Search

Despite efforts to help youth form better connections to the natural world, many recent science initiatives (such as the Next Generation Science Standards) privilege laboratory science over field science, thus reinforcing an image of science that is placeless and individual. To better understand the impact of field science on youth, we examined youths’ experiences and participation in field science across two separate research projects, one of which was associated with a school (the “moth project”) and one of which occurred in an informal setting (the “herpetology project”). We argue that field science, which is not given the same attention in NGSS as science derived from laboratory work, might disrupt and expand science teaching and learning. By expand, we mean that field science offers novel opportunities for youth and educators to develop and engage in practices that disrupt persistent sociohistorical narratives of how science work is accomplished, and that emphasize the cultural production of knowledge in a setting by making public the meaning making that is negotiated in a community. Such expanded moments differ from many experiences in which youth and educators expand typical ways of knowing and participating valued across many formal and informal settings.

Primary school practices are often bound by traditions that perpetuate compliance and skills-based, decontextualized, rote memorization activities. These histories of practice, prevalent in schools serving mostly Black and Brown children, make it inordinately difficult for students to author themselves as knowledge builders (i.e., with epistemic agency), which is a form of injustice. Engineering is a potentially fertile context to support the creation of epistemic culture, whereby young students’ assets are recognized, named, and leveraged as they create and shape the group’s disciplinary knowledge. The authors investigated this potential. The primary research question was: How do first-grade students in an urban emergent school author themselves as epistemic agents during an engineering design unit? Using a social practice theory lens and ethnographic methods, the authors studied 29 days of a materials engineering unit focusing on the teacher’s epistemic commitments, implicit meanings of knowledge in classroom discourse, and practices that opened space for students’ epistemic agency. Data collection included fieldnotes and video of class activities and teacher and student interviews. Class discussions about the properties and uses of materials yielded a rich context for studying epistemic culture. The teacher’s epistemic commitments included an eschewing of disciplinary silos, recognizing the nonlinear nature of knowledge-building about engineering, and acknowledging children’s thinking as an asset for engineering knowledge production. Examples of students’ discursive moves demonstrating epistemic agency included: reminding others about the relevance of previous lessons to the current topic, mirroring the teacher’s instructional moves, claiming voice, space, time, and material resources for knowledge-building, translating one another’s ideas, and making unsolicited connections to their lives. Young children’s intellectual assets can too easily be overlooked in traditional learning contexts. This study demonstrates the affordances of responsive engineering instruction in recognizing and building on youths’ intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm for substantively contributing to the classroom’s knowledge-generating practices.

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on educational policies and practices are unprecedented. With the majority of educational institutions forced to limit face-to-face interactions, teaching and learning have rapidly taken on vastly new meanings. Even in the midst of the uncertainties of this pandemic, predictions for the post COVID-19 world have begun to emerge (e.g., Karlgaard, 2020; Kim, 2020). Yet as we move forward, we collectively create the past. That is, historical implications are never objective descriptions of what occurred, but rather collective decisions about how we choose to remember the past (Anderson, 1991; Breuilly, 2016). In this spirit, we ask: As educators imagining education in 2030, through the lens of our COVID-19 experience, what will we choose to remember and what generative impact do we want to take pride in claiming?

We must take up problems that matter to the local, national, and global communities in which we live, and we must do it in ways that matter; we must focus on issues of values and power … If we do t...

Science education has become a valuable market tool, serving the knowledge economy and technocratic workforce that celebrates individualism, meritocracy, entrepreneurship, rational thought, and abstract knowledge. Field ecology, however, could be a modest, but imaginable contestation of market-driven neoliberal ideology. We explored diverse high school youths’ meaning making of a summer field ecology research experience. Youths’ narratives, elicited with a modified card sort and qualitative interviews, highlight the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical aspects of learning demonstrating considerably broader views of knowledge, meanings of the natural world and their place within it, and access to scientific practices than implied by neoliberalism.

The close association between science and masculinity has been widely discussed, yet few studies have focused on boys’ negotiation with, and participation in, school science. This paper seeks to trouble monolithic notions of the link between science and masculinity, arguing that the “ideal science student” is a classed, racialized, and gendered construction. Drawing on interviews, observations, surveys, and student work samples, we construct longitudinal case studies of four scientifically talented boys from fourth to sixth grades, showing how “being smart” is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for boys who want to position themselves or end up getting positioned as “scientific.” We also demonstrate how “being interested in science” is a useful, but not essential, component of these boys’ identity performances and recognition work. We explain how the boys take up different positions in relation to the “smart science boy” subject position (the “smart boy,” “smart science boy,” “wannabe smart science boy,” and “geeky science boy”) and argue that the boys’ in/ability to authentically inhabit the “ideal science student” subject position is constrained and facilitated by their class and ethnic positionings.

Larger social structures such as race, class, gender, and sexuality and classroom structures like narrowly defined participation practices constrain individuals' agency to engage in untroubled and sustained science identity work. This article explores the central dilemma of attending to structure and agency in settings where inequities are blindingly pronounced. Using a framework that highlights gender as discursive performance, we examine a data set of 13 girls' engagement with school science from fourth to seventh grade (ages 9–13) that shows how structures of gender, race, and class became more salient for girls' trajectories over time. The gender performances that became most pronounced were: minimizing one's differences/fitting in, pleasing adults, and making oneself submissive or invisible. “Helping others” became a subversive, rather than celebrated, practice over time. To illustrate the themes with more depth, we present a longitudinal case study of Mirabel, an academically gifted and scientifically interested first generation immigrant to the US, whose science trajectory became increasingly precarious and entangled with larger social structures. A focus on structures pointed to the narrowly constructed classroom subject positions that left virtually no room to be simultaneously “girly” and “scientific” and the prominence of heteronormative versions of femininity. A focus on agency made evident that girls were less engaged with how to become scientific and more concerned with figuring out what kind of girl to be, given what was acceptable in the setting. We end with an account of Mirabel that highlights her resourcefulness and agency that make possible a hopeful shift in her trajectory. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 474–488, 2015

Students' declining science interest in middle school is often attributed to psychological factors like shifts of motivational values, decrease in self-efficacy, or doubts about the utility of schooling in general. This paper adds to accounts of the middle school science problem through an ethnographic, longitudinal case study of three diverse students' identity work from fourth- to sixth-grade school science. Classroom observations and interviews are used as primary data sources to examine: (1) the cultural and structural aspects of the fourth- and sixth-grade classrooms, including the celebrated subject positions, that enabled and constrained students' identity work as science learners; (2) the nature of students' identity work, including their positioning related to the celebrated subject positions within and across fourth- and sixth-grade science; and (3) the ways race, class, and gender figured into students' identity work and positioning. In fourth-grade, all experienced excellent science pedagogy and performed themselves as scientifically competent and engaged learners who recognized themselves and got recognized by others as scientific. By sixth-grade, their identity work in school science became dramatically less scientific. Celebrated subject positions did not demand scientific thinking or robust engagement in scientific practices and were heavily mediated by race, class, and gender. Our results highlight three insights related to the middle school problem: (1) when students' social identity work was leveraged in service of robust science learning, their affiliation increased; (2) academic success in school science did not equate to affiliation or deep engagement with science; and (3) race, class, and gender figured into students' successes in, threats to, and identity work related to becoming scientific. We end the article by providing a framework and questions that teachers, teacher educators, and researchers might use to design and evaluate the equity of science education learning spaces.

We are pleased to introduce the Special Issue, Culture and Science Education in the 21st Century. 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 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.

This article is an introductory essay to the Ethnography and Education special issue Ethnographies of science education: situated practices of science learning for social/political transformation.

In this article, we explore three anthropological approaches to science education research: funds of knowledge, third space/hybridity and practice theory. Definitions, historical origins, uses and constraints of each approach are included along with reviews of exemplary studies in each tradition. We show that funds of knowledge research draws on an earlier research tradition, cultural difference theory and rests on an assumption that groups build culture in response to fixed and static socio-political conditions. Practice theory is more flexible in that it allows researchers to study how groups create local meanings, which may conform to, resist or even transform those larger conditions through cultural production. We then illustrate the approaches by analysing the same case (that of a Mexican-American boy) using both cultural difference theory and practice theory, to illustrate the strengths and limitations of each approach.

This article is a response to Randy Yerrick and Joseph Johnson’s article “Negotiating White Science in Rural Black America: A Case for Navigating the Landscape of Teacher Knowledge Domains”. They write about research conducted by Yerrick in which videos of his teaching practice as a White educator in a predominately Black rural classroom were examined. Their analysis is framed through Shulman’s (1986) work on “domains of teacher knowledge” and Ladson-Billings’ (1999) critical race theory (CRT). Although we appreciate a framework that attends to issues of power, such as CRT, we see a heavier emphasis on Shulman’s work in their analysis. We argue that a culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) framework has the potential to provide a more nuanced analysis of what occurred in Yerrick’s classroom from a critical lens. Thus we examine Yerrick and Johnson’s work through the five main CRP components (as defined by Brown-Jeffy and Cooper 2011) and ultimately argue that science educators who want to promote equity in their classrooms should engage in continuous critical reflexivity, aid students in claiming voice, and encourage students to become not only producers of scientific knowledge but also users and critics of such knowledge.

When evaluating equity, researchers often look at the “achievement gap.” Privileging knowledge and skills as primary outcomes of science education misses other, more subtle, but critical, outcomes indexing inequitable science education. In this comparative ethnography, we examined what it meant to “be scientific” in two fourth-grade classes taught by teachers similarly committed to reform-based science (RBS) practices in the service of equity. In both classrooms, students developed similar levels of scientific understanding and expressed positive attitudes about learning science. However, in one classroom, a group of African American and Latina girls expressed outright disaffiliation with promoted meanings of “smart science person” (“They are the science people. We aren't like them”), despite the fact that most of them knew the science equally well or, in one case, better than, their classmates. To make sense of these findings, we examine the normative practice of “sharing scientific ideas” in each classroom, a comparison that provided a robust account of the differently accessible meanings of scientific knowledge, scientific investigation, and scientific person in each setting. The findings illustrate that research with equity aims demands attention to culture (everyday classroom practices that promote particular meanings of “science”) and normative identities (culturally produced meanings of “science person” and the accessibility of those meanings). The study: (1) encourages researchers to question taken-for-granted assumptions and complexities of RBS and (2) demonstrates to practitioners that enacting what might look like RBS and producing students who know and can do science are but pieces of what it takes to achieve equitable science education.

Science educators and researchers have bemoaned the lack of reform-based science in elementary schools and focused on teachers’ difficulties (i.e., lack of knowledge, interest, experience) in enacting quality science pedagogy. We present compelling evidence that challenges assumptions about science education reform and draw on a practice theory perspective to examine the stories, commitments and identities of thirteen teachers, whose beliefs and practices aligned with those promoted by science education reform documents. Through ethnographic interviews, we learned about these teachers’ critical science experiences, perceived science teacher identities, and their goals and commitments. Their stories highlight institutional and sociohistorical difficulties of enacting reform-based science, the many biases, contradictions, and unintended consequences prevalent in educational policy and practice today, and emphasize how easily the status quo can get reproduced. These teachers had to work as ‘tempered radicals’, ‘working the system’ to teach in ways that were consistent with reform-based science.

Schooling and science education are embedded within larger socio-cultural, political and economic contexts, influenced by global flows of capital, labor, ideas, and images. In this article we consider the ways in which ethnography traces the web of interactions (circuits), in a rural community and the ways that science inquiry was associated with character education. Our discussion examines the relationship between social fields, habitus, and meritocracy under new and ever-changing neoliberal conditions. These macro-level forces play out in everyday practices in the community and reveal schools, as well as science education, as sites for struggle.

This is an ethnographic study of a newly created math, science, and technology elementary magnet school in a rural community fiercely committed to cultural preservation while facing unprecedented economic instability brought on by massive loss of manufacturing jobs. Our goal was to understand global- and community-level contexts that influenced the school’s science curriculum, the ways the school promoted itself to the community, and the implicit meanings of science held by school staff, parents and community members. Main sources of data were the county’s newspaper articles from 2003 to 2006, the school’s, town’s, and business leaders’ promotional materials, and interviews with school staff, parents, and community members. A key finding was the school’s dual promotion of science education and character education. We make sense of this “science with character” curriculum by unpacking the school and community’s entanglements with historical (cultural preservation), political (conservative politics, concerns for youth depravity), and economic (globalization) networks. We describe the ways those entanglements enabled certain reproductive meanings of school science (as add-on, suspect, and elitist) and other novel meanings of science (empathetic, nurturing, place-based). This study highlights the school as a site of struggle, entangled in multiple networks of practice that influence in positive, negative, and unpredictable ways, the enacted science curriculum.

In this study, we develop a model of science identity to make sense of the science experiences of 15 successful women of color over the course of their undergraduate and graduate studies in science and into science-related careers. In our view, science identity accounts both for how women make meaning of science experiences and how society structures possible meanings. Primary data included ethnographic interviews during students' undergraduate careers, follow-up interviews 6 years later, and ongoing member-checking. Our results highlight the importance of recognition by others for women in the three science identity trajectories: research scientist; altruistic scientist; and disrupted scientist. The women with research scientist identities were passionate about science and recognized themselves and were recognized by science faculty as science people. The women with altruistic scientist identities regarded science as a vehicle for altruism and created innovative meanings of ''science,'' ''recognition by others,'' and ''woman of color in science.'' The women with disrupted scientist identities sought, but did not often receive, recognition by meaningful scientific others. Although they were ultimately successful, their trajectories were more difficult because, in part, their bids for recognition were disrupted by the interaction with gendered, ethnic, and racial factors. This study clarifies theoretical conceptions of science identity, promotes a rethinking of recruitment and retention efforts, and illuminates various ways women of color experience, make meaning of, and negotiate the culture of science. 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 1187-1218, 2007.

Science educators have recently begun to enact and study new, collaborative forms of professional development. Yet, few recognize that doing so requires contesting historical meanings of ?university–school collaboration? and ?professional development,? both of which may operate to sustain a hierarchy model of collaboration. The hierarchy model maintains the flow of information and knowledge from universities to teachers to students. In science education, the hierarchy model may be strengthened by science‘s own history of hierarchy. This study describes the authors‘ attempt to contest the hierarchy model by facilitating a collaborative planning project with elementary teachers. Critical discourse analysis is used as the primary theoretical and methodological tool to (1) explain how the hierarchy model was shaped by and shaped the group‘s actions, interactions, and identities; (2) explain the complexities of collaboration by moving beyond deficit-based explanations (e.g., blaming individuals or organizational structures); (3) offer theoretical and methodological approaches for understanding better the nature of collaboration and practical solutions for those attempting to challenge the history of hierarchy. In focusing on how meaning is made in interaction, the authors demonstrate how language and interaction are inextricably bound with history and culture.

A key to improving urban science and mathematics education is to facilitate the mutual understanding of the participants involved and then look for strategies to bridge differences. Educators need new theoretical tools to do so. In this paper the argument is made that the concept of “boundary spanner” is such a tool. Boundary spanners are individuals, objects, media, and other experiences that link an organization to its environment. They serve critical communicative roles, such as bridges for bringing distinct discourses together, cultural guides to make discourses of the “other” more explicit, and change agents for potentially reshaping participants' discourses. This ethnographic study provides three examples of boundary spanners found in the context of an urban public high school of science, mathematics, and technology: boundary media, boundary objects, and boundary experiences. The analysis brings to the foreground students' and teachers' distinct discourses about “good student identity,”“good student work,” and “good summer experience” and demonstrates how boundary spanners shaped, were shaped by, and sometimes brought together participants' distinct discourses. An argument is made for boundary spanners' practical and theoretical utility: practically, as a tool for enhancing meaning-making between diverse groups, and theoretically, as a heuristic tool for understanding the reproductive and transformative aspects of urban science education.

Recent literature in science education suggests that, to transform girls‘ participation, learning, and identities within school science, we must think about ways to engage girls in different kinds of educational activities that promote broader meanings of science and scientist. This study was designed to examine more deeply this call for a changed science curriculum and its implications for girls‘ participation, interest, and emerging science identities. In this ethnographic study, I examine the culturally produced meanings of science and scientist in a reform-based physics classroom that used a curriculum called Active Physics, how these meanings reproduced and contested larger sociohistorical (and prototypical) meanings of science and scientist, and the ways girls participated within and against these meanings. The girls in this upper middle class school were mostly concerned with accessing and maintaining a good student identity (rather than connecting to science in any meaningful way) and resisted promoted meanings of science and scientist that they perceived as threatening to their good student identities. Their embrace of the ways school defined success (via grades and college admission) produced a meaning of Active Physics as a way to get credentials on a transcript and ensured their disconnection from real-world, meaningful science and science identities. The story of girls‘ participation and resistance in Active Physics complicates our quest for gender-fair science and highlights the power of sociohistorical meanings of schooling and science in producing educational subjects.

As science educators struggle to reform science education, we need a better understanding of the conundrums associated with the ways educators enact innovative science within and against the “academic,” “rigorous,” and “elite” sociohistorical constructions of science. I ethnographically investigated the meanings of an innovative, reform-based curriculum (Active Physics) in various micro (classroom) and macro (school and community) contexts. I conducted the study in a high school serving primarily upper middle class students, the majority of whom (97%) planned to attend college. I explored how meanings of the curriculum transformed as the curriculum traveled across space and time. While certain aspects of the context enabled innovative science (e.g., support from the administration, pressure to serve a wider range of students), other aspects of the context constrained the potential of the curriculum (e.g., the need to establish for students, parents, and administrators the legitimacy of Active Physics as “real” and “rigorous” physics). Using practice theory to understand the influence of context and agency in shaping school science practice, this study demonstrates the potential for viewing meanings of science in local settings as partially fluid entities, sometimes reproducing and sometimes contesting sociohistorical legacies.

In this paper, we describe science as a set of “commonplaces,” similar to Schwab's commonplaces of teaching, for framing the nature of science and science education (Schwab, J. J. [1978]. Science Curriculum, and Liberal Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Framed thoughtfully, these commonplaces have the potential to incorporate insights from a variety of perspectives. We propose four formulations of the commonplaces of science, based on distinct views of the nature of science, and explore the consequences of each. We argue that, although there are strengths to each formulation, some commonplaces prove more comprehensive than others in capturing the essence of science for the purposes of developing curriculum, educating science teachers, and conducting science education research.

Studying identity is a daunting task for new science education scholars. Part of the problem lies in the difficulty of theorizing the concept in rigorous, cohesive, and empirically accessible ways. When I teach qualitative research methods, my favourite question to ask students about their primary concept of interest is, “How will you know it when you see it?” Those studying identity inevitably have considerable difficulty answering this question. The purpose of this chapter is to provide methodological direction for those beginning the formidable task of studying identity in school science or for those who want to broaden their identity studies toolkit.

The histopathology of the olfactory mucosal lesion associated with ip administration of 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile (dichlobenil) and 3,3'-iminodipropionitrile (IDPN) has been well documented. Whether there is an olfactory deficit associated with the partial loss of the olfactory mucosa (localized around the dorsal medial meatus of the nasal cavity) has yet to be determined. Dichlobenil (100 mg/kg) or IDPN (200 mg/kg) was administered ip to adult male Long-Evans rats previously trained in an olfactory task to find a food pellet buried in approximately 7.5 cm of bedding in a 0.61 x 1.2 x 0.61-m Plexiglass chamber. As a positive control, another group received 300 mg/kg ip of 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole (methimazole), a dosing regimen which destroys nearly all of the olfactory mucosa. All three compounds caused a transient increase in the mean latency to find the pellet, with the magnitude of the effect positively correlated with the extent of the olfactory lesion. In order to determine whether these deficits resulted from olfactory dysfunction or impaired cognitive function (a deficit previously attributed to IDPN exposure), another group of rats was dosed as above and tested in another spatial memory task, the Morris water maze (MWM), which is less dependent upon olfactory function. No performance deficit was detected in the MWM. These data suggest that the transient olfactory deficit in the dichlobenil-, IDPN-, and methimazole-treated rats is attributable to defective olfactory function.