SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

The biggest question I had while reading this week’s articles was on how we could relate this to formal learning environments and classroom experiences. While there are many things that can be done within informal learning environments, it is an inescapable fact that the learning experiences curated by these environments are restricted by the rarity with which they occur and by the fact that, traditionally, they only remain supplemental to and disjointed from formal learning environments. While perusing the articles, there are a few themes that popped up and I try to relate these to formal classroom learning below.

At the outset, I acknowledge that formal learning environments do suffer from problems, as succinctly captured in the critique on school practical work in the article by Braund and Reiss (2006, p.1376). This also provides a framework for what informal learning environments must provide in terms of practical work. However, in facing these challenges, there is an additional problem that I anticipate could happen. Informal learning environments, because they place no requirements on the part of students, are taken up in earnest only by those students who are genuinely curious about science and seek to engage in it. This problem is exacerbated with some of the models of design of informal learning environments such as the SMLF (Griffin, 1998) or forms of interaction of the child with the environment or with technology without the presence of an adult (Andre, Durksen & Volman, 2017). Letting students select their own experiences, even though it leads to “a wide range of perceptions” (Griffin, 1998, p.657) may be counterproductive for younger children who are easily distracted by phenomenological showmanship rather than the science behind it. I can’t imagine a 6 year old looking at interactive models of the solar system over getting their hair spiked by a van de Graaf generator, I certainly wouldn’t have when I was a kid. While this is viewed as an instructional challenge in all of the articles, I suspect that placing the responsibility on students to choose their learning experience is not a very good idea. This is also why I think informal learning environments must be connected to formal classroom learning where there is at least some semblance of structure for students to follow.

This highlights what I think is an ideological point of contention (at least from what I can glean from the literature reviews in the articles). The notion of how structured a museum is seems to be an open question. While I agree that the choice depends on the learning theory used to design the learning experience, which in turn depends on the kind of museum that is under consideration (Andre, Durksen & Volman, 2017), it is important to consider how much scaffolding is provided by the adults and guides. Certainly, looking at museums as a form of “educational country fair” (p.47) probably isn’t appropriate. Tying these environments into formal learning in classrooms can afford a certain legitimacy to the learning experience where the scaffolding stems naturally from what students learn in the classroom and from the instructors in the former.

What can these environments offer that formal learning environments can’t? Technology and exhibits that are practically insurmountable in the classroom. Museums are centrally located and afford access to multiple schools and as such have better funding than classrooms do. Informal learning environments give students the chance to interact with science that they learn in the classroom. Viewing it as such can do a lot to supplement the shortcomings that the authors noted in school practical work. Designing museum learning experiences in line with school curriculum could be a useful way to think about it. By contrast most informal learning experiences seem to be centered around historical displays, thematic exhibits or particular scientific processes (Griffin, 1998). It is encouraging that recent articles focus on an analysis of the programs and workshops that take place over time (Andre, Durksen & Volman, 2017). Since museum learning takes time, these workshops provide a way of engaging students with science over a long period of time. However, this only becomes possible if informal learning is tied in to formal learning in schools.

One aspect that didn’t come up is financial viability – individual schools don’t really have the funds to set up complex scientific exhibits or experiments. In such a scenario, museums can help divert the costs to an intellectual centre that affords access to multiple schools within the locality. In that way, it also centralises education and brings about equality between different schools across neighborhoods within a district. Informal learning environments can help champion equal access to scientific resources and  I think it would be interesting to explore how this could play out. It certainly provides a lens to analyse these learning experiences with.

References:

Andre, L., Durksen, T., & Volman, M. L. (2017). Museums as avenues of learning for children: a decade of research. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 47–76.

Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388.

Griffin, J. (1998). Learning science through practical experiences in museums. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 655–663.

As someone interested in research, I honestly find the phrasing of “informal learning environments” to be a ridiculous label. For one, as each of these articles demonstrated, there is considerable planning and structure placed on experiences in museums and other places of learning. For example, Andre et al. (2017) mention how children’s museums, “realized that, in using child-centered approaches, they had overlooked the critical role of adults as members of the learning group…” (p. 58), indicating how museums intentionally structure both exhibits and experiences for students. Additionally, while each of these articles frame the learning as taking place “not-in-school,” all the articles had components that directly tied science learning to schools or required efforts from teachers and schools to either facilitate access or enhance learning. Therefore, I very much appreciated Braund and Reiss’ (2006) usage of the term, “out-of-school” because really what each article was getting at was that context matters in how students learn science.

Braund and Reiss (2006) discussed lowering the barriers between “real-life world” and “school science” (p. 1374). In making this argument, they state how student spend a lot of time outside school, school science is overall less interesting and authentic, and out-of-school contexts provide excellent additions to any science learning experience. I personally think Griffin (1998) would agree with this sentiment as they describe museums as, “ideal settings for active, contemplative learning” (p. 656), a rhetorical move that I take to mean schools are not “ideal” for those things. While I tend to agree with everything laid out about the benefits of learning in out-of-school contexts in the articles, I am left pondering two things: how out-of-school contexts are actually different from school besides the physical place and how limiting it is to think about out-of-school being something connected to an organization.

Throughout their articles, Braund and Reiss (2006) and Griffin (1998) outline benefits of learning in out-of-school contexts. Ultimately, outside of “access to rare material” (p. 1376), I could not think of one thing that would be different between the entities described in the articles and school. Again, which is why I appreciate the framing as “out-of-school” contexts because Braund and Reiss (2006) mention doing things such as launching rockets or viewing the night sky, two things that could happen in school, just not in a classroom. This is really why I think understanding these contexts as museums and organizations as being extremely limited because it pushes the idea that learning only happens in “s formal” structures and that teachers are incapable of facilitating engaging learning (a thing mentioned as a plus of informal environments). In my opinion, there is a wealth of opportunity for learning and breaking down the barriers between real world life and school science by simply leaving a classroom. As a teacher, having my students study the biodiversity of their community (Brownsville) which is seen as desolate by many of them, was powerful in showing them how much life lives around them. Allowing them to design experiments that required the use of different spaces around the school was also a way to move class outside the science room or even having them do experiments at home too. Science happens all around, not just in formalized spaces with “experts.”

The view of out-of-school being in a separate organization not called a school is limiting because of access. This is something often overlooked in my opinion when thinking about field trips. Some schools, just like some students, do not have the money or time or resources to go to a separate place to learn science. To me this is also an important question to think about when understanding out-of-school contexts because some students, contrary to what was mentioned, do spend most of their time at school and therefore, schools might be their only chance to get to enter formal out-of-school contexts. Yet, even then, I worry because these spaces are often places of privilege. For example, I took students to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the entire time my students were literally stalked by security. When I would show them a painting and we would talk about it, any time my students got closer to the painting than me, we were reprimanded. In the NYC Museum of Natural History, the same thing occurred. Griffin (1998) mentioned needing to orient students to the venue, for some students this means orienting towards a hostile environment. While it is valuable to take them to these places, I found it even more powerful to take my students to a local community garden or their local rec center rather than into white spaces that made them uncomfortable. Therefore, while these articles laid an excellent groundwork to think about informal contexts in learning, I believe attending to issues of power and privilege and what that means for learning in these spaces is extremely important to think about.

The literature review by Andre, Durksen and Volman (2017) gave a detailed analysis on the activities and strategies that allowed for informal learning within museums. I found this paper to be interesting, as I had dabbled in research involving informal learning environments, but not specifically museums. When considering strategies for the mediation of learning, scaffolding continued to appear as a suggested way of making museum learning far more appealing and engaging for younger learners: ‘the importance of scaffolding was highlighted in most of the studies as an essential strategy for maximising children’s learning during family or school visits to museums,’ (Andre, Durksen & Volman, 2017, p.59). This scaffolding could exist as a student/technology interaction where the student engages with the display in a way that facilitates learning, or with an adult.  The role of adults in mediating learning within museums, through scaffolding, storytelling etc. is particularly highlighted, ‘museum professionals realised that, in using child-centered approaches, they had overlooked the critical role of adults as members of the learning group, and that their integration into the learning process can offer the impetus to expand the learning experience beyond the museum,’ (Andre, Durksen & Volman, 2017, p.58). This continued education beyond the day trip to the museum is an important part of the informal learning process and makes me wonder how effective such ‘field trips’ to museums are as school excursions when students vastly outnumber the parents and teachers responsible for taking care of the group. In this case, the adult acts more as a cattle herder than as a facilitator of learning. Having a smaller adult to child ratio will always, of course, lead to a more targeted learning experience, but unfortunately does not usually happen in reality within school trips.  I do wonder if this presents an opportunity for museums to give takeaway suggestions to students that they can bring back home and get the parent to help them with? Perhaps another solution could be for museums to offer packets to visiting schools that could be a lesson or two that the class could use in the days following the trip, this may facilitate the ongoing learning experience.

The investigation and synthesis of literature on history museums was fascinating. I particularly like the idea of history ‘coming to life’ through storytelling, ‘dramatic narratives or storytelling were highlighted in all reviewed (natural) history papers as having a pivotal role in facilitating children’s learning,’ (Andre, Durksen & Volman, 2017, p.60).  In my own experiences, going to a museum as a child, I found the displays that involved a character I could relate to far more engaging and relatable than broad discussions about historical time periods. Once again, the importance of a guide, either as an adult or technology aid is critical in mediating learning, not just about content and facts, but also about using reasoning whilst looking at historical primary evidence. In the example where the students moved from ‘the virtual touch’ machine to the ‘room of opinions’ allowed for the development of reasoning through the use of clues and evidence, important when discussing how history has indeed been written by some individuals and not others.

The article by Janette Griffin (1998) also considers both the usefulness of museums in learning, but also the importance of the teacher or aid in facilitating such learning. Her guidelines for how to successfully use a museum excursion to facilitate learning seemed important to address her concerns that teachers typically do not know how to integrate a field trip into a long term and meaningful learning experience.  I did pause to think about this allegation, although she rightly identifies that teachers mostly act to control behaviour during these trips (and not facilitate learning), I wonder if she has ever had to take care of some 30 kids at a time in an out of school context. It is very difficult! No wonder they can only concentrate on making sure their kids have not run off! Anyway, the guidelines suggest making sure the museum aligns with a unit of instruction at school, and how giving students a task prior to arrival can make the students take ownership of their learning by having to complete a learning objective or project during their time there.  I can see the benefits of these strategies, but I also wonder, as I discussed above, whether the museum itself could create such learning tasks ahead of time. Additionally, I wonder if giving students an assignment to complete before/during their visit may in fact limit their engagement as they would be focussed on completing the homework and may lose interest in other opportunities to learn, this may also cause the students to perhaps not enjoy the experience as fully (‘argh just more school work!’).

An important point that is raised by Griffin, considers how learning within museums needs to ebb and flow in regards to rest or taking a break; ‘the majority of groups take a break after no more than an hour, need to it down when possible, and talk to each other a great deal.  These physical needs must be built in to school excursions as well,’ (Griffin, 1998, p.661). I laughed (internally), when I read this. Revolutionary. Could this not also be applicable to formal school settings? If we think about how a school day is structured, students are expected to focus and concentrate on mentally demanding tasks for 100+ minutes at a time. Even more draining, is that formal schooling often demands students sit down and don’t move much during class either. Can this recommendation be taken up in the classroom? I remember struggling as a primary school student to pay attention for the morning and afternoon blocks of class time. This included a 30 minute run outside, at 11am and an hour at 1:30pm. I did some classroom hours back in Australia last year where I helped a grade 2 class. I was surprised that now kids have to have a ‘fruit break’ between recess and lunch, which involved just a 5 minute stand up from tables and walk around chance to regroup. On other days, we ‘took a break’ and ran around the oval once at the midway point of the class. Without this, the kids ability to concentrate waived considerably. I compare this to how the middle school at PF operates and I can appreciate why the kids are exhausted and irritated by the end of the day. I know this is a bit off track, but think that it’s an important consideration that was brought up by the paper, and , we could use it in other educational settings.

The article by Braund and Reiss (2006) argues that school science and labs are: ‘decisive…science comprises a discrete, generic process…science is a value free activity,’ (Braund & Reiss, 2006, p.1376). This causes reduced student enthusiasm and increases drop out rate. The authors continue this point in saying ‘schools science is currently modelled on an outdated and restricted representation of science, so that virtually all school science teaching is undertaken in laboratories, and that drawing on the wider community of science and ways in which science is undertaken and from a range of contexts in which it is communicated outside schools will result in a more authentic science curriculum,’ (p.1375).  Their solution is to utilize informal learning environments, such as museums, to provide authentic experiences for children that exposes them to ‘big’ science in a way that classrooms cannot. After reading this article, I did agree with their points, yes, a field trip always creates student excitement; seeing a dinosaur skeleton in real life is far more interesting than looking at one in a text book. But, I actually remembered something that JD mentioned in a class last year: that field trips should not be used to ‘make up’ for bad teaching in a classroom. I want to go on and say that informal learning environments should not be used to patch up a boring and dull curriculum, or labs that lack stimulating and authentic science experiences. Of course museums are exciting, and offer a way to enhance learning, but can these be realistically accessed by all students? Probably not. For a majority of schools, financing trips to these places is impossible, and for many students, the cost passed onto them for the trip is beyond the financial budget for their families. So, should we not be considering what makes informal learning so engaging? Can we harness this and translate it into everyday schooling to make it more authentic every science class, not just the once a term trip to the museum? Cue AST? Will be interested to hear others thoughts.

Works Cited:

Andre, L., Durksen, T., & Volman, M. L. (2017). Museums as avenues of learning for children: a decade of research. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 47–76.

Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388. 

Griffin, J. (1998). Learning science through practical experiences in museums. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 655–663. 

This week’s readings reminded me a great deal of the topics I thought about when I spent two weeks observing/helping with a biology class in a public school in North Philadelphia as a part of the Urban Seminar program at Penn State. I liked getting to engage with these topics again and begin thinking about them in a more science education-based mindset.

The Learning From Miguel reading starts off by explaining the “culture of power” that is in place that elevates certain groups of people to power while systematically oppressing others. This culture and system is ubiquitous and influences nearly every part of every institution in the United States (Barton & Yang, 2000, p. 874). The question then becomes, what can I (just a confused 22 year old) do to help fix it? Thankfully these articles have a few ideas. The authors explain that previous reforms meant to fix science ed “advocated the position that those who wanted or needed to learn science needed to “come to” science and learn science on scientists’ terms. In essence, the students were the ones in need of being fixed” (Barton & Yang, 2000, p. 875). Rather than fixing the students so that they are “capable” of learning science, maybe it is the science, or rather science instruction, that needs fixed. This means changing the narrative of what science is away from white men in lab coats toward a narrative in which all people engage with science. I like the use of the questions: “whose knowledge are we teaching” and “whose knowledge has the most worth” when thinking about science teaching and curriculum (Barton & Yang, 2000, p. 876). It moves the idea of “knowledge” away from concrete ideas set in stone toward ideas that have ownership. My question after these two questions then becomes, how much of this change in thinking about knowledge can we do when so many of the foundations of traditional science are rooted in (“owned by”) what white men did a long time ago?

The article from Carlone, Scott, and Lowder addresses the idea that the successful, or “ideal” student, is in itself a construct that is raced, classed, and gendered (Carlone et al., 2014, p. 863). This is something that had never really thought of directly and I think most teachers generally don’t think about on a regular basis either. This is once again proof that the system of “cultural power” is not only ubiquitous, but illusory in nature. It’s kind of depressing to think about to be honest. However, the good news is that in classrooms (specifically the 4th grade class in the study) that allow students to align themselves with identities conducive to the learning of science, all students were able and motivated to be scientific (Carlone et al., 2014, p. 865). The challenge then becomes keeping this up throughout children’s formative years, where they have more and more outside pressures shaping their identities.

To me, the paper on IWOK was a little more difficult to wrap my head around because of its dense nature and many new terms. The idea that there are different “ways of knowing” is intriguing. I suppose this would mean that in our before/during/after models we’ve generated there could be different “afters” for the same topics. So who decides which way of knowing is “right”? I would guess that here in the United States it would be the people in power– high SES, white, and generally male. The idea that there are multiple/indigenous ways of knowing helps to answer the question I posed in the first paragraph. Maybe the way of knowing science developed historically isn’t the only way to think about it. When I think about it, I personally think I subconsciously think of science or scientific ideas differently when I’m in school or teaching versus when I hang out with my rural grandparents.

References:

Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871-889.

Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836-869.

Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature–culture constructs in science learning: Human/non‐human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530-544.

The articles this week concerned the issue of race and gender inequity in the education system. The paper by Barton and Yang addressed the issue through a case study of a homeless Hispanic man named Miguel (2000). Miguel was interviewed by the authors and the crux of his problem that was relevant to science education is that he was not encouraged to go into science and that he did not even take science courses in school. The authors realized that the idea of making an argument based on a single case study was controversial but they believed that the approach had value. I think that the article was easy to read and the authors may have made some good points but that basing an argument on a single case study that consisted entirely of evidence derived from interviews was a questionable value. The authors claim that his potential as a scientist or as someone who interested in science is supported by the fact that he ran a black-market reptile business as an adult which demonstrated his knowledge and affinity for reptiles. This highlights one of the central problems with the method of case studies which is that information is being collected in hind sight. How Miguel felt or acted when he was in school may be very different from the way that he remembers things more than ten years later. I don’t disagree that he may have been poorly served by the education system but the authors method of study does not allow for any conclusive judgements in that regard.

The next paper by Carlone et al. follows three students from elementary school to middle school and tracks the changes in their interest in science (2014). The data was largely based on observations and the information reported compared student’s behavior in science class in fourth grade and sixth grade. The main thing that stood out to me in this paper was the authors repeated interpretation of events rather than using a more objective way to determine what it was that they were observing. They frequently use phrases such as “seemed” in reference to student behavior or “interpreted” quite often which is problematic if objectivity is the goal (pg. 857).

The remaining paper by Bang and Marin deals with “nature-culture” relations as they relate to teaching science, particularly to students from Indigenous cultures (2015). The goal that the authors were working toward was rather difficult to understand. My interpretation was that the authors wanted to change the frame of reference in scientific discussion from one of man and nature being separate to man being a part of nature. This idea was based on the fact that many Indigenous cultures hold this belief. They also mention the idea that white societies view time or history as starting from the point when white colonization or settlement began and thus discount any knowledge or history from the point of view of the Indigenous population. The educational approach that they bring up reminds me of the Translanguaging approach to teaching ESL students. They suggest integrating traditional Indigenous practices with Western science. This is an interesting idea for teaching Indigenous cultures but the authors did not make a compelling argument for how this idea could be applied to teaching other categories of students, in my opinion.

References

Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature–culture constructs in science learning: Human/non‐human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530-544.

Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871-889.

Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836-869.

The articles for this week started to get me thinking about aspects in the science classroom that I have not previously given much attention to. With student teaching and most of the classes that I have taken for my degree, they have focused on ensuring that I understand different teaching strategies in the classroom, know how to read and adhere to gifted IEPs and special IEPs, and decide on what hands-on activities and videos to include in a lesson that best fit a specific purpose. One vital aspect in the classroom that is the theme for this week, culture, is an area that I have not previously read much information on and honestly do not know much about. After reading the three articles for this week, though, it is obvious that culture is an important aspect to consider when teaching science and I am looking forward to further discussing the readings in class this week.

The first article by Band and Marin (2015) provided a brief oversight into nature-culture relations and how this plays a role in science learning. Having never heard of nature-culture relations before, I appreciated that the authors took time to define the term and it made me see how evident the separation between nature and culture is in Western societies. The part of the article I found most interesting was the “naming practices” section where aspects of the natural world can be named using both “Indigenous languages as well as English” (p. 536).  This weaving of English and native languages in the classroom is a relatively easy strategy that resists time-space structuring where Indigenous names are seen as “past” names while English names are seen as “present” and “future” names. However, one question that came to mind when I was reading this section is: how feasible would this been in chemistry and biology science classes or those at the high school level? The examples provided in the article are situated in K-8 classrooms and are more Earth and space science focused. Physical structures (such as the rivers that the example in the article used) most likely have Indigenous names and thus those names can easily be incorporated into science teaching. With biology and chemistry that incorporate sub-cellular components that were mostly discovered by individuals the authors describe as having “settled expectations”, how can this heterogeneity of science learning for both Indigenous students and other students be included?

The next article written by Carlone, Scott, and Lowder (2014) discusses the declining science interests that various students experience when they transition from elementary school to middle school. Motivational value shifts are a common answer as to why this occurs, but cultural aspects such as race, gender, and class can also impact students’ declining interest in science as seen by the three case study examples. One particular line in the article, related to this idea, stuck with me as I was reading: “dominant constructions of the ‘ideal student’ are raced, classed, and gendered” (p. 863). Before reading this week’s articles, I had not fully considered the impact that culture, race, class, and gender can have in the classroom and on students’ educational interests. Yet, as the article suggests, these are considerations to be aware of when teaching. In terms of an “ideal student” I often think of students who are willing to work, not afraid to be incorrect, and open to being challenged rather than, as the quote suggests, in terms of their race, class, and gender. I am not sure if this quote from the article was of interest to anyone else, but I would love to hear your ideas on it!  Another point from the article that I was curious about was if students’ interests in science decrease from middle school to high school. Do race, gender, and class also play a part in this potential declining interest? The article specifically focused on the transition of students from fourth to sixth grade but I am curious to know if any research has been done, on say, students transitioning from eighth grade to tenth grade and what they have found.

The last article by Barton and Yang (2000) helped me to see the impact that culture can play in a student’s science education. The article helped me to not only understand the idea of “culture of power”, its influences, and how it plays a part in science education, but I was also able to read about real-life examples that illustrated the points the authors were making. The analysis on Miguel’s responses enabled me in seeing the impact that culture of power can have on minority, “at-risk”, and low socio-economic individuals. The authors define culture of power as “represents[ing] a set of values, beliefs, ways of acting and being that for sociopolitical reasons, unfairly and unevenly elevate groups of people … to positions where they have more control over money, people, and societal values than their non-culture-of-power peers” (p. 873). This definition, evidence from Baron and Yang’s article, and ideas from the other two readings from this week, led to me thinking about how culture of power often refers to white, upper to middle class, males. I know that we will discuss this article in class this upcoming week, but I started to wonder if our class is diverse and representative enough of various culture to be able to have a representative discussion regarding culture of power? Seeing that our class’s makeup consists of mostly white individuals (all but one), half of the class being males, and almost everyone being or coming from a middle class household, can we have a true, representative discussion on this topic?

References:

Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204

Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<871::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-9

Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21150

This week’s readings were interesting to me both from an academic perspective and a personal interest that stems from my experiences with cultural diversity from back home. Through my readings, I tried relating the narrative with stories from my past and it was interesting to see the similarities and the differences between them. The story of Miguel and his perception of science and of scientists being ‘special or something’ (Barton&Yang, p.872) is very familiar to most Indians who belong to the economic middle and upper classes as being a regular phrase used by the marginalized. The marginalization back home stems from both casteist discrimination (supposedly non-existent now but we all know that’s not true) and a subsequent economic stratification. This stratification also leads to a form of ghettoization and there is a marked difference in the way science is approached in schools in economically downtrodden areas and the more affluent neighborhoods, often no more than half a mile away. The ‘culture of power’ manifests itself through the availability of facilities at these schools, the material resources the students have access to and the narrative of science presented to the students. The emphasis to ‘prepare for the job force’ (p.879) is perhaps a universally pandered statement in Indian education irrespective of where you live, but the jobs that you prepare for vary according to the community you belong to. Engineering and medicine is typically viewed as an upper-caste discipline. The government introduced reservations for the traditionally downtrodden castes but that has lead to a incredible amount of ignorant debate from everyone – something I don’t want to go into here but is something I’d like to address in class if we have time for it. It does nuance the perception of identity even more.

It is interesting that the presentation of science as a monolithic fact-machine and scientist as ‘self-assured, technologically powerful manipulator and controller’ (p.875) leads to minority communities, as result of marginilisation, viewing science and scientists as a white male enterprise in the article. The exact same process and the same arguments can be made about ‘upper-caste’ communities in India – in fact, even the traditional attire worn by the groups historically reflect this. Athough most have made the switch to a more western attire of shirts and pants now, the quality of clothing available and the colours that people wear are used as identifiers of power in science and schools – the affluent pick out quality material from premium clothing brands and the downtrodden dress in polyester shirts and pants with leather sandals, an ensemble that costs less that 15$ at best. Scientists are portrayed in the former. All of these subtle representations of science and scientists play a huge role in who is afforded the ability to do science and who isn’t.

In schools were there is diversity of students from different economic backgrounds in the same setting, the situation reduces to that of William and Aaliyah (Carlone et al, 2014). The definition of being good in these schools is ‘aligning oneself with celebrated subject positions’ (p.847). School performance, once assessments become important, is all about assumption and development of identities. Those who come from marginalized communities often have to ‘claim voice’ in much the same way that Aaliyah does. The ‘authoritative paternalism’ (p.851) leads to a figured world of hegemonic masculinity in India as well, especially taking into consideration the repression and aversion of any kind of dialogue about sex and gender that leads to far more segregation of activities into gendered roles and norms. Much of what I have said comes from the dominant narrative in urban, metropolitan cities of many millions of people. Smaller towns and villages are far more entrenched in traditional, outdated values and I dare say the situation is far worse there.

The article by Bang and Marin (2015) brings up questions that are similar to issues JD and I had discussed in another class: How exactly do you bring the marginalized into the manifold? Certainly, the separation of nature and culture is visible throughout western thought, being used by almost all of Western Europe to subjugate three-fourths of the world in the past, and more recently in Marxist thinking and the dichotomization of nature and human labor and the domination of one over the other. Marginalised communities do have differences in their ontological, epistemological and axiological commitments. I appreciate the authors’ effort in trying to reorient ‘silenced memory traces’ with ‘expansive forms of nature-culture relations’ (p.533). However, there are two chief concerns that I have, one from the perspective of the marginalized and from the perspective of research.

Firstly, for the benefit of the marginalized community, I understand the importance of preserving traditional IWOK, as a means of identifying silenced memory traces. However, in light of the realization that the people who live in these indigenous communities have,  in general, poorer standards of living, and that they have struggled with integration into the mainstream which affords them better standards of living, is there a further problem of marginalization by reorienting their schools along the lines of IWOK? Surely, if schooling systems in these communities are aligned with IWOK, then these students would find the transition to the ways of knowing outside the community that much harder. I do not suggest that students not be taught IWOK but it must be remembered that members of indigenous communities, need to be part of bigger communities as well. So how do we ensure that indigenous communities aren’t marginalized as a result of their identity? That brings me on to the second concern I have: The directionality of this intervention. Members of indigenous communities don’t need to be reminded that ‘sikaakwa’ is how Chicago got it’s name, white people do. As someone who lived in a land where traces of British imperialism are still extremely visible, the problem is not that we don’t acknowledge the appropriation of our wealth and culture, the problem is that British education still glorifies Churchill as a hero and makes no mention of reparations that most economists argue Britain rightfully owes to it’s colonies. The appropriation of lands was because of the lack of acknowledgement on the part of the dominant culture of alternate ways of knowing. IWOK needs to be emphasized in mainstream schools in metropolitan Chicago with white students. The preservation of IWOK has to come from the culture that was responsible for it’s deterioration in the first place to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself and that the dominant culture becomes respectful of minority communities. I’m not entirely sure how this restructuring of education would happen and if it’s feasible but I’d love to engage on this in class.

References:

Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204

Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<871::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-9

Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21150