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
Chloe – I will ask you to think about two things moving into tomorrow’s discussion. The first concerns the Bang article, I am curious how you conceptualize the ontology of some IWOK compared to that of people who are raised in a Western conceptualization of science? How might recognizing people having different ontologies allow you to reorient how you present and frame science in any discipline? Lastly, I agree that having discussions around power and equity in a class filled with people of privilege is difficult. With that said, I wonder how we can examine the differences that exist intra-race. White people from the North and South have differences. White people from Pittsburgh and Philly have differences. Even white people have differences in sexuality, gender, income, and disabilities. Sometimes it is easy to view white people and ourselves as monoliths in society because ‘we’ (white, upper/middle-class folks) are the norm and standard, but that does not mean we lack nuance and texture. So how are you nuanced?
Chloe, I was also interested in the quote from Carlone et al. that discusses that “dominant constructions of the ‘ideal student’ are raced, classed, and gendered”. I think that while you or I or other conscious teachers thinks of an ideal student as hardworking and open to challenges, I think its still possible that constructs like race, class, and gender still creep into classrooms and create issues of equity because of the inherit system in place that broadly disadvantages certain students. I would think that interest in science continues to decrease as students enter high school. In high school there are so many pressures from peers, extracurriculars, and society on the “right” ways to behave and stick to the status quo that it would make sense that certain individuals would lose interest.
Chloe, thanks for the thoughtful ideas! You make a valid point about how, pedagogically, we cannot incorporate strategies, such as the naming practices, into classes that examine topics such as sub-cellular biology. You are most likely correct in identifying that such components do not have an Indigenous language equivalent, particularly as the advances in technology that enabled the discovery of such components, were invented and kept within western scientific practices. Yet across all domains of science, Indigenous and western communities both participated in what can be considered scientific sense making and practice, i.e. individuals made observations (whether by eye, or by microscope), conferred with others within that community, reasoned and problem solved, and came up with explanations that were open to revision and evolution. Although “chemistry” may not have been a subject discussed by Indigenous communities, a huge number of western medicines are actually based on Indigenous floral knowledge. A typical “biology” class discusses cellular and intercellular relationship and function, on a systemic level, Indigenous understandings of ecosystem function have helped maintain dynamic environmental relationships, similar to how a cell uses feedback loops to regulate DNA transcription and protein expression. I wonder how classes could draw upon cultural understandings of this ‘balance’ in ways that allows for multiple forms of sense making in order to achieve learning outcomes.