Search

The main focus of this paper is to put forward an argument about the value of asset-based, culturally relevant/responsive and sustaining pedagogies in science education, especially in former colonial contexts. Countering the framing hegemony of science education through a historically Euro-dominant lens, we call for a critical analysis of the state of science education in the Netherlands by exploring, specifically, the Dutch Caribbean community which includes Suriname and the former Dutch Antilles and Aruba and the need to respond with a more culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogical stance. In doing so, we provide a concrete example of a CR-SP-focused community-based STEAM program for young children and their parents in the north of the Netherlands. We hope that this paper will provide the foundation to springboard conversations among educators and researchers with an interest in designing, enacting and researching CR-SP-informed programs and curricula geared for historically marginalized families and children.

Our purpose in this paper is to put forward an argument about both the need and the value for understanding how the constructs of science identity and the nature of science (NOS) might intersect and intertwine and offer useful insights about science participation in times of crises. Based on our knowledge and understanding of these two research areas, we maintain that science identity research has not been fully engaged in understanding how perspectives on NOS might be intersecting with the questions of who can be (or not) a scientist and who is allowed (or not) in science. In this paper, we argue that the formation of a disrupting science identity that challenges existing constructed systems of power in science, requires robust understandings of NOS that place emphasis on the socially-produced narratives about science and scientists. In doing so, we engage with the following questions: (1) How have understandings of NOS contributed to conceptualizations of who can be a scientist and who is recognized as a scientist?; (2) How have these conceptualizations contributed to producing exclusionary narratives and perpetuating inequalities in science?; and (3) How might an exploration of NOS through the lens of science identity be used to promote goals related to equity and social justice?

In this conceptual paper, I put forward an argument about the conceptualization of science identity as a landscape of becoming by placing emphasis on "recognition" and "emotions," as core features of identity, through an intersectionality lens. These constructs intertwined, I argue, can give meaning to the process of becoming a science person or forming a science identity, and at the same time shed light on issues related to power, inequality, racism, and exclusion. In the context of these bigger issues, I argue that forming a science identity is not only personal, but also political. The need for intersectionality as a conceptual framework for studying science identity is underscored by the dearth of theory and empirical evidence that addresses classroom inequalities, as well as the multiple and interlocking influence of systems of privilege and oppression in science, such as racism and sexism. Recognition, which refers to how individuals are recognized by others as certain kinds of people, is an ineradicable part of our social world; it is bound within sociopolitical contexts and tied to specific cultural norms, values, beliefs, and stereotypes. Hence, recognition becomes of paramount importance in science identity research. However, critical questions still remain unanswered, such as who is allowed in the world of science and who is recognized as a science person in specific contexts? Directly linked to recognition, I argue, are different types of emotions which can offer a valuable lens for studying inequalities within the process of forming a science identity. What this means for science identity research is how important it is to explore the emotionality of science identity given that emotions are not just dialectically related but inextricably bound with (mis)recognition as well as with various systems of oppression.

The aim of this multiple case study was to uncover a series of critical events and experiences related to the formation of the science identities of four beginning elementary female teachers, through a life-history approach and a conceptualization of teacher identity as "lived experience." Grounded within the theoretical framework of "Figured Worlds," the study used qualitative, interpretive methods for data collection (interviews, biographies, teaching philosophies) and analysis. The analysis shed light on the ways in which various experiences situated within different Figured Worlds (science, family and childhood, schooling, out-of-school, university, professional) impacted the participants' identity trajectories. The findings provided three main insights that contribute to science identity research and have implications for elementary teacher preparation: (a) science teacher identity is "multidimensional" and extends beyond cognitive domains of becoming to include affective dimensions; (b) science teacher identity is "relational," linked and shaped by various other constructs or sub-identities; (c) "place and time," defined as a space with meaning created by experiences, and science teacher identity are inextricably bound to one another.

Given reform recommendations emphasizing scientific inquiry and empirical evidence pointing to the difficulties beginning teachers face in enacting inquiry-based science, this study explores a well-started beginning elementary teacher's (Sofia) beliefs about inquiry-based science and related instructional practices. In order to explore Sofia's beliefs and instructional practices, several kinds of data were collected in a period of 9 months: a self-portrait and an accompanying narrative, a personal philosophy assignment, three interviews, three journal entries, ten lesson plans, and ten videotaped classroom observations. The analysis of these data showed that Sofia's beliefs and instructional practices were reform-minded. She articulated contemporary beliefs about scientific inquiry and how children learn science and was able to translate these beliefs into practice. Central to Sofia's beliefs about science teaching were scientific inquiry and engaging students in investigations with authentic data, with a prevalent emphasis on the role of evidence in the construction of scientific claims. These findings are important to research aiming at supporting teachers, especially beginning ones, to embrace reform recommendations.

The four essays reviewed here constitute a worthwhile attempt to discuss various aspects of postcolonial theory, and offer constructive ideas to ongoing academic as well as public conversations with respect to whether science education can meet the challenges of educating an increasingly diverse population in the 21st century. These essays are grounded in the assumption that it is difficult to make meaningful and transformative changes in science education so that educators' efforts take into consideration the dramatic changes (i.e., diverse culture and racial origins, language, economic status etc.) of "an era of globalization" in order to meet the demands of today's schools. Each of these four essays problematizes various aspects of the social and cultural conditions of science education nowadays using different "postcolonial" ideas to interpret the implications for science learning and teaching. Although the term "postcolonial" has certainly multiple meanings in the literature, we use this term here to describe the philosophical position of these essays to challenge long-standing and hegemonic practices and taken-for-granted assumptions in science education. Through critical analysis of these essays, we engage in a dialogue with the authors, focusing on two of what seem crucial issues in understanding the potential contributions as well as the risks of postcolonial concepts in science education; these issues are "space" and "identity". We choose these issues because they permeate all four essays in interesting and often provocative ways. [Abstract presented in both English and Greek.]