Within each of the three empirical articles that we read for this week, they all took the perspective of a sociocultural theoretical framework when constructing, enacting, and analyzing their experiments. All of the data collection methods they used modeled those that reflected the sociocultural framework they were operating through. In order to understand the activities, identities, and interactions between individuals in their proper context, the researchers made use of interviews, observations within the learning environment, and reflective journaling. Each of these methods sought to better understand how interactions within the classroom environment (and society at large) affected the identity and learning of the students.
Two of the three (Morton & Parsons 2018; Sheth 2018) made use of coding algorithms that would categorize the themes within the collected data (i.e. journals, interview transcripts, etc.). Then, using either these collected themes, or the individual interviews (Nasir et al. 2013), the authors would draw conclusions in such a way to explain how the culture of the classroom (or society) affected their learning.
Sheth (2018) and Morton & Parsons (2018) focus on two slightly different aspects of their learning theories: teaching/learning and identity, respectively. Although on the surface, these may seem quite different, Nasir et al. (2013) notes that “learning and identity are viewed as reciprocal processes that support one another” (Nasir et al. 2013, p. 294). Thus, any discussions of either process are not only a valuable contribution to the overall theoretical framework, but also are intrinsically linked.
There were so many threads from these articles that I found extremely important and interesting (and should possibly be required reading for anyone who wants to teach science). The first that I definitely have been a big advocate for openly discussing, and thus was overjoyed to see it discussed in length, is the idea that science is not the largely objective field it claims to be (Sheth 2018; Morton & Parsons 2018). An excellent quote that sums this up can be found in Sheth (2018): “White scientists and science institutions, operating from white supremacist assumptions rather than objective scientific methods, legitimated ideas about racial differences in relation to intelligence and personality/cultural traits to support the subjugation of communities of color” (Sheth 2018, p. 40). This way of operating science most definitely bled into the assertion of former Harvard President Summers that there are just innate differences between men and women, and that is what partially accounts for the shortage of female scientists (Morton & Parsons 2018, p. 1366).
Furthermore, this actually led me to a connection with a paper I read for another class of mine this semester. In this paper, Hart (1975), the author makes the argument: “if… there were intelligent beings elsewhere in our Galaxy, then they would eventually have achieved space travel, and would have explored and colonized the Galaxy, as we have explored and colonized the Earth” (Hart 1975, p. 128). This quote brings to mind thoughts of Euro-centric ideas of exploration and colonization, and even seems to imply that the reader, along with him, are part of this expansive force with his use of the word “we”. As this argument is the crux of the paper, it is interesting to have it be dependent on such a Euro-centric colonial vision for extraterrestrial intelligent beings. Of course, one may say that reading this far into this language is unfair, and a stretch, but considering that the author Michael H. Hart is a self-described “white separatist”, I believe it would be amiss to not acknowledge that his racist views bled into his science.
The other thread that I felt was an excellent point within Sheth (2018) was the idea that simply diversifying the representation of scientists when presenting historic or current research is not only a degree of pandering, but feeds into the myth of meritocracy and equal opportunity that is largely held up by science (Sheth 2018, p. 54). Without a proper discussion of the institutionalized racism that led to the shortage of scientists of color, in addition to the privileges held by middle class White cis-male scientists, it simply seems that all those individuals presented to students as scientists were on an equal playing field, when they very much weren’t. (A favorite short comic of mine that showcases this privilege is “On A Plate” by Toby Morris. I highly recommend reading it!) Sheth (2018) put this idea wonderfully: “The goal and instantiations of science teaching designed to include scientists of color as role models rather than fully engage with how racism mediates access to, struggles for, and success in science careers and education curtailed the possibilities of students learning tools and skills of resisting racism” (Sheth 2018, p. 54).
I will end by pointing out one more quote from Sheth (2018) that I thought was possibly the biggest science teaching take-away from this week’s readings: “This means starting from the assumption that naming, confronting, and disrupting racism is a part of science teaching and learning goals rather than extraneous, additive, or counter to science education goals.” (Sheth 2018, p. 55)
References:
Hart, M. H. (1975). An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 16, 128-135.
Morris, T. (2015, May 22). On A Plate [Cartoon]. Retrieved from https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
Morton, T. R., & Parsons, E. C. (2018). #BlackGirlMagic: The identity conceptualization of Black women in undergraduate STEM education. Science Education, 102(6), 1363-1393. doi:10.1002/sce.21477
Nasir, N. S., Snyder, C. R., Shah, N., & Ross, K. M. (2013). Racial storylines and implications for learning. Human Development, 55(5-6), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345318
Sheth, M. J. (2018). Grappling with racism as foundational practice of science teaching. Science Education, 103(1), 37-60. doi:10.1002/sce.21450
“This means starting from the assumption that naming, confronting, and disrupting racism is a part of science teaching and learning goals rather than extraneous, additive, or counter to science education goals.” (Sheth 2018, p. 55)
I like your science teaching takeway. It was a little more positive than mine!
“Without a proper discussion of the institutionalized racism that led to the shortage of scientists of color, in addition to the privileges held by middle class White cis-male scientists, it simply seems that all those individuals presented to students as scientists were on an equal playing field, when they very much weren’t. ” (Phoebe, 2020)- Dang that was a strong analysis. That is how it feels: here are all the things you can do, go, be, and see, *whispers* if you’re a white cis-male otherwise buckle up, good luck, and get some glasses cause you won’t even see it until it’s too late.
Hi Phoebe! I loved your comment…
“Without a proper discussion of the institutionalized racism that led to the shortage of scientists of color, in addition to the privileges held by middle class White cis-male scientists, it simply seems that all those individuals presented to students as scientists were on an equal playing field, when they very much weren’t.”
…this is so important! I’ll admit that when I first started teaching intro bio to dual enrolled community college students (high schoolers!), I definitely attempted to diversify the scientists I used in class, both historical and current researchers. I realized though that it wasn’t enough, it felt like I was trying to put a bandaid on something that clearly needed sutures – the conversation *has* to be had about institutionalized racism. Especially now.