to think, formulate and give a response, promoting extended learner turns by asking ‘why’ questions, etc.” (p. 349). The equipment and materials in a classroom also facilitate the implementation of translanguaging strategies. As explained by Ünsal et al. (2018a), science facilitates the naming of objects and can help develop understanding. Finally, assessment is an important component in the translanguaging science classroom. Although teachers find it challenging to incorporate translanguaging into assessment and find the balance between allowing students to communicate scientific ideas and expecting students to use “proper. . . verbalization of scientific thinking” (Lemmi et al. 2019, p. 867), the most salient assessment strategy used by teachers who integrate translanguaging in their instruction is using multimedia and multilanguage assignments. Other assessment strategies are clarifying formatting questions and allowing students to help each other.

Challenges Incorporating Translanguaging Teachers who incorporate translanguaging into their instruction also encounter challenges to overcome. Table 8 presents basic themes that show possible challenges for using a translanguaging pedagogy based on 23 initial codes extracted from the meta-synthesis. As shown in Table 8, the most salient challenge encountered by teachers who attempt to incorporate translanguaging in science instruction is contextualizing the subject matter to everyday experiences, especially when not all students have the same background. For instance, students may have not been in their new context long enough to be familiar with everyday experiences that the teacher may use as they attempt to contextualize a science term or concept. This is particularly problematic when the everyday experiences are culture-specific and do not reflect the students’ cultural backgrounds (Karlsson et al. 2019). Second, teachers are presented

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

637

Table 8 Themes related to challenges Organizing theme Challenges

Basic themes Ch01- Superficial understanding of translanguaging Ch02- Monolingual students Ch03- Low expectations of students Ch04- Contextualizing the subject matter to everyday experiences students may not share Ch05- Difficulty of scientific knowledge Ch06- Differences between discursive and national languages that can emerge in such a situation Ch07- Wrong expectation of teachers Ch08- Concern about assessment Ch09- Classroom management Ch10- Ideology of not seeing other languages, the language of science Ch11- Incorrect translation

N 2 2 2 5 1 2 1 2 1 3 2

with the challenge of not seeing other languages, only the language of science. Lemmi et al. (2019) explain that it is problematic when teachers consider certain linguistic practices as appropriate, formal, or proper and others as inappropriate. Language practices that are not aligned with the dominant uses of language are stigmatized and considered to be wrong. This leads to a deficit view of linguistically diverse students whose language practices are considered unacceptable. Having a superficial understanding of translanguaging is also a challenge. For instance, Poza (2018) cautions against reducing translanguaging “to allowances for codeswitching and translation without socialization into target forms through extensive authentic, meaningful input and interaction” (p. 15). Translanguaging is grounded on a dynamic view of bilingualism that values the complete linguistic repertoire of linguistically diverse students. Moreover, translanguaging includes bilingual individuals’ sociocultural norms that govern language use. Therefore, when teachers only focus on allowing students’ first languages use, they are missing the incorporation of authentic bilingual language practices that respect how bilinguals interact and make sense of the world (Poza 2018). Another serious challenge is the result of teachers having low expectations of students. Teachers often lack the professional development to recognize the academic background that students may bring in their minoritized languages and that could be used to make sense of science instruction in the majority language, English. Moreover, many teachers confuse linguistic abilities with content knowledge or cognitive level. When this happens, teachers tend to oversimplify science instruction as they attempt to adapt it to students’ language level resulting in not exposing students to grade- and age-appropriate instruction (Karlsson et al. 2019). An additional challenge in the translanguaging science classroom is “the complexity of translating and transforming scientific content from one national language into another. . .” (Karlsson et al. 2019, p. 1). In many instances, providing students with the translation of a scientific term in minoritized languages would be beneficial,

638

N. Nouri et al.

especially when students have prior schooling in their language to afford students to maximize their learning. Assessment can be considered a challenge that puts teachers of diverse students in a serious dilemma. On the one hand, as Ünsal et al. (2018b) pointed out, bilingual students’ achievements are limited in monolingual exams, and this is not fair for them. On the other hand, according to Mbirimi-Hungwe (2019), the “assessment will always be in English” (p. 23) ideology prevents some teachers from teaching students in a language other than English. Some of these teachers prefer to teach only in English to better prepare their students for a test. Other teachers believe that although “translanguaging may be allowed in the classrooms, English should be the official language in the students’ repertoire in order to prepare them for assessment” (Mbirimi-Hungwe 2019, p. 22). Science teachers of linguistically diverse learners encounter the obvious challenge of teaching both content and language. “Drawing on sociocultural theories. . . languaging in collaborative dialogue is essential for content learning. . .” (Lin and Lo 2017, p. 2). One important question when incorporating translanguaging pedagogies in the science classroom is if students are being given the opportunity to express different perspectives or if they are expected to conform to the dominant cultural norms. Sociocultural perspectives of science instruction aim to open spaces where different voices and points of view interact without privileging the dominant discourses. Translanguaging in the science classroom challenges traditional monolingual pedagogies to bridge everyday language and science academic language to expand students’ resources for communication (Lin and Lo 2017). In sum, incorporating translanguaging in the science classroom “involves a certain degree of ‘risk taking’ or ‘unpredictability’” (Lin and Lo 2017, p. 40). Despite the challenges teachers may encounter when incorporating translanguaging in their instruction, it is important to recognize that “plurilingual pedagogies empower all of our students to explore their linguistic strengths and apply them with confidence toward learning” (Pujol-Ferran et al. 2016, p. 534). Therefore, translanguaging science classrooms is well worth the effort to counteract hegemonic power relations that permeate in schools as a reflection of societal power imbalances.

Our Thoughts In this chapter, we used Blömeke and Delaney’s (2014) model of competencies as our theoretical framework to meta-synthesize the literature on translanguaging in science classrooms, drawing on García’s (2009) notion of translanguaging pedagogy as an approach to leverage bilingual students’ linguistic repertoires to access and develop academic knowledge. The goal of the meta-synthesis was to suggest a new organized framework for using translanguaging pedagogy in science classes. We summarized the ideas that emerged from the literature in the following proposed workable list of translanguaging pedagogical competencies (TPC): Competency 1: The teacher should know pedagogical methods on how to teach linguistically diverse students. That means the teacher knows:

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

639

A. Linguistically diverse students need opportunities to participate in activities, discussions, and argumentations. B. It is critical for students to know both concept and terminology. C. Students usually use their minoritized languages for forming ideas and the dominant language of instruction for displaying the formulated idea. D. Scientific sense-making and linguistic sense-making support each other. E. Minoritized languages can support instruction in the dominant language and do not work against it. Competency 2: The teacher believes in the importance of using translanguaging pedagogy and has professional dispositions. That means the teacher: A. Is open to various ways of verbal and written expression B. Challenges linguistic hierarchy and ideologies that students and facilitators brought to the setting C. Acknowledges linguistically diverse students’ rich linguistic and knowledge resources D. Establishes a rich learning community and safe space in which all participants are recognized E. Has a language-inclusive ideology Competency 3: The teacher can identify the rationale for using translanguaging pedagogy. The teacher believes in using translanguaging pedagogy: A. Helps students to have a better understanding of science and enriches the science experience B. Facilitates learning science terminology C. Facilitates learning language D. Activates meaning-making resources E. Facilitates access to more resources for pedagogical scaffolding F. Increases self-confidence, positions, identity, sense of belonging, and sense of solidity among minoritized students; it also helps the students overcome their marginalized positions G. Helps contributing to the group discussion and playing an active role in the learning, increases reasoning power and communication potential, and helps authentic voices to be heard H. Creates an emotionally safe environment in which students can share their feeling and add humor I. Helps access to personal stories, examples, and prior knowledge and acts as a third space that bridges everyday experience and science J. Supports small group interactions K. Supports student-centered approach L. Bridges borders between cultures M. Increases motivation N. Welcomes other languages in science

640

N. Nouri et al.

Competency 4: The teacher possesses professional skills to implement translanguaging pedagogy. The teacher is able to: A. B. C. D. E. F.

Recognize a proper time for translanguaging Bridge the gaps between everyday and academic discourse Use interaction as a tool for learning Maintain classroom culture Facilitate the academic task Frame epistemic practices and support learners’ bilingual or multilingual identities G. Provide supporting environment and use translanguaging as a dynamic activity that flows in CLIL classrooms Competency 5: The teacher selects appropriate pedagogical approaches and instructional strategies to apply translanguaging pedagogy. The teacher uses: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Translanguaging for conceptual learning regarding the content of science Translanguaging for learning the language of instruction Translanguaging in small groups in which students share the same language Translanguaging for identity development of students Translanguaging for providing the opportunity of accessing to the larger community for students Translanguaging in different stages of instruction Translanguaging for developing culture of classroom Variety of classroom materials and resources to facilitate translanguaging Translanguaging for assessment Translanguaging for extracting prior knowledge

Competency 6: The teacher is aware of the challenges of using translanguaging pedagogy and is able to handle them. The challenges include: A. Superficial understanding of translanguaging that leads to simple codeswitching B. Monolingual students in the classroom C. Low expectations of students D. Contextualizing the subject matter to everyday experiences of students that are different from those of the teacher E. Recognizing if the difficulty is related to scientific knowledge or to the language F. Recognizing differences between discursive and national languages that can emerge in such a situation G. Wrong expectation of themselves H. Choosing an assessment that meets need of students I. Classroom management

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

641

J. Ideology of not seeing other languages as the language of science K. Incorrect translation This proposed framework aligns with the three strands of the translanguaging pedagogy presented by García et al. (2017a) for translanguaging classrooms. The authors contend that teachers in translanguaging classrooms need to have a translanguaging stance, defined as the “philosophical, ideological, or belief system that teachers draw from to develop their pedagogical framework” (p. 27). Competency 2 consists of believing in the importance of translanguaging and having the professional dispositions to adopt a translanguaging pedagogy. Competency 3 requires teachers to have a rationale for adopting a translanguaging pedagogy. Therefore, competencies 2 and 3 align to the teacher’s translanguaging stance. García et al. (2017a) explain that the second strand in a translanguaging pedagogy is building a translanguaging design, which consists of “purposefully design[ing] instruction and assessment opportunities that integrate home and school language and cultural practices” (p. 28). Competency 1 of our framework consists of teachers knowing how to teach linguistically diverse students. Competency 5 refers to the pedagogical approaches and instructional strategies to apply a translanguaging pedagogy. Thus, competencies 1 and 5 align with a teacher’s translanguaging design of instruction and assessment. The third strand in García et al.’s (2017a) translanguaging pedagogy are shifts. “Translanguaging shifts refer to the many momentto-moment decisions that teachers make in the classroom” (p. 28). Competency 4 refers to teachers’ professional skills to implement translanguaging pedagogy. The professional skills referred to in competency 4 of our framework would allow a teacher to have the flexibility and good judgement required to adapt their instruction to respond to linguistically diverse students’ needs. Competency 6 of our proposed framework refers to a teacher’s ability to recognize and overcome the challenges that will be encountered when using a translanguaging pedagogy. Some of those challenges will be aligned to the teacher’s stance, others to the design, while others to shifts. Regardless, teachers equipped with translanguaging pedagogical competencies 1–5 will be well positioned to overcome the challenges by upholding a strong translanguaging stance and making sound instructional decisions in their instructional design and shifts.

Implications for Science Teaching and Learning This meta-synthesis resulted in a framework of six translanguaging pedagogical competencies that science teachers should possess to incorporate translanguaging pedagogy in their multilingual and multicultural classrooms. This framework has multicultural implications and implications for in-service teachers as well as for teacher preparation programs. The competencies in this proposed framework have multicultural implications for teaching and learning. Translanguaging pedagogies open what Wei (2011) calls

642

N. Nouri et al.

translanguaging spaces. These spaces are created through and for translanguaging practices and foster an inclusive learning environment where students’ linguistic resources are valued and leveraged. The first competency in this framework consists of understanding pedagogical methods to teach linguistically diverse students, such as promoting students’ active participation in science class. Translanguaging pedagogies open spaces for the use of minoritized languages which allows linguistically diverse learners to participate more equitably. Charamba (2019) calls this a “democratic endeavor for social justice” (p. 13). In this manner, the status of minoritized languages is raised in science class by becoming useful for teaching and learning. As competencies 2 and 3 indicate, the adoption of translanguaging pedagogies requires the teachers’ disposition to challenge linguistic hierarchies and languageexclusive ideologies with a rationale to create safe learning environments that bridge cultures. Safe spaces facilitate diverse students’ participation, strengthen relationships among students, and promote the appreciation of cultural experiences (PujolFerran et al. 2016). Gómez Fernández (2019) emphasizes that teachers need to recognize “the different languages and cultures at school and in the science classroom, ensuring equal learning opportunity for all students” (p. 388). Teachers’ dispositions and rationale need to be put into action. Therefore, competencies 4 and 5 focus on the skills and instructional strategies that are needed to enact translanguaging pedagogies to create supportive environments where specific instructional strategies for inclusion and identity development are incorporated. Gómez Fernández (2019) states that “everyday practices at school should. . . make students’ cultures and identities audible and visible” (p. 388). Validating and leveraging students’ language resources for learning transform hegemonic power relations in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. Ultimately, teachers who allow their students to use all of their language resources for learning empower their students in science class (Karlsson et al. 2019). Traditional bilingual classrooms that follow a modernist approach to separation of languages and a monoglossic view of bilingualism contribute to perpetuate the hegemony of English and devalue the linguistic practices of bilingual individuals. As García et al. (2017b) explain, “all bilingual education efforts suffer from the societal hierarchization of languages” (p. 5). Therefore, we need more teachers with the necessary competencies to afford linguistically diverse students to use their full linguistic repertoires to access content and achieve at their full potential. Translanguaging pedagogy is one way to open inclusive spaces, free of linguistic stigmatization, for linguistically diverse students to have equitable access to science learning.

Implications for Teachers This proposed framework includes the competencies needed for science teachers to develop a translanguaging stance, design, and shifts that constitute a translanguaging pedagogy for their science classrooms. Kleyn (2016) explains that translanguaging has a place in any program that leads to language learning, whether it is a bilingual program, an ESL program, etc. Therefore, this proposed framework is applicable to

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

643

all science classrooms where multilingual and multicultural students receive instruction. As proposed by Kleyn (2016), teachers should value and incorporate all students’ languages and cultures so that students can be proud of their heritage and leverage it to learn. In addition, when enacting a translanguaging pedagogy, the classroom and school environments should reflect multilingualism and students’ cultures. The framework includes the competencies and knowledge science teachers should possess when teaching bilingual students (e.g., students use home languages to conceptualize what they learned in the language of instruction). While this knowledge may seem simple to some, it allows science teachers to be intentional in their instructional planning. That is, this framework includes the translanguaging pedagogical competencies needed by science teachers to design instruction that purposefully creates translanguaging spaces for teaching and learning. It is important to note that as explained by Kleyn (2016), instructional planning requires that teachers know their students and not just the content they teach. Therefore, teachers should know and understand their students’ linguistic challenges and strengths. In addition, the framework includes a series of strategies that teachers can use in their translanguaging classrooms. Science teachers should recognize that common strategies can be adapted to incorporate translanguaging (Kleyn 2016). The framework also introduces professional skills that teachers should have to implement translanguaging pedagogy. Skills such as recognizing the proper time for translanguaging equip science teachers with the ability to enact translanguaging shifts. Consequently, teachers should understand and have the skills necessary to balance the planning that is required to open spaces for translanguaging as well as the flexibility that is needed to respond to students’ needs and funds of knowledge (Kleyn 2016). In order for science teachers to develop the translanguaging pedagogical competencies presented in this framework, it is advantageous to introduce those in science teacher preparation programs.

Implications for Science Teacher Preparation Programs As teacher educators concerned with preparing science teachers who are ready to meet the needs of diverse students, we decided to provide a framework that can be incorporated in teacher preparation programs. The framework of science teachers’ competencies to use translanguaging introduced here provides a guide both for science teacher preparation programs to include translanguaging in the curriculum and for science preservice teachers to be prepared to teach with this pedagogy. Kleyn (2016) contends that translanguaging must be embedded in teacher preparation programs if we expect that it be incorporated naturally in teachers’ practices. In order for this to happen, faculty must first recognize that novice teachers will need to support bilingual learners and recognize the importance of preparing teacher candidates to do so effectively. To that end, science teacher educators must develop their own translanguaging stance, design, and shifts. One way to support faculty in developing knowledge and better understanding of bilingualism and translanguaging is through professional development and engaging in innovative approaches such as

644

N. Nouri et al.

co-teaching and opportunities to review their syllabi to integrate translanguaging (Kleyn 2016). In these ways, science teacher educators can develop a deeper understanding of translanguaging from more experienced peers. Science preservice teachers require well-designed and intentionally planned opportunities to develop the translanguaging pedagogical competencies presented in this framework while in their teacher preparation program. Therefore, as explained by Kleyn (2016), teacher preparation programs should incorporate opportunities for preservice teachers to understand translanguaging. Some of those opportunities can include observing bilingual individuals in natural settings, observing and analyzing classrooms with students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, and observing teachers. Most importantly, preservice teachers should be provided guidance and opportunities to plan for translanguaging (Kleyn 2016). In contrast with other competency frameworks, this framework incorporates challenges that teachers may counter in science translanguaging classrooms. This is especially important because being aware and ready for those challenges can prevent preservice teachers from frustration and disappointment when they are ready to use translanguaging pedagogy in their classrooms.

Recommendations for Further Research According to Blömeke et al. (2008), “T[t]eacher-education research lacks a common theoretical basis, which prevents a convincing development of instruments and makes it difficult to connect studies to each other” (p. 719). Despite the existence of several studies on the integration of science and translanguaging, no research has been conducted to summarize them. The results of our meta-synthesis contribute to the body of literature on effective science teaching for linguistically diverse students by providing a new organized framework of holistic and useable strategies, rationales, dispositions, and other competencies that we suggest teachers should acquire and demonstrate to successfully incorporate a translanguaging pedagogy in their science classrooms. Nevertheless, we recognize further research is necessary, so we offer several recommendations: (a) Despite the fact that the teachers’ competencies framework suggested in this chapter is extracted from the literature so every sub-competency is research proof, the framework as a whole still needs to be examined. Regarding this, future research can validate the framework by collecting data from teachers in science classrooms on the combination of science and translanguaging pedagogy for instruction of linguistically diverse learners. (b) Based on the framework of science teachers’ competencies introduced in this chapter, curriculum can be designed and implemented in science teacher preparation programs. Examining teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward translanguaging after experiencing a course based on this curriculum can provide more realistic and accurate data to make decisions about the usefulness of the framework.

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

645

(c) The framework also can be used to design a questionnaire for in-service and preservice teachers to help them share both their experiences with translanguaging and their attitude toward every competency. This research can be guided by questions such as the following: What are the lived experiences of science teachers and preservice teachers regarding translanguaging pedagogy? What are science teachers’ and preservice teachers’ perceptions about the integration of translanguaging in science classes? What are teachers’ and preservice teachers’ stance and rationale for using translanguaging for teaching science to linguistically diverse learners? In sum, further research on the integration of translanguaging pedagogy in science classrooms can help validate the translanguaging pedagogical competencies needed by science teachers to effectively teach in multilingual and multicultural settings.

Conclusion Given the growing number of linguistically diverse learners in today’s science classrooms, it is eminent that science teachers have the competencies necessary to facilitate science learning for all students. Drawing from a sociocultural framework that values diverse students’ cultures and languages, we conducted a meta-synthesis of studies exploring translanguaging pedagogy in science classrooms to create a framework for the competencies needed by science teachers to incorporate a translanguaging pedagogy in their instruction. The resulting framework consists of six translanguaging pedagogical competencies: (1) The teacher should know pedagogical methods on how to teach bilingual students, (2) the teacher believes in the importance of using translanguaging pedagogy and has professional dispositions, (3) the teacher can identify the rationale for using translanguaging pedagogy, (4) the teacher possesses professional skills to implement translanguaging pedagogy, (5) the teacher selects appropriate pedagogical approaches and instructional strategies to apply translanguaging pedagogy, and (6) the teacher is aware of challenges of using translanguaging pedagogy and is able to overcome them. We contend that this framework can be useful for both science teachers and preservice teachers to develop the competencies necessary to develop a translanguaging stance, design instruction, and make the necessary shifts to incorporate a translanguaging pedagogy to teach science in multilingual and multicultural classrooms.

References Alake-Tuenter E, Biemans HJ, Tobi H, Wals AE, Oosterheert I, Mulder M (2012) Inquiry-based science education competencies of primary school teachers: a literature study and critical review of the American National Science Education Standards. Int J Sci Educ 34(17):2609–2640. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.669076 Al-Mutawa N, Al-Dabbous J (1997) Evaluation of student-teachers’ performance in TEFL practicum at Kuwait University. J Educ Res Cent 6(11):27–48. http://hdl.handle.net/10576/8244

646

N. Nouri et al.

Barroso J, Gollop CJ, Sandelowski M, Meynell J, Pearce PF, Collins LJ (2003) The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res 25(2):153–178. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0193945902250034 Baumert J, Kunter M, Blum W, Brunner M, Voss T, Jordan A, . . . Tsai Y-M (2010) Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. Am Educ Res J 47(1):133–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157 Beres AM (2015) An overview of translanguaging: 20 years of “giving voice to those who do not speak”. John Benjamins e Platform 1(1):103–118. https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.1.1.05ber Bergroth M (2006) Immersion students in the matriculation examination three years after immersion. In: Björklund S, MardMiettinen K, Bergström M, Södergard M (eds) Exploring dual focussed education. Integrating language and content for individual and societal needs. University of Vaasa, Centre for Immersion and Multilingualism, Vaasa, pp 123–134. http://www. uwasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_952-476-149-1.pdf Birnbaum ML, Daily EK (2009) Competency and competence. Prehosp Disaster Med 24(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X00006452 Blömeke S, Delaney S (2014) Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries: a review of the state of research. In: International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 541–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6437-8_25 Blömeke S, Felbrich A, Müller C, Kaiser G, Lehmann R (2008) Effectiveness of teacher education. State of research, measurement issues and consequences for future studies. ZDM 40:719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0096-x Canagarajah S (2011) Translanguaging in the classroom: emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Appl linguis Rev 2:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1 Canagarajah S (2016) Translingual writing and teacher development in composition. Coll Engl 78(3):265–273 Carlsen WS (2007) Language and science learning. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Rutledge, New York, pp 57–74 Cebrián G, Junyent M (2015) Competencies in education for sustainable development: exploring the student teachers’ views. Sustainability 7(3):2768–2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032768 Charalambous C, Charalambous P, Zembylas M, Theodorou E (2020) Translanguaging. In: Panagiotopoulou JA, Rosen L, Strzykala J (eds) Security and social justice education. In inclusion, education and Translanguaging. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 105–123 Charamba E (2019) Translanguaging: developing scientific scholarship in a multilingual classroom. J Multiling Multicult Dev 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1625907 Charamba E, Zano K (2019) Effects of translanguaging as an intervention strategy in a south African chemistry classroom. Biling Res J 42(3):291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882. 2019.1631229 Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe, Strasbourg Creese A, Blackledge A (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? Mod Lang J 94(1):103–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009. 00986.x DeBoer GE (2000) Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. J Res Sci Teach 37(6):582–601. https://doi.org/10. 1002/1098-2736(200008)37:63.0.CO;2-L Donato R (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf JP, Appel G (eds) Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Ablex, New York, pp 33–56 Espinosa CM, Herrera LY, with Gaudreau CM (2016) Reclaiming bilingualism: Translanguaging in a science class. In: García O, Kleyn T (eds) Translanguaging with multilingual students: learning from classroom moments. Routledge, New York, pp 160–177 Esquinca A, Araujo B, de la Piedra MT (2014) Meaning making and translanguaging in a two-way dual-language program on the US-Mexico border. Biling Res J 37(2):164–181. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15235882.2014.934970

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

647

Fernández-Sanjurjo J, Fernández-Costales A, Arias Blanco JM (2019) Analysing students’ contentlearning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: empirical evidence from Spain. Int J Biling Educ Biling 22(6):661–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142 García O (2009) Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden García O, Kleyn T (2016) Translanguaging theory in education. In: García O, Kleyn T (eds) Translanguaging with multilingual students: learning from classroom moments. Routledge, Now York, pp 9–33 García O, Wei L (2014) Translanguaging, language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York García O, Flores N, Woodley HH (2015) Constructing in-between spaces to “do” bilingualism: a tale of two high schools in one city. In: Cenoz J, Gorter D (eds) Multilingual education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging. University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 199–224 García O, Johnson SI, Seltzer K (2017a) The translanguaging classroom: leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon, Philadelphia García O, Lin A, May S (eds) (2017b) Bilingual and multilingual education, 3rd edn. Springer, Cham Garzón-Díaz E (2021) From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. Int J Biling Educ Biling 24(2):242–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050. 2018.1456512 Gómez Fernández RG (2019) Translanguaging and equity in groupwork in the science classroom: adding linguistic and cultural diversity to the equation. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:383–391. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09919-w Horner B, Tetreault L (eds) (2017) Crossing divides: exploring translingual writing pedagogies and programs. Utah State University Press, Logan Jäppinen AK (2005) Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Lang Educ 19(2):147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668671 Karlsson A, Larsson PN, Jakobsson A (2019) The continuity of learning in a translanguaging science classroom. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09933-y Kleyn T (2016) Setting the path: implications for teachers and teacher educators. In: García O, Kleyn T (eds) Translanguaging with multilingual students: learning from classroom moments. Routledge, Now York, pp 202–220 Langman J (2014) Translanguaging, identity, and learning: science teachers as engaged language planners. Lang Policy 13(2):183–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-013-9312-9 Lemke JL (1990) Talking science: language, learning, and values. Ablex, Norwood Lemmi C, Brown BA, Wild A, Zummo L, Sedlacek Q (2019) Language ideologies in science education. Sci Educ 103(4):854–874. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21508 Li W (2011) Moment analysis and Translanguaging space: discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. J Pragmat 43(5):1222–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2010.07.035 Licona PR, Kelly GJ (2015) Translanguaging in a middle school science classroom: constructing scientific arguments in English and Spanish. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:1–26. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-019-09946-7 Lin AM, He P (2017) Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. J Lang Identity Educ 16(4):228–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1328283 Lin AM, Lo YY (2017) Trans/languaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Lang Educ 31(1):26–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500782.2016.1230125 Lo YY, Lui WM, Wong M (2019) Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments. J Immersion Content-Based Lang Educ 7(2):289–314. https://doi.org/10. 1075/jicb.18028.lo

648

N. Nouri et al.

Lo YY, Lin AM, Liu Y (2020) Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves. Int J Biling Educ Biling 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020. 1810203 Lüdi G, Py B (2009) To be or not to be. . . a plurilingual speaker. Int J Multiling 6(2):154–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710902846715 Lyon EG, Bunch GC, Shaw JM (2012) Navigating the language demands of an inquiry-based science performance assessment: classroom challenges and opportunities for English learners. Sci Educ 96(4):631–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21008 Martin MO, Mullis IV, Foy P, Stanco GM (2012) TIMSS 2011 international results in science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill Mazak C (2017) Introduction. Theorizing translanguaging practices in higher education. In: Mazak CM, Carroll KS (eds) Translanguaging in higher education. Beyond monolingual ideologies. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp 1–10 Mazak CM, Herbas-Donoso C (2015) Translanguaging practices at a bilingual university: a case study of a science classroom. Int J Biling Educ Biling 18(6):698–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2014.939138 Mbirimi-Hungwe V (2019) Stepping beyond linguistic boundaries in multilingual science education: Lecturer’s perceptions of the use of translanguaging. S Afr Linguist Appl Lang Stud 37(1): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2019.1598877 Moore E, Evnitskaya N, Ramos-de Robles SL (2018) Teaching and learning science in linguistically diverse classrooms. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13:341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9783-z NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC Nouri N, Saberi M, McComas WF, Mohammadi M (2021) Proposed teacher competencies to support effective nature of science instruction: a meta-synthesis of the literature. J Sci Teach Educ 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1871206 Panagiotopoulou JA, Rosen L, Strzykala J (2020) Inclusion, education and translanguaging: how to promote social justice in (Teacher) education? Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3658-28128-1 Pérez-Vidal C (2011) Language Acquisition in Three Different Contexts of learning: formal instruction, stay abroad, and semi-immersion (CLIL). In: Ruíz de Zarobe Y, Sierra JM, Gallardo del Puerto F (eds) Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European context. Peter Lang, Bern, pp 103–127 Piller I (2016) Linguistic diversity and social justice: an introduction to applied sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937240. 001.0001 Poza LE (2018) The language of ciencia: Translanguaging and learning in a bilingual science classroom. Int J Biling Educ Biling 21(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015. 1125849 Prax-Dubois P, Hélot C (2020) Translanguaging in multilingual pre-primary classrooms in La Réunion: reflecting on inclusion and social justice in a French postcolonial context. In: Panagiotopoulou JA, Rosen L, Strzykala J (eds) Inclusion, education and Translanguaging. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28128-1 Probyn M (2015) Pedagogical translanguaging: bridging discourses in south African science classrooms. Lang Educ 29(3):218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.994525 Pujol-Ferran M, DiSanto JM, Rodríguez NN, Morales A (2016) Exploring plurilingual pedagogies across the college curriculum. Can Mod Lang Rev 72(4):530–549. https://doi.org/10.3138/ cmlr.3306 Richardson V (1996) The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In: Sikula J, Buttery T, Guyton E (eds) Handbook of research on teacher education, 2nd edn. Macmillan, New York, pp 102–119 Riegle-Crumb C, Moore C, Ramos-Wada A (2011) Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Sci Educ 95(3):458–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20431

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

649

Roth W-M (2007) Toward a dialectical notion and praxis of scientific literacy. J Curric Stud 39(4): 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270601032025 Ruíz de Zarobe Y (2008) CLIL and foreign language learning: a longitudinal study in the Basque Country. Int CLIL Res J 1:60–73. http://www.icrj.eu/11/article5.html Ryu M (2019) Mixing languages for science learning and participation: an examination of KoreanEnglish bilingual learners in an after-school science-learning programme. Int J Sci Educ 41(10): 1303–1323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1605229 Sandelowski M, Barroso J (2006) Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company, New York Shohamy E (2006) Language policy, hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge, London Shulman L (1985) Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In: Wittrock MC (ed) Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York, pp 3–36 Thompson AG (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of research. In: Grouws DA (ed) Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 127–146 Tonkin H (2011) Language and the ingenuity gap in science. Crit Inq Lang Stud 8(1):105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2011.545759 Ullmann M (1999) History and geography through French: CLIL in a UK secondary school. In: Masih J (ed) Learning through a foreign language. Models, methods and outcomes. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, London, pp 96–105 UNESCO (1989) Educacion bilingue. Materiales de apoyo para la formacion docente en Educacion Bilingue Intercultural. S.R.V. S.R.V. Impresos. UNESCO, Santiago de Chile Ünsal Z, Jakobson B, Molander BO, Wickman PO (2018a) Language use in a multilingual class: a study of the relation between bilingual students’ languages and their meaning-making in science. Res Sci Educ 48(5):1027–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9597-8 Ünsal Z, Jakobson B, Molander BO, Wickman PO (2018b) Science education in a bilingual class: problematising a translational practice. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13:317–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-016-9747-3 Vikstrom A (2008) What is intended, what is realized, and what is learned? Teaching and learning biology in the primary school classroom. J Sci Teach Educ 19:211–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10972-008-9090-y Walsh S (2006) Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge, London Walsh S (2011) Exploring classroom discourse: language in action. Routledge, London Wei L (2011) Moment analysis and translanguaging space: discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. J Pragmat 43(5):1222–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2010.07.035 Wellington J, Osborne J (2001) Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press, Buckingham Wode H (1999) Language learning in European immersion classes. In: Masih J (ed) Learning through a foreign language. Models, methods and outcomes. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, London, pp 16–25 Wolf FM (1986) Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Sage, Newberry Park

List of Articles in Meta-Synthesis Charamba E (2019) Translanguaging: developing scientific scholarship in a multilingual classroom. J Multiling Multicult Dev 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1625907 Charamba E, Zano K (2019) Effects of translanguaging as an intervention strategy in a south African chemistry classroom. Biling Res J 42(3):291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882. 2019.1631229

650

N. Nouri et al.

Esquinca A, Araujo B, de la Piedra MT (2014) Meaning making and translanguaging in a two-way dual-language program on the US-Mexico border. Biling Res J 37(2):164–181. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15235882.2014.934970 Gómez Fernández RG (2019) Translanguaging and equity in groupwork in the science classroom: adding linguistic and cultural diversity to the equation. Cult Stud Sci Educ 14:383–391. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09919-w Karlsson A, Larsson PN, Jakobsson A (2019) The continuity of learning in a translanguaging science classroom. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-01909933-y Kiramba LK, Harris VJ (2019) Navigating authoritative discourses in a multilingual classroom: conversations with policy and practice. TESOL Q 53(2):456–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tesq.493 Langman J (2014) Translanguaging, identity, and learning: science teachers as engaged language planners. Lang Policy 13(2):183–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-013-9312-9 Lemmi C, Brown BA, Wild A, Zummo L, Sedlacek Q (2019) Language ideologies in science education. Sci Educ 103(4):854–874. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21508 Licona PR, Kelly GJ (2015) Translanguaging in a middle school science classroom: constructing scientific arguments in English and Spanish. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:1–26. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11422-019-09946-7 Lin AM, He P (2017) Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. J Lang Identity Educ 16(4):228–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1328283 Lin AM, Lo YY (2017) Trans/languaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Lang Educ 31(1):26–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500782.2016.1230125 Lin AM, Wu Y (2015) ‘May I speak Cantonese?’–co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. Int J Biling Educ Biling 18(3):289–305. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13670050.2014.988113 Mazak CM, Herbas-Donoso C (2015) Translanguaging practices at a bilingual university: a case study of a science classroom. Int J Biling Educ Biling 18(6):698–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2014.939138 Mazak CM, Herbas-Donoso C (2014) Translanguaging practices and language ideologies in Puerto Rican university science education. Crit Inq Lang Stud 11(1):27–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15427587.2014.871622 Mbirimi-Hungwe V (2019) Stepping beyond linguistic boundaries in multilingual science education: Lecturer’s perceptions of the use of translanguaging. S Afr Linguist Appl Lang Stud 37(1): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2019.1598877 McKinney C, Tyler R (2019) Disinventing and reconstituting language for learning in school science. Lang Educ 33(2):141–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1516779 Mein E, Esquinca A (2017) The role of bilingualism in shaping engineering literacies and identities. Theory Pract 56(4):282–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1350494 Moore E, Evnitskaya N, Ramos-de Robles SL (2018) Teaching and learning science in linguistically diverse classrooms. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13:341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-0169783-z Poza LE (2018) The language of ciencia: Translanguaging and learning in a bilingual science classroom. Int J Biling Educ Biling 21(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015. 1125849 Probyn M (2015) Pedagogical translanguaging: bridging discourses in south African science classrooms. Lang Educ 29(3):218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.994525 Pujol-Ferran M, DiSanto JM, Rodríguez NN, Morales A (2016) Exploring plurilingual pedagogies across the college curriculum. Can Mod Lang Rev 72(4):530–549. https://doi.org/10.3138/ cmlr.3306

24

Proposing a Framework for Science Teachers’ Competencies Regarding. . .

651

Ryu M (2019) Mixing languages for science learning and participation: an examination of KoreanEnglish bilingual learners in an after-school science-learning programme. Int J Sci Educ 41(10): 1303–1323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1605229 Ünsal Z, Jakobson B, Molander BO, Wickman PO (2018a) Language use in a multilingual class: a study of the relation between bilingual students’ languages and their meaning-making in science. Res Sci Educ 48(5):1027–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9597-8 Ünsal Z, Jakobson B, Molander BO, Wickman PO (2018b) Science education in a bilingual class: problematising a translational practice. Cult Stud Sci Educ 13:317–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-016-9747-3 Veiga JR (2019) Border crossing through translanguaging. Cult Stud Sci Educ 15:27–30. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09950-x

It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx Learners’ Native Language to Learn Science

25

Angela Chapman and Patricia Alvarez McHatton

Contents Context of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning Science and Vocabulary Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Language and Non-L1 Vocabulary Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science Learning and Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group One: English Monolingual Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Two: Low to Moderate Spanish Proficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Three: Highest Spanish Proficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language at School and Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Can We Conclude? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spanish Supports Learning in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of L1 and Non-L1 Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning Science and Spanish Proficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Teacher Preparation and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our Closing Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

655 656 659 660 661 662 662 664 665 666 666 666 667 669 672 674 675 675 676 676 678 679 679

A. Chapman (*) The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] P. A. McHatton Branch Alliance for Educator Diversity, Austin, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. M. Atwater (ed.), International Handbook of Research on Multicultural Science Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83122-6_4

653

654

A. Chapman and P. A. McHatton

Abstract

While benefits of bilingualism (Spanish English) have been reported, a deficit perspective toward Spanish in P-12 classrooms in the United States has persisted and becomes part of the dominant narrative. This chapter reports findings from a study that explored how learning in science is affected when Spanish is utilized as linguistic capital to help students learn academic vocabulary and content. Three findings emerged from this study. First, learning gains are improved when students use strategies that leverage their Spanish language. Second, students demonstrate a change in their attitude toward the role of Spanish in learning science. Third, students do not need to be fluent in academic Spanish to support their learning, rather having even a small amount of Spanish proficiency leads to significantly higher learning gains. Specifically, we discuss the implications of the impact of when first language Spanish strategies are explicitly used to teach science to students who know Spanish. These students are more likely to leverage it as a linguistic asset to improve their science content learning. Some students articulated an understanding of Spanish as linguistic capital that supported their learning, while others did not. One explanation for this disparity is that a deficit attitude toward Spanish prevails in many classrooms and may be internalized by some students. Implications for languages other than English in multilinguistic science classrooms are discussed. Keywords

Linguistic capital · Linguistic hegemony · Multiple vocabulary strategies · Multicultural · Bilingual

“Well, I have spoken Spanish since I was born. It’s my first language, so I know more Spanish than English” said Amelia during our discussion after completing a unit in anatomy and physiology that was designed to help students learn by leveraging their knowledge of Spanish as linguistic capital to develop a deeper understanding of the content. She elaborates on her use of English and Spanish at school “it’s like we know both [languages] but we don’t speak Spanish [at school] we only speak English.” At home Spanish is the only language she uses “because my mom and grandmother don’t understand English”. She goes on to share her passion of science and her desire to go to medical school, purposefully taking the most difficult science courses. During the anatomy class, students dissected a heart. Amelia was enthralled, “I was like oh I can see where it [the blood] goes”. She explains how the test to assess her understanding of the lesson was very easy for her and she credits her understanding of Spanish as one factor. “That was actually very easy for me because for example, the test we just took there was a question about coronary and I thought corazón, and there was parasympathetic, and I didn’t remember the word, I was like I don’t know and then I just at the beginning I was like para that’s ‘parar’ in Spanish, it was probably decrease the heart rate and I put that one and I asked the teacher and I think I was right, so I think it helps a lot to know Spanish” (Amelia 2016).

25

It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx. . .

655

Context of the Study This study took place in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV), which is located in Deep South Texas along the northern bank of the Rio Grande. The majority (91.75%) of the population in this region is of Mexican heritage (Tingle et al. 2017). While it is one of the poorest regions in the nation, with lower high school graduation and college attendance rates, it also has some of the highest performing schools in the state (Texas Education Agency 2019). It is a region that is underserved, misunderstood, and misrepresented, a situation that has been exacerbated because of the recent immigration debates. We recognize and value the strengths and assets within our communities and highlight Guajardo’s (2018) description of the peoples of this region as “proud, hardworking, and dignified” (p. 11). Situated along the United States-México border, the RGV has a contentious relationship with the Spanish language. Historically, in this region and the United States, individuals whose first language was not English have often been viewed from a deficit lens. The primary goal for schools teaching individuals for whom English is not their first language is developing English proficiency and facilitating assimilation into the dominant culture with all due haste. This often resulted in parents being encouraged to only speak English in the home and/or forbidding students to use their native language at school (Hakuta 2011; Guajardo 2018; Anzaldúa 1987). Gloria Anzaldúa, a graduate of one of our legacy institutions, the University of Texas-Pan American (today it is the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley), wrote passionately about her experiences growing up along the MéxicoTexas border. She recalled receiving “three licks on the knuckles with a sharp ruler” (1987, p. 75) for speaking Spanish at recess and being required to take two speech classes in college in order to “get rid of our accents” (p. 76). Francisco Guajardo (2018) also recalls being told not to speak Spanish in school during the 1970s and 1980s, while Benjamin Baez (2002) writes poignantly about how becoming fluent in English meant learning to forget Spanish. In addition, residents living along the border who speak what Anzaldúa refers to as Chicano Texas Spanish have “internalized the belief that we speak poor Spanish” (p. 80) further stigmatizing their native tongue. Given the sociocultural context, it should be no surprise that many parents made the conscious decision to not teach their children Spanish, not wanting them to experience the same discrimination as they had. We now know that bilingualism results in multiple neurological and academic benefits (Mehmedbegovic 2017). Bilingualism is connected to competency in speaking, reading, and writing in both languages and helps develop thought processes and learning more broadly (Farhan 2019). Bilingualism is also associated with improved metalinguistic awareness, memory, and creativity. The cognitive advantage of bilingualism spans all life stages leading Dina Mehmedbegovic (2017) to state that the benefits of bilingualism “at the individual and societal level are so significant that acting on this evidence is not only an educational, but also a health and economic imperative” (p. 540).

656

A. Chapman and P. A. McHatton

The term bilingual/ism is used here and throughout this chapter with intention, and we situate it within the United States. Literature often refers to students who speak a non-English language at home and are learning English in school as English language learners (ELLs) or as limited English proficient (LEP) students. Such labels for bilingual learners in the United States can carry negative connotations, subtly implying that these children have a deficit or are lacking something without acknowledgement of their funds of knowledge (Moll et al. 1992; González et al. 2006) and skills they may possess. Maria de la Luz Reyes (2012) writes: “None of these terms acknowledge bilingualism/biliteracy as part of the cultural capital that children bring to school and as an asset that could and should be used as a resource for learning” (p. 308). Instead of reflecting the advantages of knowing two languages, a student’s native language is implicitly conveyed as less important than English. Thus, we use the more inclusive term of bilingual learners (BLs) and argue that knowledge of Spanish is a form of linguistic capital that can promote student learning.

Theoretical Framework This chapter is guided by Pierre Bordieu’s (1991) concept of cultural capital that encompasses symbolic elements that are culturally based. Subsumed within that is linguistic capital, which pertains to available language resources individuals possess and how those resources are situated within and valued by the dominant group. Linguistic hegemony occurs when the dominant group “convinces others to accept their language norms and usage as standard or paradigmatic” (Wiley 2000, p. 113). Within the United States, linguistic hegemony is evident in the way languages other than English are positioned. Significantly, English’s dominance as the preferred language spans the globe. Jacob Mikanowski (2018) notes it is the first language of over 400 million people and the second language of a billion more. He goes on to state, “It is inescapable: the language of global business, the internet, science, diplomacy, stellar navigation, avian pathology. And everywhere it goes, it leaves behind a trail of dead: dialects crushed, languages forgotten, literatures mangled” (para 4). In this border region we inhabit, the stigmatization of the Spanish language is more complex than simply a matter of linguistics. Anzaldúa (1987) eloquently described the region as “. . .this borderland between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. This land has survived possession and ill-use by five countries: Spain, México, the Republic of Texas, the U.S., the Confederacy, and the U.S. again” (p. 90). Throughout history the revolutions and battles over ownership of the territory have had a significant influence on the Spanish language in the Rio Grande Valley. Anzaldúa describes how varieties of languages emerged with corresponding attitudes or value judgements toward the variations. An example of these value judgements is described in a study conducted by Ana Cestero and Florentino Paredes (2015 as cited by Ciller and Florez 2016), which found Castilian Spanish was viewed more positively than Andalusian and Mexican Spanish, both of which were associated

25

It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx. . .

657

with lower income and educational and work status levels. In another study conducted by Glenn Martínez (2003), wherein he explored language variations among two communities (Reynosa, MX and McAllen, TX – located in the RGV), participants from Reynosa described McAllen’s Spanish as sounding “ugly” (p. 45) compared to their own Spanish. By virtue of the Rio Grande Valley’s heritage and geographical location as a border community, there is evidence of linguistic selfhatred or a sense of shame to speak your own language due to its perceived inferior status (Catalá 2015). More importantly and with serious consequence is that during the colonization of South Texas, the view of English as the right language permeated the communities, including the public schools. The hegemony of English and the simultaneous marginalization of Spanish as subservient to English have persisted for decades and continue today with K-12 Latinx students. By Latinx we mean to be inclusive of Latinos/Latinas in discussing the Hispanic population. As a result, Latinx students may or may not understand their native language, Spanish, as a contextual mitigating factor or CMF (Gallard Martínez et al. 2019). These authors define CMFs as “an infinite set of sociocultural, -economical, -historical and -political contexts, which are fluid and dynamic, simultaneously interweaving community, education, family, gender, identity, and other factors” (p. 1081). CMFs are an analytical and theoretical framework that have helped to better understand the successes of Latinas in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The authors describe how Latinas had to develop an awareness of how they were positioned in the STEM environment because of their ethnicity, gender, and native language. This environment has a longstanding history of being entrenched in Westernized, Eurocentric ideologies and dominated by White males. Through this awareness, successful Latinas in STEM recognized the conditions that constrained them, what Paulo Freire (1970) termed limitsituations. In addition, they were able to read the sociocultural landscape in order to develop resiliency which allowed them to persist and succeed in their pursuit of a STEM career. Language is a CMF for many native Spanish-speaking and bilingual students as it has been subjugated and positioned as inferior to English (Gallard Martínez et al. 2019). In addition, it is intertwined with border politics and power around land ownership, water rights, and immigration. Anzaldúa (1987) describes the linguistic terrorism that comes from English and Spanish speaking peoples who criticize their bilingualism, “because. . .our language has been used against us by the dominant culture, we use our language differences against each other” (p.38). Anzaldúa defines linguistic terrorism as frequent and continual attacks on one’s heritage language by members of the dominant culture. In addition, other Spanish speakers who have internalized the dominant narrative’s contempt toward any language other than English may themselves engage in language suppression of other Spanish speakers. Recently, Katherine Christofferson (2019) studied the impact of linguistic terrorism on students in the Rio Grande Valley whose heritage language has been suppressed and contends that critical language awareness (CLA) is a way to develop a critical consciousness about linguistic terrorism and take action by rejecting

658

A. Chapman and P. A. McHatton

hegemonic language beliefs about the superiority of English that have infiltrated the schools for decades. We contend that critical language awareness is another form of what Gallard Martínez et al. (2019) refer to as reading the sociocultural landscape to identify limit situations such as linguistic terrorism. Research prior to 1960 posited exposure to two languages hindered language proficiency and verbal intelligence (Caraballo 1982). Since then, research has revealed that the ascension of one language over another has implications for those for whom the dominant language is not the first language, especially when it comes to academic performance. Current research suggests that bilingualism provides positive cognitive and social advantages including higher levels of working memory and abstract representational skills (Bialystok and Viswanathan 2009). In a meta-analysis on cognitive correlates of bilingualism, Olusola Adesope, Tracy Lavin, Terri Thompson, and Charles Ungerleider (2010) found that bilingualism is “positively associated with a range of cognitive benefits” (pg. 229). Further, they noted that the ability to acquire and manage two languages develops skills that can be applied to other domains such as the ability to demonstrate executive control and problem solve. Finally, learning a new language is beneficial to children and adults as bilingualism has been found to help counteract cognitive declines associated with aging. Jamila Sharipovna Djumabaeva and Mavluda Yuldashbayevna Kengboyeva (2021) hypothesize learning a new language supports our learning processes and can slow down cognitive defects and support healthy aging. Xinjie Chen and Amado Padilla (2019) note that early research also depicted biculturalism negatively by proposing that being bicultural would lead to identity confusion and psychological uncertainty. It was not until the early 1990s that researchers (LaFromboise et al. 1993) noted the benefits of acquiring bicultural competency, which consisted of understanding, valuing, communicating, and being grounded in both cultures, as a way of being bicultural without experiencing negative psychological outcomes. Additional research focused on positive aspects of biculturalism and noted that bicultural competence may also lead to increased social competence and the ability to develop coping strategies within a racialized setting. Accordingly, there is a need for research that attends to both bilingualism and biculturalism. To that end, Chen and Padilla (2019) propose a conceptual framework for researching the positive aspects of both. Their framework, the Positive Bilingual and Bicultural GEAR model, consists of four components, psychological growth, cognitive exploration, linguistic awareness, and social reinforcement, which are intricately connected. Psychological growth attends to the role of bilingualism in psychological development. Cognitive exploration pertains to the cognitive benefits of bilingualism and biculturalism. Linguistic awareness focuses on development of metalinguistic awareness, a cognitive process that allows individuals to monitor and control their use of language. Social reinforcement addresses the social interactions made possible as a result of bilingual and bicultural abilities, which may reinforce social connections and engagement with more diverse individuals.

25

It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx. . .

659

Learning Science and Vocabulary Acquisition In this chapter we offer evidence that when Spanish, even to a small degree, is leveraged by students and teachers to learn science, it is a form of cultural and linguistic capital. However, many Spanish English bilingual students do not realize they possess this linguistic capital and have not developed a way to navigate around the English-dominant narratives that are embedded in the public schools. Complicating students’ lack of awareness of the funds of knowledge they bring into the learning spaces, which includes bilingualism, is the science teacher who is unaware of how to incorporate Spanish as a pedagogical tool (Moll et al. 1992; González et al. 2006). We end the chapter with a discussion on what we can learn from the way we approach language in science classrooms and the implications for teacher education. One’s vocabulary is the words or terms used within a person’s language and when situated within the system of education are the foundation for communicating and learning content. William Rupley, William Nichols, Maryann Mraz, and Timothy Blair (2012) argue that one’s vocabulary should be a representation of the concepts and knowledge she or he possesses, in other words, one’s funds of knowledge. A student who has a deep and meaningful understanding of a word can connect concepts with the word. Rupley et al. (2012) have posited that those students need the opportunity to connect words to everyday personal experiences and that these “students must be taught strategies that will allow them to integrate new word meanings with their existing knowledge in order to build strong conceptual representations of vocabulary across multiple contextual settings” (p. 317). In order for meaningful learning of science to take place, students must be given the space to create a dialectic between the words they use to define their experiences and the science words used to define science phenomena (Okebukola 2020). Additionally, as we in this chapter discuss the importance of learning science vocabulary, this should not be taken as a sign that we are advocating that science should be learned through the memorization of definitions of science vocabulary words. The vocabulary used and how it is introduced in science classes present challenges to students. This is particularly true for bilingual (Spanish English) students. However, we propose that for bilingual students, Spanish is a source of linguistic capital that can help them connect their experiences and create images of science as well as expand their conceptual understanding of science content as represented by science vocabulary. For example, much of academic (i.e., science) language and Spanish have Latin origins. Unfortunately, many students do not recognize their knowledge of the Spanish language as an asset in learning science. Furthermore, biases toward the use of Spanish in classrooms discourage students from speaking their first language (L1) in the classroom (Anzaldúa 1987; Stevenson 2015; Guajardo 2018). By accessing their linguistic capital, i.e., Spanish, bilingual learners are better able to acquire science vocabulary and connect the same to their funds of knowledge which will assist them to learn the content in science classes in the English language and at the same time preserve their linguistic identity.

660

A. Chapman and P. A. McHatton

To develop the language of bilingual students, language instruction embedded in content areas has been in use in many classrooms across the United States. Bilingual students are encouraged to identify cognates or words that sound familiar in English and Spanish, if the instruction emphasizes a conceptual understanding of the word (Suriel 2014). For example, students might recognize synapse (English) and sinapsis (Spanish) as sounding familiar. But it is important to make sure that students also understand that synapse/sinapsis is the scientific term for the site where two neurons join and that the Greek and Latin origin is syn- (together) and -apse (to fasten or clasp). In addition, morphemic analysis can help students recognize patterns with the prefix syn- (synapse, synchronize, synonym), as well as the root word -apse (synapse, collapse, elapse) and create vocabulary clusters (DeLuca 2010) that can lead to conceptual understanding. The above descriptions suggest a need for research demonstrating how explicit use of first language or L1 strategies that leverage linguistic capital can support learning in science.

First Language and Non-L1 Vocabulary Strategies This study employed multiple vocabulary strategies (MVS) with specific attention paid to the use of Spanish cognates and Latin origins to support understanding of science vocabulary as shown in Table 1. The vocabulary strategies utilized in this study were (a) morphemic analysis, (b) etymology or word origins, (c) meaning association, (d) visuals, (e) mnemonics, (f) L1 translation, and (g) L1 association. The latter two are considered first language or L1-specific strategies, while etymology may involve L1 with terms that have a Latin origin. Visuals, morphemic analysis, and mnemonics are considered non-L1-specific strategies. Meaning association could be either L1 or non-L1. Two closely related strategies are morphemic analysis and etymology. Morphemic analysis involves breaking down words into suffixes, prefixes, and roots (Young 2005), while etymology examines the origins and historical contexts of words, especially the prefixes, roots, and suffixes (Wen 2016). In addressing these two strategies, Amanda Helman, Mary Beth Calhoon, and Lee Kern (2015) conducted an intervention study using a combination of morphemic analysis and contextual clues with a small group of 9th and 10th grade students. They found that students’ proficiency in science vocabulary increased, and the intervention had a positive Table 1 Multiple vocabulary strategies (MVS) utilized in this study

Strategy Visuals Morphemic analysis Meaning association Mnemonic Etymology/word origins 1st language association (L1A) 1st language translation (L1)

L1 (Spanish) specific? No No Sometimes No Sometimes Yes Yes

25

It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx. . .

661

influence on their attitude toward science. Accordingly, students learning about Latin and Greek origins of science vocabulary could be an important part of pedagogical strategies that encourage the use of morphemic analysis and contextual clues. For example, for students whose first language is Spanish, it is important to recognize that much of the Spanish language is derived from Latin as also are many science terms. Non-first language strategies were also used in this study, including mnemonics, meaning association, and visuals. Mnemonics are a common strategy for helping students recall information and can help students with higher-order learning but should be used only when appropriate (Putnam 2015). Mnemonics can support learning for all students, including English language learners, but can be more effective when paired with other strategies. Here, meaning association is defined as helping students use personal relevance to make connections with the meaning of a word. Both of these strategies are first language and non-first language specific. The use of visuals in science classes is a way of depicting complex ideas or phenomena (Cook 2011).

The Study In this chapter, first language (L1) translation vocabulary strategy is defined as the use of Spanish to learn tier 3 vocabulary words. Isabel Beck, Margaret McKeown, and Linda Kucan (2002) have identified three levels or tiers of vocabulary. Tier 1 refers to everyday words that are used with a high frequency. Tier 2 refers to words used with a moderate frequency, words that students may use in an academic setting but are not discipline specific. Tier 3 refers to words that are used with the lowest frequency and are specific to a discipline. With respect to achieving science literacy, it is the tier 3 words in science textbooks with which students struggle. One approach to develop tier 3 vocabulary is by helping students learn cognates. Cognates are words from two or more languages that sound similar and have a common etymological origin. Many English-Spanish terms have a common Latin origin and sound similar in both languages. For example, the upper chamber of the heart that receives blood is the atrium (tier 3), entrance (tier 2), or room (tier 1) and has a similar Spanish cognate (atrio). Not only has first language or L1 been shown to help Spanish English bilingual students to learn academic language (L3) in science classes, but English (L2) may interfere with learning L3 (Suriel 2014). Additional strategies include use of visuals, making meaning associations between words and helping students connect L3 to everyday life (DeLuca 2010). While first language (L1) and first language association (L1A) are designed specifically for students whose first language is Spanish, these strategies are designed for an inclusive curriculum for all students. We implemented and tested the efficacy of a high school science curriculum utilizing MVS such as cognates, etymology, morphemic analysis, visuals, and meaning association. The research question guiding this study is does using Spanish as linguistic capital support high school students learning in science?

662

A. Chapman and P. A. McHatton

Participants This study is a subset of a larger 4-year study involving author 1, high school anatomy, algebra, biology, chemistry, and physics teachers, preservice math and science teachers, a graduate student, and high school students of participating teachers. The larger study, Project ACCESS (Acquisition of Curricular Content for Exceptional Success in STEM), examined the effect of leveraging high school students’ knowledge of Spanish and personal culture to develop a deeper understanding of academic vocabulary in their math and science courses. The results of this study demonstrate that multiple vocabulary strategies are effective in helping high school students learn math and science vocabulary and Spanish English bilingual students learn science and math better when making explicit connections between Spanish and academic vocabulary. After obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the lead researcher (author 1) met with district personnel to gain approval for the study. Once approval was obtained, teachers were recruited through recommendations from school administrators. Twelve teachers consented to take part in the larger study. The study was presented to students of participating teachers during class, and students were provided consent and assent forms. The larger-scale study included six periods of anatomy and physiology. Three periods were assigned to treatment curriculum (inquiry-based cardiovascular lesson + MVS) and three period to comparison curriculum (inquiry-based cardiovascular lesson alone; Chapman and Bailey 2020). In the study reported here, all students in the treatment group received multiple vocabulary strategies instruction, and only students who returned assent and consent forms were included in the data analysis. As a result of these recruitment efforts, 161 students participated in the study, 98% of whom were designated as Hispanic by the school district. Sixty-six students were administered the Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey (WMLS) Picture Vocabulary in English and Spanish. From this group, 18 high school students in an anatomy and physiology class were randomly selected to be interviewed to better understand their perception of Spanish in learning science. Student information is summarized in Table 2. Pseudonyms are used throughout. There were six males and 12 females in grades 11 and 12 who ranged in age from 16 to 18. Even though students were designated as Hispanic by their school, in our table we labeled them as Latinx for reasons noted earlier. When asked, students would identify themselves as Hispanic, Latino/a, Chicano/a, Mexican-American, or Mexican. These multiple labels underscore the complexity of ethnic identity in contrast to federally designated labels such as Hispanic.

Measures Three measures were used in data collection. Each is described below. Content Mastery A content mastery assessment was designed by the researcher and teachers to measure student’s prior knowledge and learning of the cardiovascular system. This assessment was administered before and after the cardiovascular system

25

It Helps to Know Spanish: A Multicultural Approach by Tapping into Latinx. . .

663

Table 2 Summary of findings by student Student Jacob Julian Iris Monica Karin Jessie Premier Vanessa Cindy Jonathan Felicia Karina Robert Petra Juan Alexia Yahaira Dora

Language perception English monolingual English monolingual English monolingual English monolingual English monolingual English dominant English monolingual English dominant English dominant English monolingual Bilingual/L1 Spanish Bilingual/L1 English Bilingual/L1 English English monolingual Bilingual/L1 Spanish Bilingual/L1 English Bilingual/L1 English Bilingual/L1 English

WMLS – Spanish SS 1

WMLS – English SS 89

Gain 8%

Strategies V

1

103

15%

V, MA

1

102

38%

V, MEA

1

96

6%

V, M

1

89

12%

V

12

96

8%

V, MA

12

113

4%

M, MA

17

98

38%

V, L1, L1A

25

93

25%

V, MA, L1A

28

109

52%

53

89

23%

57

89

34%

MEA, MA, L1, L1A V, MEA, MA, L1, L1A L1, L1A

57

72

23%

MA

58

95

54%

V, E

62

84

46%

MA, L1, L1A

63

92

34%

MA, L1, L1A

55

89

15%

L1, L1A, E

56

78

4%

L1, E

Note: V visuals, MA morphemic analysis, MEA meaning association, L1 1st language (Spanish), L1A 1st language association, E etymology, M mnemonics. Gain was determined by subtracting posttest scores from pretest scores

unit. The items assessed included ten multiple-choice questions as well as a heart diagram in which students were asked to label the chambers and structures from a vocabulary list. Cronbach’s alpha indicated the assessment’s internal consistency was reliable (10 items; α ¼ 0.633). A Pearson bivariate analysis revealed that nine items had content validity (>0.217) and one item had poor content validity (