Cohen et al. (2020) explores the impact of early STEM experiences on the development of STEM identity capital in girls and women. They find that encouragement from elementary teachers, interaction with STEM toys and kits, watching STEM-themed television and movies, and playing STEM-themed computer and video games all had significant impacts on development of STEM identity capital. The paper does not examine ways in which students learn science; rather it focuses on how various activities can influence long-term self-concept and participation in STEM fields. Some of the activities found to be significant (encouragement from elementary teachers, playing with STEM toys and kits, and playing STEM-themed computer/video games) could all have sociocultural theoretical foundations, depending on how the activities were presented to the students. Watching STEM-themed movies and television shows seems like it would be more based in cognitive change. Based on these inferences, both sociocultural and cognitive approaches may have a significant impact on the development of self-concept and capital of female students in STEM education. I was not in the least surprised to earn that early experience with cooking/baking/kitchen science has a negative impact on the development of STEM identity capital in girls. This type of activity reinforces the idea that, even in science, women belong in the kitchen.
Hughes (2018) states that a key component to LGBTQ+ student retention in undergrad STEM courses and majors hinges on better recruitment and mentoring of this student population by STEM faculty—especially mentoring of the student within the faculty’s lab environments. This indicates that legitimate peripheral participation within the lab environment is critical to the retention of LGBTQ+ students in STEM fields. However, faculty need to be trained in offering effective recruitment and mentoring to LGBTQ+ students. I would go so far as to say that all faculty would benefit from professional development in how to interact with LGBTQ+ students—perhaps especially faculty within STEM fields.
Barton et al. (2020) explores how a sixth-grade science class and their teacher collaborate throughout engineering unit to explore sustainability, justice, and the development of self-concept of students as engineers. The class constructs the meaning and parameters of the engineering project together alongside the teacher. They arrive at their understanding of sustainability, for example, through discussion and brainstorming. The teacher and the researchers are aware that “youth, especially from nondominant communities, experience structural inequities daily in the classroom—not only through expectations for what valued participation in engineering looks like…” and that “legitimized patterns of participation in science are generally tied to who ant what areas of expertise are recognized and valued by the dominant culture.” I would say that the classroom structure is based in sociocultural theory—i.e. that the learning happens as a result of participation in a social context—and that the classroom teacher and authors believe that the field of engineering is also based in a sociocultural approach, but that the typical sociocultural approach found in engineering excludes people who do not belong to the dominant culture. They, and their students, are working to change that. Finally, they have a RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ROOM–like all schools should…
“This indicates that legitimate peripheral participation within the lab environment is critical to the retention of LGBTQ+ students in STEM fields.”
Thinking about LPP as a critical piece in retaining LGBTQ+ students in STEM fields is particularly salient, and I hadn’t quite put that together with community of practice thoughts. To extend the thinking from the paper on the importance of faculty relationships with students and in creating inclusive environments, it seems like LPP would involve Professor – TA/GA – student relationships and interactions along with near peer interactions. Therefore, efforts at changing these dynamics to make undergraduate learning environments more inclusive would need to look not just at faculty and other “masters” of the scientific disciplines, but also at the culture that develops under and around their guidance.
“….and that the classroom teacher and authors believe that the field of engineering is also based in a sociocultural approach, but that the typical sociocultural approach found in engineering excludes people who do not belong to the dominant culture.”
Hearing it put like this, it makes me think about the structure of communities of participation a little more. In that theory, you had more influence on the community the closer to the center of the community you were. But here, we’re seeing students on the outskirts of the engineering community try and make change within that community and I wonder if the community of practice model fails to describe this sort of participation well.