Post on 20-Feb-2023
259Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4): 259−290, 2003©2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands
At the Intersection of Contemporary Descriptions of Scienceand Issues of Equity and Diversity: Student Teachers’Conceptions, Rationales, and Instructional Practices
Julie A. BianchiniLynnette M. CavazosMichael RivasDepartment of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
To help promote scientific literacy for all, science education reform documentsrecommend that teachers teach the nature of science—that they portray science asa human activity with particular methods of inquiry, collective criteria for knowledgeclaims, and diverse ties to the larger society (American Association for theAdvancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993; California Department of Education,1990; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). An increasing number of scienceeducators, however, call for descriptions of the nature of science found in reformdocuments to be made more broad and complex. They suggest teachers draw fromrecent science studies scholarship to craft descriptions of science that attend toissues of gender and race, positionality and context, and power and privilege(Cunningham & Helms, 1998; Mayberry, 1998; Rudolph, 2000; Stanley & Brickhouse,1994, 2001). Calls to refashion nature of science descriptions in light of equity anddiversity goals are part of a larger movement to eliminate inequitable scienceeducation practices and to implement gender sensitive and culturally inclusiveapproaches in their stead (Barton, 1998, 2000; Hodson, 1999; Lynch, 2000; Nieto,1999; Rosser, 1997; Sleeter & Grant, 1999). For the purposes of this article, we referto these latter two recommendations as teaching science in contemporary andequitable ways. We see these recommendations as inextricably connected; we argueone cannot be achieved without attention to the other.
For science student teachers, learning to teach science in contemporary andequitable ways is a complex and challenging endeavor. Some science educationresearchers have documented limitations in preservice teachers’ conceptions ofthe nature of science and/or abilities to convey coherent descriptions of science tostudents even after considerable instruction (see Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000;Kelly, Chen, & Crawford 1998; and Lederman, 1992, for extensive reviews of natureof science research). Other researchers have examined student teachers’ strugglesto critique traditional representations of science and/or to transform their curricularand instructional practices in preservice methods courses (Barton, 2000; Bullock,1997; McGinnis & Pearsall, 1998; Rodriguez, 1998; Southerland & Gess-Newsome,1999). We sought to contribute to the knowledge base in science teacher educationby merging these two areas of research—by investigating the ways student teachersintegrated contemporary descriptions of science and calls to attend to issues ofequity and diversity into their understanding of what science is, why it should betaught, and how best to teach it to all students (see also Bianchini, Johnston, Oram,
260 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
& Cavazos, 2003; Bianchini & Solomon, 2003).In our study, we examined a cohort of secondary science student teachers (12
in total) enrolled in an intensive, yearlong teacher education program that placedissues of equity and diversity at its core. During their first semester, student teacherparticipants took part in a course on contemporary descriptions of the nature ofscience and equitable educational practices taught by Bianchini and audited byRivas. Through qualitative analysis of individual papers, group assignments, andend-of-semester interviews, we examined science student teachers’ understandingsof topics found at the intersection of contemporary and equitable science education:who scientists are, how science is practiced, and the ways science is situated insocial, cultural, and political contexts. Within each of these domains, we furtherclustered science student teachers’ ideas into their conceptions, rationales forteaching, and proposed instructional strategies. From our analysis of these data,we provide recommendations for other science teacher educators intent on workingwith preservice teachers toward the goal of scientific literacy for all students.
Conceptual Framework
What Is Science?
We drew from science studies scholarship and science education research tocraft descriptions of what science is, reasons to include instruction in contemporarydescriptions of the nature of science at the preservice level, and ways such ideascan best be conveyed to future science teachers. We fashioned a contemporarydescription of what science is, for example, from the work of feminist science studiesscholars and sociologists and anthropologists of science. The general themespresented here were examined in the preservice course under study (see courseoverview for further details). We began by examining basic nature of science tenetsagreed upon by many scientists, science educators, and science studies scholars(Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; McComas, Clough, & Almazroa, 1998;Smith, Lederman, Bell, McComas, & Clough, 1997). State, national, and internationalreform documents specify aspects of the nature of science, like a scientific worldview and methods commonly employed by scientists, that are appropriate andimportant to convey to K–12 students (AAAS, 1989; California Department ofEducation, 1990; McComas & Olson, 1998; NRC, 1996). Myths about basic scientificprinciples and practices propagated by science textbooks, teachers, and the generalpublic have also been identified (McComas, 1998).
Science studies scholars depict scientific practices and products in ways morehotly debated and more clearly connected to issues of equity and diversity thandescriptions of the nature of science presented in reform documents (Cunningham& Helms, 1998; Mayberry, 1998; Rudolph, 2000; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994, 2001).Some science studies scholars craft detailed accounts of science as a social andfundamentally human activity. They investigate the day-to-day practices of scientiststo understand how they induct new members into their community, generate data,and make collective decisions about the veracity of knowledge claims (Collins &
261STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
Pinch, 1993; Knorr-Cetina, 1999; Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Shapin, 1996). Otherscience studies scholars describe science as a raced and gendered enterprise, makingvisible barriers raised against women and ethnic minorities in science (Kass-Simon& Farnes, 1990; Keller, 1977, 1983; Rossiter, 1982, 1995; Sands, 1993) or critiquingandrocentric and ethnocentric biases in scientific research (Hubbard, 1990; Rosser,1997; Schiebinger, 1989; Spanier, 1997). Schiebinger, for example, examined women’slimited roles in the development of modern, Western sciences, as well as howrepresentations of the human body in the 18th and 19th centuries served to produceand reproduce contemporary ideals of masculinity and femininity. Still other scholarsrender problematic conventional definitions of science, raising epistemologicalquestions about whose products and practices should count as scientific (Harding,1998; Hart, 1999; Lindee, 1994; Weatherford, 1993). Lindee examined how scientistsfrom the US and Japan disagreed over what counted as legitimate scientific practicesin their joint study of WWII atomic bomb survivors.
Why Teach Student Teachers Contemporary Descriptions of Science?
For teacher educators intent on promoting science education for all, there aremultiple, sometimes overlapping reasons for introducing preservice teachers todescriptions of science presented in science education reform documents andscience studies scholarship. Although we recognize the relationship betweenteachers’ understanding about science and their instructional practices is far fromdirect (see Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Lederman, 1992, 1999), we maintain thatintroducing teachers to such scholarship can make a difference in the scienceclassroom. More specifically, we see knowledge about science as assisting studentteachers in their efforts to make science interesting and accessible to all students(Cunningham & Helms, 1998; Hughes, 2000; Mayberry, 1998; Reiss, 1993; Stanley& Brickhouse, 1994, 2001). As we explained in our introduction, this is why wedecided to examine student teachers’ views found at the intersection of contemporarydescriptions of science and equitable educational practices.
We offer three reasons for teaching student teachers contemporary descriptionsof science:
1. Cunningham and Helms (1998) recommended teachers draw from recentscience studies scholarship to “expose the human face” of science and thus, makeit “more attractive to marginalized students” (pp. 486–487).
2. Teaching prospective teachers the nature of science may serve to broadenthe kinds of curricular and instructional strategies they implement (Meichtry,1999; Rutherford, 1964; Shapiro, 1996). Rutherford, for example, called for preserviceteachers to acquire a rather thorough grounding in the history and philosophy ofthe sciences they teach” so as to accurately and effectively implement open-endedinquiry investigations (p. 8).
3. Student teachers should learn to teach science in contemporary ways so asto empower their own students to make informed decisions in an increasinglyscientific and technologically advanced world (Barton, 1998; Cunningham & Helms,1998; Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Hurd, 1998). An “understanding of the
262 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
nature of science,” Driver et al. underscored, “is necessary if people are to makesense of the science and manage the technological objects and processes theyencounter in everyday life” (p. 16).
How Can Preservice Teachers Learn to Teach Science in Contemporary andEquitable Ways?
Again, we argue that teaching student teachers contemporary descriptions ofthe nature of science in interaction with issues of equity and diversity is crucial forpromoting science for all students. Such instruction, however, is a challenge toimplement at both preservice and secondary school levels. In studies of the natureof science conducted in preservice education settings, researchers have reportedmixed results in aligning student teachers’ conceptions and teaching about sciencewith views and practices advocated by the larger science education community(Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998; Meichtry, 1999; Mellado, 1997; Palmquist & Finley,1997; Shapiro, 1996). To enhance student teachers’ understanding and practices,Abd-El-Khalick et al. recommended teacher educators work with student teachersto articulate a rationale for including the nature of science in their instruction (aswell as to provide them more extensive experience in teaching the nature of science).Mellado urged teacher educators to engage student teachers in a cyclical processof reflection and action so that they might more tightly connect theoretical natureof science knowledge with the practical act of teaching science. In our study, wecontinue exploration of ways to better assist student teachers in closely aligningconceptions of the nature of science with rationales for teaching and selection ofappropriate instructional strategies.
A smaller number of studies at the preservice and inservice levels have exploredattempts to broaden teachers’ conceptions of science and ways to teach science to allstudents; these teacher researchers also highlighted challenges they faced (Bianchini& Solomon, 2003; Richmond, Howes, Kurth, & Hazelwood, 1998; Southerland & Gess-Newsome, 1999). Richmond, Howes, Kurth, and Hazelwood (1998), for example, foundpreservice and practicing teachers reluctant to embrace feminist critiques of science asa social enterprise and epistemological framework, as well as to implement feministstrategies that connect with diverse students. They struggled to identify ways teachers’ideas about and reactions to their efforts could shape the purpose and structure offuture teacher education activities—something we strove to do here as well. Southerlandand Gess-Newsome argued preservice teachers in their study possessed positivisticviews of scientific knowledge, teaching, and learning, and that these views constrainedinterpretation of and reactions to issues of equity in science classrooms. To enhancepreservice teachers’ ability to teach science for all, Southerland and Gess-Newsomerecommended teacher educators provide more information about the nature of science,and more time for critical reflection on personal assumptions embedded in teaching. Inour study, we worked to extend Southerland and Gess-Newsome’s efforts by providingstudent teachers a thorough grounding in science studies scholarship and thenexamining their conceptions of equity in interaction with their notions of what is, whyexamine, and how to teach about science.
263STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
Overview of Preservice Course
This study was conducted in the fall of 1998 with a cohort of 12 sciencestudent teachers enrolled in a small, fifth-year teacher education program located inCalifornia. Members of this cohort attended three interrelated science educationcourses during their fall semester: the nature of science, science methods andprocedures, and professional issues. The course on contemporary descriptions ofthe nature of science and equitable educational practices was taught by Bianchiniand audited by Rivas; it is the focus of study here. The course met three hours perweek for a total of 10 weeks. Its purpose was threefold: to introduce both commonlyheld nature of science tenets and recent scholarship in science studies, to encouragethe making of connections between descriptions of science and issues of equityand diversity, and to examine curriculum materials and instructional strategies usefulin teaching the nature of science to all secondary students.
Course content was organized around several “big ideas,” rather than a discretelist of tenets: who scientists are, how science is practiced, and how science issituated in social, cultural, and political contexts. Student teachers began the courseby examining the history of reform in science education (DeBoer, 1991); state,national, and international reform documents that recommended nature of sciencetenets appropriate for K–12 students (AAAS, 1989; California Department ofEducation, 1990; McComas & Olson, 1998; NRC, 1996); and common myths aboutscience held by teachers and students (Chambers, 1983; McComas, 1998). Theythen read science studies scholarship that presented more contentious descriptionsof scientific practices and products: science as a social (Shapin, 1996), genderedand raced (Hubbard, 1990; Keller, 1977; Rosser, 1997; Schiebinger, 1989; Spanier,1997), and multicultural (Harding, 1998; Lindee, 1994; Weatherford, 1993) enterprise.Finally, science student teachers were introduced to educational research on teacherand student conceptions of the nature of science (Kelly et al., 1998; Lederman,1992; Roth & Lucas, 1997).
Student teachers also engaged in a range of activities and assignmentsdesigned to highlight interactions between contemporary descriptions of scienceand issues of equity and diversity. To critically examine their own conceptionsof science, for example, student teachers participated in Cobern and Loving’s(1998) Card Exchange activity, and Nott and Wellington’s (1998) Nature ofScience profile. To investigate how descriptions of science shape students’access to and interest in this discipline, they examined the strengths andlimitations of using categories to organize knowledge in science (Middlecamp,1995) and engaged in a debate over the extent to which science can be consideredmulticultural (adopted from Banks, 1994). Further, to explore descriptions ofscience as situated in larger contexts, student teachers visited a local breastimplant manufacturer to learn about controversies surrounding research on thesafety of such implants in women. In addition to in-class activities, studentteachers completed three written assignments and an end-of-course interview.These assignments and interviews served as data for this study; they arediscussed further below.
264 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
We should make clear that the science student teachers in our study did notlearn about equitable educational practices only in their nature of science course.In their science methods and procedures course taught by Cavazos, student teachersexamined additional instructional strategies useful in teaching science to all students.Some of these activities tied explicitly to the nature of science. Student teachers, forexample, drew pictures of typical scientists (Chambers, 1983), discussed commonstereotypes held by teachers and students, examined science magazines forstereotypical images of scientists, and created a list of characteristics of scientistsimportant to convey to all students. See the Appendix for a comprehensive list ofnature of science ideas and equitable instructional strategies used across thesetwo courses. To save space, weekly small group and whole class discussions ofreadings are not included in this list.
Research Questions and Methodology
From each section of our conceptual framework, we crafted three sets of researchquestions to explore preservice science teachers’ understanding of contemporarydescriptions of science and equitable educational practices:
1. Drawing from science studies scholarship, we asked (a) “What conceptionsof the nature of science did the preservice science teachers in our study hold?” (b)“How did their understanding reflect course goals and themes?” and (c) “Howdid their conceptions cohere or conflict with their understandings of equity andaccess in science education?”
2. After reflecting on reasons science educators have offered for teachingteachers contemporary descriptions of science, we generated (a) “Why did preservicescience teachers think it important to share descriptions of science with students?”and (b)“What reasons did they give for taking up or ignoring ideas connected tothe nature of science and issues of equity and diversity?”
3. From research on nature of science instruction and equitable educationalpractices in teacher education settings, we queried (a) “How did our student teacherparticipants think to convey what science is and how it is practiced to all secondarystudents?” and (b) “What curricular and instructional strategies did they intendto implement once in their own science classrooms?”
All 12 student teachers enrolled in the University’s teacher education programduring the 1998–1999 academic year and seeking single subject science credentialsparticipated in our study. Giulia, Kathleen, Leslie, Toni, and Marie self-identified asEuropean American women; Juanita, as a Chicana/Mexican American woman; Elise, asa Filipino American woman; Josh, Seth, Elan, and Curt, as European American men; andDaniel, as a European American/Portuguese American man. (All names are pseudonyms.)Before coming to the teacher education program, Marie had worked at a nationallaboratory studying the effects of radiation on transistors; Leslie had been a bookkeeperand accounting assistant; Seth had worked in educational production and filmdistribution; and Toni had served as a defense contractor security specialist. The othereight were recent university graduates and did not have fulltime work experiences. Allhad aspirations to teach middle or high school science in California.
265STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
The three researchers were participants in the development of these studentteachers’ ideas and practices. “This commingling of roles is a common occurrencein anthropological fieldwork. It is rare for a community to allow someone to merely‘watch’ them go about their work and their daily lives” (Ladson-Billings, 2001, p.145). Bianchini is an Italian American woman and instructor of the preservice courseunder investigation here. Cavazos is also a European American woman. She taughtboth companion preservice science education courses taken by student teacherparticipants—the science methods and procedures, and professional issuescourses—and served as coordinator of the single subject teacher educationprogram. Rivas is Latino. A former high school science teacher and current doctoralstudent, he audited the preservice course under study, participating in all in-classactivities and working with two student teachers to craft a science unit.
We collected four kinds of data. Each student teacher completed two individualpapers: a one-to-two page opinion paper (for purposes of citing data below, science1) and a seven-to-ten page research paper (science 2). For both assignments, studentteachers addressed three questions: (a) “Why should students be taught aboutscience?” (b) “What kinds of descriptions of science should be taught?” and (c)“How best can such descriptions be conveyed to all students?” Student teachersworked in groups to complete a third assignment: to develop a unit that presentedboth science subject matter and nature of science descriptions (science unit). Unitswere to include content and activities; be five-to-seven pages in length; and drawfrom science, science studies, and science education scholarship. Finally, at theclose of the course, each student teacher participated in an individual semistructuredinterview (interview). Interviews were conducted by Bianchini and Cavazos andlasted approximately 30 minutes each. Interview questions included (a) “How wouldyou describe the nature of science—what science is, who scientists are, and howscience works?” (b) “How have your views about the nature of science and issues ofequity changed as a result of your preservice science education classes?” (c) “Howdo you plan to teach about the nature of science in your future science courses?” (d)“How important was it for you to learn about the nature of science?” and (e) “Howimportant was it for your students to learn about the nature of science?”
Resulting course assignments and interview transcripts were then analyzedqualitatively (Erickson, 1986; Strauss, 1987). We began by creating three generalcategories, or domains (Spradley, 1980), related to descriptions of science presentedin the preservice course: (a) who scientists are, (b) how they engage in scientificpractices, and (c) the ways science is situated in social, cultural, and politicalcontexts. We then examined student teacher data in order to more clearly definethese three categories of cultural meaning. For example, the domain, how scientistsengage in scientific practices, was narrowed to a focus on methods of science.Within each domain, we also created subcategories to resonate with our threeresearch questions: conceptions of science, reasons for teaching such content inscience classrooms, and strategies for conveying ideas to students. Subcategorieswere further divided into “camps” or “types” to capture the range of studentteachers’ views. Finally, we traced changes in a given student teacher’sunderstanding of each domain and subcategory over time. All three authors each
266 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
took primary responsibility for coding coursework and interview data in one ofthese three domains. To help ensure consistency in the coding process, researcherscoded a subsample of assignments and transcripts individually and then metcollectively to reach consensus on what counted as data for each code. Below, webegin our discussion of findings by presenting student teachers’ responses ineach of our three content domains. To explore mis/connections across nature ofscience descriptions and equity ideas, we then examine a representative sample ofindividual student teachers’ responses in greater detail.
Who Are Scientists?
The questions, “Who can be called a scientist?” and “Who can become ascientist?,” were regularly and repeatedly posed by science student teachers acrosstheir reflective papers, units, and interviews. Student teachers found the formerquestion of who can be called a scientist difficult to answer. They placed themselvesinto one of two camps: (a) those who thought only people with degrees and careersin science should be granted the title and (b) those who argued that anyone usingscientific thinking skills should be included as well. We present initially only thedefinitions of a scientist offered by our participants; rationales for and examples ofinstruction are inextricably tied to discussion of who can become a scientist (thelatter question) and are thus examined at the section’s end. Daniel, for example,positioned himself squarely in the scientists-as-professionals group (as did Josh,Curt, Giulia, and Kathleen). Daniel stated that “a scientist, like a historian or linguist,has studied long and hard to earn certification in either field. While I think everyonecan practice science, only a select few can claim to be scientists” (science 2).Daniel’s definition of scientists can be understood to resonate with situativetheorists’ descriptions of scientists as comprising discrete communities of practice(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994),although it does not address equity concerns examined in the preservice course.Indeed, Daniel’s definition of a scientist grew more narrow over the course as aresult of challenges from fellow student teachers.
Marie, Juanita, Elise, Elan, Leslie, Seth, and Toni, in contrast, placed themselvesin the second who-can-be-called-a-scientist camp: They defined scientists in broaderterms. Juanita explained that scientists can be both people who work in laboratoriesand people who solve everyday problems scientifically:
A professional scientist, in a traditional view, wears a lab coat, works inthe lab, does traditional science using the scientific method. Biologistsand chemists. But I also think a scientist is someone who goes throughthe process of taking apart something. My dad is a mechanic and I thinkin a sense he is a scientist because he observes, looks at a problem, anduses science to figure out what is wrong. (interview)
It is the “exclusiveness of Eurocentric thinking,” Juanita continued, that hasperpetuated a narrow view of who can be called scientists (science 2). “Many
267STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
cultures have made significant contributions to science throughout the centuries,but have been disregarded by the Western perception of science. The Indians ofthe Andes probably did more plant experiments than any other people anywhere inthe world” (interview; Juanita’s example of Andean Indians as experimenters comesfrom a class reading by Weatherford, 1993; see additional examples in Harding,1993, 1998). By presenting a more expansive conception of scientists and science,Juanita underscored, science teachers could work to reverse the history of inequalityin science and encourage women and people of color to pursue scientific endeavors(science 2).
Even with disagreement over who should be called a scientist, science studentteachers did reach consensus on the second question they posed for themselves,“Who can become a scientist?” Student teachers’ answers echoed those found inreform documents concerned with science for all (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996).Toni captured the consensus of the group—that every student can and shouldhave the opportunity to become a scientist:
All individuals can and should have the opportunity to be a scientist.All individuals are capable of performing science, philosophizing aboutthe nature of science, and gaining knowledge. Opening up the sciencecurriculum to every student who attends public school will make Americamore competitive in the scientific arena. (interview)
The science student teachers also provided a common rationale for why theyshould explicitly teach students about scientists. Although some thought scientistsshould be defined in narrow terms and others, more broadly, all agreed it imperative tocounteract students’ stereotypes of who scientists are and can be. From readingeducational research (like Chambers, 1983; Rahm & Charbonneau, 1997; Reiss, 1993),Curt, Elan, and Kathleen explained that they had learned students hold stereotypes ofscientists as White, middle-aged men with glasses, lab coats, and crazy hair (scienceunit). Elan noted that Bill Nye, the science guy, is a popular television figure whoexemplifies the stereotype of a scientist as an eccentric White male in a white coatworking in a lab and doing crazy science experiments (interview). Students’ stereotypesof who can do science, Curt, Elan, and Kathleen concluded, need to be broken so thatany student is able to see her or him self as a member of the scientific community:
It is important to incorporate into the class who can be a scientist. Indoing so, women and minorities will be included. Perhaps the stereotypeof the white male scientist can be changed through the introduction ofscientists of various cultures, races, and genders into the classroom.(science unit)
Science student teachers’ recommendations for strategies to incorporate ideasabout scientists into the curriculum fell into three general types. Readers shouldnote that most student teachers suggested several types of instructional strategiesand that almost all suggestions resonated with equity concerns.
268 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
One instructional strategy recommended by Daniel, for example, fit into thefirst type: examining representations of scientists. Daniel suggested implementinga two-part activity in which students begin by drawing pictures of a typical scientist,discussing what their drawings mean, and collectively identifying stereotypes intheir images. Following this part of the activity, Daniel continued, students thenlook at different scientific magazines and journals to see how scientists and theirwork are portrayed (science 2). (Both these activities were completed by the studentteachers in their science methods and procedures course.)
As part of their nature of science unit, Curt, Kathleen, and Elan proposed asecond type of instructional strategy: exploring the contributions of individualscientists and/or indigenous cultures. They suggested highlighting a “scientist ofthe week whose work related to the unit students are studying. For example, tocoincide with the genetics unit, the work of Barbara McClintock will be presented”(science unit). Like Milne (1998) and Reiss (1993), Curt, Kathleen, and Elanunderscored the importance of fashioning stories of scientists that recognizediversity among science practitioners and that promote inclusion of all students.
The third type of strategies student teachers suggested offered studentsopportunities to experience how scientists do their work—to learn about scientiststhrough the process of doing science. Science educators like Rutherford (1964) andSchwab (1978) argued that deep understanding of science requires an interplay ofknowing and doing—that students must experience both science’s content andinquiry, or its syntax and structure, if they are to grasp what science really is. Intheir group’s astronomy unit, for example, Giulia, Leslie, Josh, and Marierecommended using a series of lessons to emphasize through explicit and implicitmeans what scientists do:
This week students will build their own telescopes and use them on theirobservation assignment. We will tie in the telescope discussion with thehistory of telescopes and their use in decreasing the limitations inobserving stars. . . . Because scientific research is usually done by teamsof scientists collaborating in a group, students will . . . work in groupsfor their long-term observation assignment. (science unit)
A lesson on instruments astronomers use, this group explained, would allowall students to examine the history of the development of the telescope acrosscultures, use telescopes in their observations of stars, and collaborate on scientificwork.
How Is Science Practiced?
Science student teachers disagreed over who can be considered a scientist.They also held different conceptions of how science is practiced, more specifically,what should constitute the methods of science. We placed student teachers’descriptions of scientific practices along a continuum from conceptions of methodas an ideal that not all scientists follow, to a collection of diverse practices scientists
269STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
employ, to multiple approaches used by people across time and diverse contexts(the conception advocated in the nature of science course).
More specifically, several science teachers—Kathleen, Daniel, Josh, and Curt—came to describe the scientific method routinely outlined in science textbooks as anideal that not all scientists could follow. They thought it important both to retaindescriptions of method as a fairly linear process of posing questions, conductingcontrolled experiments, and revising hypotheses, as well as to broaden theirdefinition to include examples of scientific knowledge generated by other means.We see these student teachers’ descriptions of scientific practices as falling on theborder between misconceptions of method perpetuated by textbooks (McComas,1998) and conservative descriptions of scientific practices put forward by somereform documents (California Department of Education, 1990; National Academy ofSciences, 1998). Like authors responding to attacks on evolutionary theory withdescriptions of scientific method that emphasize its accuracy and reliability, thesestudent teachers’ responses should be read with the recognition that questionsabout sciences’ claims to universality were being raised in their course. Still, we donot see this conception of scientific methods as clearly tied to equity concerns asothers proposed below.
Marie and Giulia stood further down on this scientific methods continuum.They did not see the scientific method as described in textbooks as an ideal; rather,they described science as a process purposively carried out by different scientiststhrough different means (see AAAS, 1989; McComas, 1998; NRC, 1996; and Shapin,1996, for support for this description). At the far end of the continuum, studentteachers like Juanita, Elise, Seth, and Leslie understood science to be practicedboth in different ways and by diverse groups of people. Juanita, for example, cameinto the course seeing scientific practices as contextualized activity, as an activityinfluenced by scientists’ “personal experiences and their background and all theirnotions of what science is” (interview). As a result of instruction, she also grew torecognize the practices of indigenous cultures as scientific.
Similarly, science student teachers provided different reasons to teach scientificpractices to students. Participants thought instruction in methods might help studentsbetter understand the concepts and processes used by scientists; make informeddecisions in a technological world, and/or help critique and change the way science iscurrently practiced. Several student teachers provided two or more types of rationales.Elan, for example, argued that students need to understand how to conduct scientificinvestigations so as to better master both the concepts and processes routinely usedby scientists (science 2). Seth thought students should understand the methods ofscience so that they could take action to improve their lives: “[I]f they’re not using thescientific method, then they’re definitely not reaping the benefits of someone else’sscience. It surrounds us, science and technology. They’re all around us” (interview)(see Barton, 1998; Hodson, 1999; Rodriguez, 1998, for a similar argument). Toni suggestedpresenting a range of scientific approaches to students to both diversify the scienceworkforce and improve the scientific enterprise. “In doing this,” she continued, “weimprove the scientific process, expand our ways of knowing, and better understand thephilosophy which is intrinsic to the study of science” (science 2).
270 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
As might be expected, preservice teachers’ suggestions for how to teachstudents about scientific practices varied as well. Kathleen and Curt, who conceivedof the scientific method as an ideal, and Elan, who recognized diverse processes asscientific, explained that students would learn the scientific method in a geneticsunit by performing experiments structured according to discrete steps: “The scientificmethod offers a basic structure for all lab activities. In creating this structure,students are forced to support their hypotheses with experimental evidence. . . .[T]he steps will be taught in a specific sequence” (science unit). We found thisinstructional suggestion surprising given the course’s emphasis on diversity ofscientific methods (AAAS, 1989; Keller, 1983; McComas, 1998; NRC, 1996; Shapin,1996). It underscores the difficulties teacher educators and science student teachersface in moving beyond years of traditional science instruction.
Other science student teachers thought it important to engage students inactivities that showed scientific practices as different across times and contexts, astightly tied to issues of equity and diversity. In their digestive system unit, forexample, Juanita, Elise, and Rivas described how students would examine diverseways to investigate and understand the human digestive system.
[S]tudents [will] explore the published scientists involved in digestivesystem research, such as Kim Barrett, Ph.D. They will also have theopportunity to reflect on their own cultural practices involving thedigestive system. . . .This will lead into a class discussion of traditionalways of healing, i.e. manufactured drugs, and indigenous practices, i.e.herbal remedies, spiritual healing and their effects on the digestivesystem. (science unit)
Blending recommendations made by Reiss (1993) and Barton (1998), theirexamination would include the work of women scientists, their own cultural practicesinvolving the digestive system, and indigenous cultures’ ways of healing.
Science in Social, Cultural, and Political Contexts
For this third analysis section, we examined student teachers’ views of scienceas situated in social, cultural, and political contexts. In their assignments andinterviews, student teachers addressed two substantive areas related to science assituated activity: the ideas that science holds a powerful and privileged positionwithin society and that science is embedded in particular social, historical, andcultural contexts. Student teachers’ conceptions, rationales, and strategies forpresenting science in context were less complete than in the first two domainsexamined; we do not have a clear understanding of why this is so.
Eight of the twelve student teacher participants echoed science educationreform documents (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996) in arguing that science holds avalued and influential position in our society. “American society operates onscientific principles and highly values its methodology,” Giulia stated. “We, as asociety, give authority to and respect those with an education in science and the
271STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
principles of science” (science 2). Curt agreed, noting that “science has become areally strong factor, a deciding factor, of the truths of society. If something has thename of science behind it, proven by science, then generally people take it a littlemore seriously” (interview).
Students need to understand how science influences society, five studentteachers continued, so that they can successfully navigate their increasinglytechnological world. Giulia explained: “Any member of this society that does notunderstand science or how to present data in an objective, scientific manner givesup a considerable amount of power over their lives” (science 2). Because scientificthinking is valued and used by members of this society, she elaborated, studentsneed to understand what science is and how it is practiced (interview).
There were also few examples of how to teach students about science in theirlived world. Ultimately, only Josh, Daniel, and Elise provided descriptions, rationales,and instructional strategies related to this aspect of science. Josh, for example,proposed implementing a technology project where students “[would] . . . select aspecific technology they would like to learn more about. Their mission would be tounderstand their technological item as much as possible, determine who inventedit, and find out how it has influenced science and society” (cience 2). Like Josh,Daniel’s suggestion echoed strategies proposed by advocates of a STS approachto science education (Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994). Daniel proposed students gainan understanding of how science and society influence each other through debatesover current events like genetic engineering (science 2).
A second aspect of science as situated activity underscored by ten sciencestudent teachers in our study was the notion of science as shaped by society, ofscience as “a social, historical, cultural, and political construct” (Juanita, interview).In discussing this second aspect of science as situated activity, student teachersmade more explicit connections to equity issues. Student teachers provided a numberof ways scientific membership, research, and results are influenced by social normsand cultural products. Josh and Toni, for example, claimed that society influencedwho became scientists (this connects back to the first domain we examined). Theexclusion of women and people of color from scientific fields, Josh argued, comesfrom the fact that science is “a mirror of society.” Society must address issues ofequity and access, he underscored, before the scientific community can effectivelybroaden its membership (interview). Feminist science studies scholars, we shouldnote, agree that inequities in science are tied to those in society, but do not thinkscience’s ability to change possible only through societal transformation (Rosser,1997; Schiebinger, 1989).
Giulia noted that through the funding of scientific research, society influencesthe questions that scientists ask and the results they obtain (interview). “[S]cientistsare not particularly objective,” Giulia continued. “[O]bservations are subjective innature, science takes place in a socio-historical context, even in the present, sciencecannot be separated from the culture or the time in which the scientists live” (science2). Marie agreed with Giulia. She saw culture and context as not only constrainingscientists’ questions and observations, but as permeating the kinds of methodsthey use as well: “Truth of scientific knowledge is interdependent with the culture
272 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
in which the scientists live’” ([Nott &] Wellington, 1994, p. 40). . . . [S]cientificquestions, methods, and results vary according to time, place and purpose” (science2).
Five science student teachers provided clear rationales for teaching scienceas a human construct influenced by time, place, and culture to secondary students.Josh saw this topic as a way to encourage more women and ethnic minority studentsto make science a part of their lives:
As Evelyn Fox Keller’s [(1977)] experiences at Harvard attest, manywomen and people of color have experienced discrimination within thescientific community. . . . [W]e must explicitly teach about the nature ofscience and present an inclusive view which encourages all people, notjust Caucasian males, to participate and become active in science.(science 2)
Juanita also argued discussions of how society shapes science would opendoors to more students. Such discussions would “result in the student’s validatedprior knowledge, validation of cultural contributions to science and provide insightinto our own processes of thinking about science and the natural world” (Science2).
As with conceptions of society as shaped by science, fewer student teachersoffered concrete instructional strategies they might use to teach the socialsituatedness of science to students. Daniel’s debate over genetic engineeringdiscussed above is one example. Josh suggested activities (several of which werecompleted in his preservice courses) to highlight for students ways discriminationin society has translated into few women and ethnic minorities practicing science.
I would ask students to list as many famous scientists as possible in twominutes. In all likelihood, students would name many more male scientistsand females as well as many more Caucasians than people of color. Thisactivity would then lead into a discussion about the historicaldiscrimination of women and minorities in science and in society ingeneral. (science 2)
Giulia and Marie recommended a third tact: teaching the social situatedness ofscience through use of historical examples. Marie, for example, proposed “the social,political and historical contexts in which the scientific knowledge is developed . . .be addressed explicitly through teaching science from a historical perspective [asadvocated by] Nahum Kipnis (1998)” (science 2).
Mis/Connections Across Student Teachers’ Conceptions, Rationales, andStrategies
To further examine mis/connections between understandings of the nature ofscience and issues of equity, we represented in map form individual student teacher’s
273STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
conceptions, rationales, and proposed strategies across the three domains discussedabove. We looked for two kinds of alignment within a student teacher’s network ofviews: alignment across the three domains for a given subcategory (e.g., thesubcategory, conceptions, across the domains of who scientists are, scientificpractices, and science as situated activity) and alignment across subcategories fora given domain (e.g., the subcategories of conceptions, rationales, and strategieswithin the domain who scientists are). Alignment was determined by comparing agiven student teacher’s views to each other and to the literature discussed in ourconceptual frame. Ideas were deemed in alignment if they reflected contemporaryand equitable ideas presented in the course. Instances of alignment between twosubcategories were marked with a double-sided arrow; missed opportunities foralignment were left blank. Readers should note that, to make the maps moremanageable, we collapsed the two strands within our science as situated domain. Inconstructing these maps, we found student teachers varied in their alignment acrossdomains and subcategories.
We also attempted to trace changes in an individual student teacher’sunderstanding over time. We looked for ideas that remained constant, those thatwere expanded, those that emerged, and those that were changed. We found thatstudent teachers’ views, rationales, and instructional strategies expanded, emerged,or changed more often than they remained the same. We also found that a givenstudent teacher could hold a narrow view of some aspects of the nature of scienceyet articulate rationales and/or identify instructional strategies tied to equity issues.
To give a sense of this range in alignment and growth, we discuss threerepresentative examples here. Toni, for example, was one of several student teacherswith poorly articulated views about science and equity (see Figure 1). In two of thethree domains examined, she failed to discuss one of the three subcategories (e.g.,in the who scientists are domain, she did not offer relevant instructional strategies).With several missing pieces, we found it difficult to assess the coherence of Toni’sconceptions, rationales, and strategies with one another and with ideas discussedin the preservice course. In retrospect, the instructor might have worked moreclosely with Toni to help her better reflect on and more readily express her views ofthe nature of science and equity issues.
Like Toni, all but one of Daniel’s conceptions, rationales, and suggestedinstructional strategies were expanded on, emerged, or changed over the course ofinstruction. Daniel, however, represented those student teachers who fullyarticulated their views, but failed to consistently align domains and subcategorieswith contemporary nature of science descriptions and equity issues (see Figure 2).Within the who scientists are domain, for example, we argue that Daniel’s conceptionof all students as potential scientists failed to resonate with his conception ofscientists as paid practitioners or with his conception of scientific method as anideal all scientists should follow; the former conception more clearly reflected equityconcerns than the latter two. Similarly, rationales and instructional strategiesidentified within the who scientists are domain failed to align with rationales andstrategies articulated in the scientific practices and science as situated activitydomains. Again, Daniel’s rationales and strategies in the first domain more clearly
274
Conception Rationale Instructional Strategies
Who
Are
Sci
enti
sts?
Sc
ient
ific
Pra
ctic
esSc
ienc
e as
Sit
uate
d A
ctiv
ity Engaging students in debates about scientific issues that
shape society.
Scientific discoveries can obliterate the foundation of our society. Similarly, as
scientists are influenced by social mores, the nature of scientific inquiry and of science itself
is altered.
Science attempts to answer questions. Scientists
use a method, a process in the quest for knowledge. Science
is a human pursuit.
All students, including women and ethnic
minorities, can become scientists.
To expose diverse students to
the scientific process, diversify the scientific work-force, and thus to improve
science as a way of knowing.
Sharing the history of
scientific discoveries with
n laboratory activities.students; engaging students
i
To show students that all
are capable of performing science, philosophizing about
the nature of science, and gaining knowledge.
People who are paid to do science
are scientists. But all people are also scientists because they do science countless times each
day. Only in Western society is a farmer not considered
a scientist.
Key:
= No change in view over course = View expanded and elaborated over time
= View emerged during course = Change in view
Figure 1An overview of Toni’s conceptions, rationales, and strategies
BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
275
Figure 2An overview of Daniel’s conceptions, rationales, and strategies
Conception Rationale Instructional Strategies
?st
snt
ici
e S
Are
oW
hce
sct
iP
raic
tif
ien
ScSc
ienc
e as
Sit
uate
d A
ctiv
ity
Science affects society and
vice versa. Society plays a role in deciding what science is, what science is done, and
what progress science is going to make.
Asking students to list famous scientists and to discuss the
absence of women and ethnic minorities in lists; examining different scientific magazines to determine how scientists
are portrayed.All students, including women and ethnic minorities, can
become scientists.
To allow students to see
diverse people doing science.
Scientists must have a degree in science.
Not all discoveries were made by following the scientific method. However,
scientists know they must use it whenever possible.
To reduce students’ apprehension
about science. To counteract the media’s negative
portrayal of science.
Discussing current events; asking students to write a paper on the interactions
between society and genetic engineering.
Asking students to list famous scientists and to discuss the
absence of women and ethnic minorities in lists; examining different scientific magazines o determine how scientists aret
portrayed.
To provide students a view of
science as highly justified and sufficiently reliable
to describe phenomena.
Key:
= No change in view over course = View expanded and elaborated over time
= View emerged during course = Change in view
STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
276 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
reflected contemporary nature of science descriptions and equity concerns thanthe latter two.
Finally, like Toni and Daniel, much of Juanita’s understanding of the nature ofscience was refined or emerged during the course. Juanita represented those fewstudents with views that clearly aligned to nature of science descriptions andequity concerns presented in the preservice course (see Figure 3). Juanita’s attentionto equity issues helped shape and were shaped by considerations of who scientistsare, how science is practiced, and ways science is situated in social, cultural, andpolitical contexts. In the future, we hope to help more student teachers leave thiscourse with an understanding of contemporary descriptions of the nature of scienceand issues of equity similar to that of Juanita.
Moving Beyond What Is Accepted to What Is Equitable: Implications for TeacherEducation
We remind readers that the purpose of this study was to examine the intersectionof preservice science teachers’ views about the nature of science with theirconceptions of equitable educational practices. We organized the nature of sciencecourse to highlight connections across contemporary descriptions of science,rationales for teaching the nature of science in secondary science classrooms, andpossible strategies for conveying it to all students. We hoped student teacherswould not only make connections across conceptions, rationales, and strategies,but that they would grow to understand descriptions of science as intimatelyconnected to issues of equity and diversity. As we stated in the first section of ourconceptual framework, if a science education for all students is to be achieved, webelieve teacher educators must do more than strengthen student teachers’understanding of commonly held nature of science tenets. Descriptions of scienceput forth by science studies scholars might be routinely debated among membersof science and science education communities, but hold promise for informingcurricular and instructional strategies intent on attracting and nurturing studentsfrom underrepresented groups (Cunningham & Helms, 1998; Mayberry, 1998;Rudolph, 2000; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994, 2001). As Juanita underscored in herend-of-semester interview, all views about science should not be considered equal;some descriptions of science more tightly connect to the goals of equity and accessin science classrooms than others. This is not to say that we expect student teachersto completely and uncritically accept our descriptions about science or that weunderstand all topics examined in our course appropriate for discussion with studentsin secondary science classrooms. Rather, we argue that teacher educators introducestudent teachers to science studies scholarship and help them make reasoned andinformed decisions about the design and implementation of equitable and diverseinstruction based, in part, on these descriptions.
From our examination of data, we found the student teachers in our studyvaried in their consideration of equity issues when making decisions about whichconceptions, rationales, and strategies to adopt. Some made great strides towardaligning views of science and science teaching with equity goals; others did not.
277STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
Conception Rationale Instructional Strategies
Scientists are both professionals and everyday
people who go through the process of taking
something apart.
To help all students, particularly
female and ethnic minority students, to identify with others doing
science.
Asking students their perceptions of who scientists
are; presenting the contributions and/or reading biographies of female and ethnic minority scientists.
The scientific process is the use of critical thinking
to do or to find out. There is no one way to do science.
Indigenous healing practices should be considered
scientific.
To encourage all students to value
multiplicity and difference. To allow students to see
science as connected to their lives.
Asking students to identify an everyday problem and design
an investigation around it; ing students examine curre
research, reflect on their own cultural practices, and discuss
traditional wa
hav nt
ys of healing.
Who
Are
Sci
enti
sts?
Sc
ienc
e as
Sit
uate
d A
ctiv
ity
Scie
ntif
ic P
ract
ices
All students, including women and ethnic
minorities, can become scientists.
Science is a human (social, cultural,
and political) construct. Ethnic cultures conduct science; their
accomplishments are not considered equal
to the West.
To broaden students’ views of
science. To include and validate the cultural knowledge of under-
represented students.
Key:
= No change in view over course = View expanded and elaborated over time
= View emerged during course = Change in view
Engaging students in an activity where they pick a country, study one of its
scientific discoveries, and thus learn how that culture has
contributed to science.
Figure 3An overview of Juanita’s conceptions, rationales, and strategies
278 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
For example, although each student teacher provided the same rationale for teachingstudents about scientists—the need to encourage more secondary science studentsto participate and excel in science—some held to narrow definitions of who shouldcount as such. Daniel thought only institutionally sanctioned people should countas scientists and that all students had the potential to achieve this status. Marieand Juanita, in contrast, counted all inquirers as scientists, whether sanctioned byscientific institutions or not. They thought that all students were scientists whenthey engaged in scientific problem solving, as well as that all students had thepotential to become professional scientists. As such, we understand Marie andJuanita’s descriptions of scientists as both professionals and people who thinkscientifically to resonate more strongly with the goal of helping all students succeedin science than Daniel’s conception of scientists as official members of the scientificcommunity. In this case, Marie and Juanita promoted a more coherent view ofscience as accessible, open, and non-elitist.
To work towards scientific literacy for all, we remain convinced that preservicescience teachers must learn to make decisions about conceptions of science,educational goals, and instructional strategies in light of contemporary descriptionsof science and issues of equity and diversity. Encouraging student teachers toinclude discussion of how content, rationale, and pedagogy cohere in courseassignments—the primary approach taken in this preservice course—appearsincomplete. In reexamining the course’s organization, we found few additionalopportunities for science student teachers to make explicit connections across allthree areas. Goals for teaching about science were discussed during the first weeksof the course, while content was later linked to instructional strategies with littleconnection back to goals. Modeling such connections for student teachers andincluding more explicit discussions of ways they relate to equity concerns are nextsteps.
Strategies to promote student teacher reflection (Mellado, 1997; Southerland& Gess-Newsome, 1999) are also needed. We have begun to consider ways to moredeeply involve student teachers in our ongoing research of their teacher educationexperience—so that student teachers receive hands-on practice in designing,conducting, and reflecting on classroom-based research as part of this course.Through engagement in our action research project (Elliott, 1991; Noffke, 1997), weexpect student teachers to learn how to pose questions, gather and examine evidence,reflect on findings, and ultimately improve their teaching. In addition, studentteachers should learn to see connections between action research and thedevelopment of more democratic forms of education: At least among some of itsadvocates and practitioners, action research is viewed as political activity (Noffke,1997).
To better assist student teachers in developing science lessons that portrayscience in equitable terms, we suggest providing opportunities for student teachersto experience science and/or science education in nontraditional ways. Barton (2000),for example, grounded student teachers’ experiences in a different kind of scienceby involving them in a service learning project at a homeless shelter. In doing so,Barton tried to impact student teachers’ philosophies of teaching and learning,
279
particularly as they related to helping underserved populations feel comfortablewith and connected to science. In our preservice course, we sent student teachersto a breast implant manufacturer plant to challenge conceptions of science asapolitical and to encourage consideration of the ways science has shaped women’sbodies and societal roles. Since completing this research project, we have decidedto take student teachers to additional informal science education sites to furtherinvestigate scientific processes and products in nontraditional contexts. We expectour efforts to situate science and science education in diverse contexts to bothbroaden student teachers’ conceptions of science and to enhance their instructionalrepertoire—to help ground student teachers’ views in their own experiences ofscience as a diverse enterprise.
Finally, we encourage teacher educators to foster a safe yet critical communityof teacher learners in preservice courses so that student teachers learn to seedisagreements among scholars or with colleagues as an opportunity for growthrather than as an attack on intellect or as a reason to maintain a given position.Teacher educators and advocates of gender equitable and multicultural education(Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2000; Nieto, 1999) underscore the importanceof teachers engaging in debate, critique, and challenge if they are to learn to broadentheir conceptions of subject matter and improve their educational practices. Uponreflection, we built few supports into our course to nurture sustained, critical, yetrespectful exploration of disagreements among members related to the nature ofscience and issues of equity. We must work harder to foster a safe yet criticalcommunity where diversity of views is expected and scientific literacy for all ismaintained.
Epilogue
Over the past four years, we have continued to investigate preservice scienceteachers’ understanding of the nature of science in interaction with issues of equity.In 2000, we expanded our investigation beyond the nature of science course toinclude student teachers’ experiences in their science methods and procedures andprofessional issues courses as well (Bianchini & Solomon, 2003; Bianchini &Johnston, 2003; Bianchini, Johnston, Garcia, & Cavazos, 2003). To determine if ourefforts to teach student teachers about the nature of science and issues of equitytranslated into their classroom practice, we also followed several of our graduatesinto their first year of teaching science in public secondary schools. In one article,we documented the successes and continuing struggles of three graduates fromthe 1998–1999 science student teacher cohort examined here: Marie, Josh, andLeslie (Bianchini, Johnston, Oram, et al., 2003). In another work, we discussed thesuccesses and struggles of learning to teach science in contemporary and equitableways experienced by two more recent graduates: Brian and Troy (Bianchini &Cavazos, 2003).
Our extensive examination of the nature of science course and its influence onbeginning teachers’ practices has led us to dramatically redesign it. The nature ofscience course is now more tightly integrated with the science methods and
STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
280 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
procedures and professional issues courses; instructors meet every summer torevise and refine these classes together. To promote greater alignment acrossconceptions, rationales, and instructional strategies, we divide class time betweenmodeling strategies for teaching the nature of science in equitable ways andproviding student teachers opportunities to work in groups to develop their ownlesson plans that speak to these issues. As noted above, we now include severalopportunities to study science practiced in informal settings. We also work harderto nurture a safe yet critical community among teacher educators and studentteachers. We do not, however, involve student teachers more deeply in our researchprocess; rather, we have begun to investigate student teachers’ own attempts toconduct action research projects as part of their master’s degree program. We hopeother teacher educators have learned how to better assist preservice teachers inunderstanding and addressing the nature of science as tied to equity from ourmany and varied efforts.
Author Note
An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual meeting ofthe National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April 2000. We thankGregory J. Kelly for his suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie A.Bianchini, University of California, Department of Education, Santa Barbara, CA93106-9490. Electronic mail may be sent to jbianchi@education.ucsb.edu. Phone:805.893.4110. Fax: 805.893.7264.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science andinstructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4),417–436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for allAmericans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks forscience literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Banks, J. A. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Barton, A. C. (2000). Crafting multicultural science education with preservice teachers
through service-learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 797–820.Bianchini, J. A., & Cavazos, L. M. (2003, April). Learning to teach science to all:
Beginning teachers’ experiences in middle school science classrooms. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
281
Association, Chicago, IL.Bianchini, J. A., & Johnston, C. C. (2003, March). Learning to teach science in
equitable and excellent ways: An examination of science student teachers’views and practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Bianchini, J. A., Johnston, C. C., Garcia, Y., & Cavazos, L. M. (2003). How do weteach science to all students? Learning to teach as a discomforting process.Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bianchini, J. A., Johnston, C. C., Oram, S. Y., & Cavazos, L. M. (2003). Learning toteach science in contemporary and equitable ways: The successes andstruggles of first-year science teachers. Science Education, 87(3), 419–443.
Bianchini, J. A., & Solomon, E. M. (2003). Constructing views of science tied toissues of equity and diversity: A study of beginning science teachers. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 53–76.
Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroomnarratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 29(5), 471–485.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture oflearning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Bullock, L. D. (1997). Efficacy of a gender and ethnic equity in science educationcurriculum for preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34(10), 1019–1038.
California Department of Education. (1990). Science framework for California publicschools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientisttest. Science Education 67, 255–265.
Clark, L. (Producer), Collins, M. (Editor), & Moyers, B. (Host). (1989). Science andgender with Evelyn Fox Keller [Videotape]. Alexandria, VA: PBS Video.
Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (1998). The card exchange: Introducing the philosophy ofscience. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education(pp. 73–82). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneousclassroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Collins, H. & Pinch, T. (1993). The golem: What everyone should know aboutscience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Council for Environmental Education. (1992a). Project aquatic wild. Houston, TX:Author.
Council for Environmental Education. (1992b). Project wild. Houston, TX: Author.Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more
authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 35(5), 483–500.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications forpractice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientificknowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
282 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science.Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia, PA: OpenUniversity Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119–161). New York:MacMillan.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). In pursuit of teacher community.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (1993). The racial economy of science. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.
Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.
Hart, R. (1999). On the problem of Chinese science. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The ScienceStudies Reader (pp. 189–201). New York: Routledge.
Heller, H. C. (Ed.). (1999). Human biology: An interdisciplinary life sciencecurriculum for the middle grades. Chicago, IL: Everyday Learning.
Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education forsociopolitical action. Science Education, 83(6), 775–796.
Hubbard, R. (1990). The politics of women’s biology. New Brunswick, NY: RutgersUniversity Press.
Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity andcurriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426–440.
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. ScienceEducation, 82(3), 407–416.
Kass-Simon, G., & Farnes, P. (Eds.). (1990). Women of science: Righting the record.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Keller, E. F. (1977). The anomaly of a woman in physics. In S. Ruddick & P. Daniels(Eds.), Working it out (pp. 77–91). New York: Pantheon Books.
Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of BarbaraMcClintock. New York: Freeman.
Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations forstudying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in ScienceEducation, 28(1), 23–50.
Kipnis, N. (1998). A history of science approach to the nature of science: Learningscience by rediscovering it. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science inscience education (pp. 177–196). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachersin diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientificfacts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
283
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science:A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4),331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science andclassroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.
Lindee, M. S. (1994). American science and the survivors at Hiroshima. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Lynch, S. J. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Mayberry, M. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparativeroles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 443–459.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispellingthe myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education(pp. 53–70). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of thenature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature ofscience in science education (pp. 3–40). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international scienceeducation standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of sciencein science education (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.
McGinnis, J. R., & Pearsall, M. (1998). Teaching elementary science methods towomen: A male professor’s experience from two perspectives. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 35(8), 919–949.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1999). The nature of science and scientific knowledge: Implicationsfor a preservice elementary methods course. Science and Education, 8(3),273–286.
Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions ofthe nature of science. Science & Education, 6(4), 331–354.
Middlecamp, C. H. (1995). Culturally inclusive chemistry. In S. V. Rosser (Ed.),Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics,and engineering (pp. 79–97). New York: Teachers College Press.
Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implicationsof heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 35(2), 175–187.
National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature ofscience. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). From analysis to action: Undergraduateeducation in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: Report ofa convocation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.New York: Teachers College Press.
STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
284 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
Noffke, S. E. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of actionresearch. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 305–343). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Nott, M. & Wellington, J. (1994). Science teachers, the nature of science, and the NationalScience Curriculum. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Secondary science: Contemporaryand practical approaches (pp. 32 – 46). New York: Routledge.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1998). A program for developing understanding of thenature of science in teacher education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature ofscience in science education (pp. 293–314). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.
Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers’ views of the nature ofscience during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595–615.
Rahm, J., & Charbonneau, P. (1997). Probing stereotypes through students’ drawingsof scientists. American Journal of Physics, 65, 774–778.
Reiss, M. J. (1993). Science education for a pluralist society. Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
Richmond, G., Howes, E., Kurth, L, & Hazelwood, C. (1998). Connections and critique:Feminist pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 35(8), 897–918.
Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotransformativeconstructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and understanding.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 589–622.
Rosser, S. V. (1990). Female-friendly science. New York: Pergamon Press.Rosser, S. V. (1997). Re-engineering female friendly science. New York: Teachers
College Press.Rossiter, M. W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to
1940. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Rossiter, M. W. (1995). Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action,
1940–1972. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Roth, W. M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse
analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 145–180.
Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculumcomponent. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403–419.
Ruef, K. (1992). The private eye: Looking/thinking by analogy. Lyle, WA: ThePrivate Eye Project.
Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 2, 80–84.
Sands, A. (1993). Never meant to survive: A black woman’s journey—an interviewwith Evelynn Hammonds. In S. Harding (Ed.), The racial economy of science(pp. 239–248). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Schiebinger, L. L. (1989). The mind has no sex? Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education. Chicago: University
285
of Chicago Press.Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking
during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face ofscience that does not yet know.” Science Education, 80(5), 535–560.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education (3rd
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997).
How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response toAlters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101–1104.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: Internationalperspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Southerland, S. A., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers’ views ofinclusive science teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, andknowledge. Science Education, 83(2), 131–150.
Spanier, B. (1997). Sexism and scientific research. National Forum, 77(2), 26–30.Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College.Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and
science education. Science Education, 74(4), 387–398.Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching sciences: the multicultural
question revisited. Science Education, 85(1), 35–49.Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.Weatherford, J. (1993). Early Andean experimental agriculture. In S. Harding (Ed.),
The racial economy of science (pp. 64–77). Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.
STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
286
App
endi
xN
OS
Idea
s an
d In
stru
ctio
nal S
trat
egie
s E
mpl
oyed
Acr
oss
N
atur
e of
Sci
ence
and
Met
hods
NO
S Id
ea
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
y B
rief
Des
crip
tion
NO
S Id
eas
and
Stra
tegi
es I
ndir
ectly
Tie
d to
Equ
ity
The
car
d ex
chan
ge
Eac
h st
uden
t tea
cher
sel
ecte
d 8
aspe
cts
of th
e na
ture
of
scie
nce
(fro
m a
pos
sibl
e 40
de
scri
ptio
ns)
he o
r sh
e th
ough
t mos
t im
port
ant t
o co
nvey
to s
tude
nts.
Stu
dent
teac
hers
nex
t w
orke
d in
pai
rs to
red
uce
thei
r 16
sta
tem
ents
to 8
. Fin
ally
, all
cam
e to
geth
er to
sel
ect a
cla
ss
set o
f 8
impo
rtan
t nos
tene
ts (
see
Cob
ern
& L
ovin
g, 1
998)
.
Nat
ure
of s
cien
ce p
rofi
le
Stud
ent t
each
ers
wer
e as
ked
to a
nsw
er a
long
list
of
ques
tions
abo
ut th
eir
imag
e of
sci
ence
. T
heir
res
ultin
g pr
ofile
s w
ere
used
to h
elp
them
thin
k, le
arn,
and
ref
lect
on
the
natu
re o
f sc
ienc
e (s
ee N
ott &
Wel
lingt
on, 1
994)
.
Stud
ent t
each
ers’
un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e N
OS
Cri
tical
inci
dent
s St
uden
t tea
cher
s ex
plor
ed th
eir i
mpl
icit
view
s of
the
nos
by e
xpla
inin
g ho
w th
ey w
ould
resp
ond
to c
lass
room
sce
nari
os. I
ncid
ents
wer
e ba
sed
on th
e ex
peri
ence
s of
pra
ctic
ing
teac
hers
—so
me
invo
lvin
g pr
actic
al w
ork
and
som
e, s
tude
nt d
iscu
ssio
n (s
ee N
ott &
Wel
lingt
on, 1
998)
.
Acc
epte
d N
OS
tene
ts
Wha
t is
scie
nce?
Jig
saw
ac
tivity
Stud
ent t
each
ers
syst
emat
ical
ly c
ompa
red
NO
S te
nets
rec
omm
ende
d in
thre
e re
form
do
cum
ents
: Sci
ence
for
All
Am
eric
ans
(AA
AS,
198
9), S
cien
ce F
ram
ewor
k (C
alif
orni
a D
epar
tmen
t of
Edu
catio
n, 1
990)
, and
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Edu
catio
n St
anda
rds
(NR
C, 1
996)
.
NO
S Id
eas
and
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
ies
Tie
d to
Equ
ity
Who
are
sci
entis
ts?
Lif
e as
a s
cien
tist g
raph
St
uden
t tea
cher
s cre
ated
gra
phs o
f the
ir lif
e ex
perie
nces
rela
ted
to sc
ienc
e bo
th in
and
out
of s
choo
l. Th
e gr
aphs
ext
ende
d fro
m k
inde
rgar
ten
thro
ugh
colle
ge to
the
pres
ent a
nd h
ighl
ight
ed sp
ecifi
c po
sitiv
e,
nega
tive,
and
neu
tral e
xper
ienc
es. E
ach
stud
ent t
each
er p
rese
nted
her
or h
is g
raph
to th
e cl
ass.
BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
287STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
App
endi
x (c
onti
nued
)
NO
S Id
ea
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
y B
rief
Des
crip
tion
NO
S Id
eas
and
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
ies
Tie
d to
Equ
ity
(con
tinu
ed)
Qua
liti
es o
f sc
ient
ific
pe
ople
s St
uden
t tea
cher
s dr
ew p
ictu
res
of a
typi
cal s
cien
tist
(C
ham
bers
, 198
3), d
iscu
ssed
com
mon
st
ereo
type
s of
sci
enti
sts,
exa
min
ed s
cien
ce m
agaz
ines
for
imag
es o
f sc
ient
ists
con
veye
d, a
nd
list
ed c
hara
cter
isti
cs o
f sc
ient
ists
impo
rtan
t to
conv
ey to
all
stu
dent
s. T
hey
com
pare
d th
ese
imag
es a
nd li
sts
to K
elle
r’s
(198
3) d
escr
ipti
on o
f B
arba
ra M
cCli
ntoc
k.
How
man
y sc
ient
ists
can
yo
u na
me?
E
ach
stud
ent t
each
er li
sted
the
nam
es o
f as
man
y sc
ient
ists
as
he o
r sh
e co
uld
rem
embe
r.
The
y ex
amin
ed th
eir
list
s by
gen
der
and
ethn
icit
y an
d th
en d
iscu
ssed
rea
sons
the
cont
ribu
tion
s of
wom
en a
nd e
thni
c m
inor
itie
s ar
e ra
rely
pre
sent
ed in
sci
ence
cla
ssro
oms.
New
ton
jigs
aw
Eac
h sm
all g
roup
rea
d on
e of
fiv
e de
scri
ptio
ns o
f N
ewto
n’s
wor
k. T
hey
answ
ered
sev
eral
qu
esti
ons:
Who
was
New
ton?
How
did
he
“do
scie
nce”
? H
ow w
as h
e in
flue
nced
by
his
soci
al
and
cult
ural
con
text
s? W
ere
any
of N
ewto
n’s
pred
eces
sors
, con
tem
pora
ries
, or
foll
ower
s w
omen
? pe
rson
s of
col
or?
The
y th
en d
iscu
ssed
the
kind
s of
sci
ence
“st
orie
s” th
at m
ight
in
tere
st a
nd e
ngag
e al
l stu
dent
s in
sci
ence
.
Who
are
sci
enti
sts?
(c
onti
nued
)
Gen
der
and
scie
nce
vide
o St
uden
t tea
cher
s fi
rst w
atch
ed a
nd th
en d
iscu
ssed
a v
ideo
of
Bil
l Moy
ers
inte
rvie
win
g fe
min
ist h
isto
rian
of
scie
nce,
Eve
lyn
Fox
Kel
ler.
Kel
ler
pres
ente
d he
r vi
ews
on th
e in
ters
ecti
on o
f ge
nder
and
sci
ence
(C
lark
, Col
lins
, & M
oyer
s, 1
989)
.
How
is s
cien
ce p
ract
iced
? In
trod
ucto
ry a
ctiv
ity:
C
ateg
orie
s In
this
intr
oduc
tory
act
ivit
y (M
iddl
ecam
p, 1
995)
, stu
dent
teac
hers
pos
ed q
uest
ions
to s
ort
thei
r cl
assm
ates
into
var
ious
cat
egor
ies.
The
y th
en d
iscu
ssed
how
sci
ence
em
ploy
s ca
tego
ries
to
org
aniz
e in
form
atio
n an
d ho
w s
uch
cate
gori
es c
onst
rain
the
kind
s of
fac
ts a
nd th
eori
es
scie
ntis
ts c
onst
ruct
.
288 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
App
endi
x (c
onti
nued
)
NO
S Id
ea
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
y B
rief
Des
crip
tion
NO
S Id
eas
and
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
ies
Tie
d to
Equ
ity
(con
tinu
ed)
How
is s
cien
ce p
ract
iced
? (c
onti
nued
) T
he “
chec
k” a
ctiv
ity
Stud
ent t
each
ers
com
plet
ed a
“ch
eck”
act
ivit
y to
dem
onst
rate
that
sci
enti
fic
know
ledg
e is
so
cial
ly n
egot
iate
d an
d th
at id
eas
chan
ge o
ver
tim
e as
mor
e da
ta a
re p
rese
nted
. Eac
h of
gro
up
of s
tude
nt te
ache
rs w
ere
give
n a
set o
f ch
ecks
wri
tten
by
a fi
ctio
nal f
amil
y ov
er a
per
iod
of
20 y
ears
. Eac
h gr
oup
had
the
sam
e nu
mbe
r (n
ine)
of
chec
ks, b
ut a
uni
que
sam
plin
g of
them
. A
s gr
oups
exa
min
ed th
eir
chec
ks o
ne b
y on
e, th
ey c
onst
ruct
ed a
nd r
evis
ed th
is f
amil
y’s
life
st
ory.
Onc
e co
mpl
ete,
gro
ups
shar
ed th
eir
stor
ies
wit
h on
e an
othe
r an
d di
scus
sed
how
this
ac
tivi
ty s
hed
ligh
t on
the
soci
al n
atur
e of
sci
ence
.
Cur
rent
eve
nt
pres
enta
tion
s E
ach
stud
ent t
each
er w
as a
sked
to f
ind
and
pres
ent a
new
spap
er o
r m
agaz
ine
arti
cle
that
ex
plor
ed th
e re
lati
onsh
ip a
mon
g sc
ienc
e, te
chno
logy
, and
soc
iety
. The
y an
swer
ed th
e fo
llow
ing
ques
tion
s: H
ow is
the
rela
tion
ship
bet
wee
n sc
ienc
e an
d so
ciet
y de
scri
bed?
Do
you
agre
e w
ith
this
des
crip
tion
? E
xpla
in. H
ow m
ight
this
art
icle
be
used
in a
hig
h sc
hool
sci
ence
co
urse
?
Fiel
d tr
ip to
bre
ast i
mpl
ant
man
ufac
ture
r
Stud
ent t
each
ers
trav
eled
to a
loca
l bre
ast i
mpl
ant m
anuf
actu
ring
pla
nt. T
hey
disc
usse
d w
ith
the
com
pany
’s p
resi
dent
res
earc
h on
bre
ast i
mpl
ants
in w
omen
and
the
inte
rsec
tion
of
soci
ety,
sci
enti
fic
rese
arch
, and
tech
nolo
gy.
Scie
nce
as in
flue
ncin
g an
d in
flue
nced
by
cont
ext
Scie
nce
as m
ulti
cult
ural
co
ntin
uum
St
uden
t tea
cher
s w
ere
aske
d to
pla
ce th
emse
lves
on
a co
ntin
uum
that
spa
nned
con
serv
ativ
e to
lib
eral
pos
ition
s ta
ken
by s
cien
ce e
duca
tors
in d
ebat
es o
ver t
he m
ultic
ultu
ral s
tatu
s of
sci
ence
. T
hey
wer
e th
en g
roup
ed a
ccor
ding
to th
eir p
ositi
ons.
Onc
e fo
rmed
, eac
h gr
oup
wor
ked
to d
evis
e a
ratio
nale
and
to p
rese
nt it
s ar
gum
ents
to th
e cl
ass.
The
act
ivity
con
clud
ed w
ith a
who
le c
lass
di
scus
sion
on
how
sci
ence
can
be
mad
e m
ore
incl
usiv
e (a
dapt
ed fr
om a
col
leag
ue, J
enif
er
Hel
ms,
and
loos
ely
base
d on
Ban
ks’ [
1994
] fou
r lev
els
of m
ultic
ultu
ral e
duca
tion)
.
289
App
endi
x (c
onti
nued
)
NO
S Id
ea
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
y B
rief
Des
crip
tion
NO
S Id
eas
and
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
ies
Tie
d to
Equ
ity
(con
tinu
ed)
Scie
nce
as in
flue
ncin
g an
d in
flue
nced
by
cont
ext
(con
tinu
ed)
Cre
ativ
e sc
ript
ing
(Rea
ders
thea
ter)
St
uden
t tea
cher
s us
ed c
reat
ive
scrip
ting
to e
xpre
ss th
eir v
iew
s on
the
bom
bing
of J
apan
dur
ing
WW
II a
fter r
eadi
ng L
inde
e’s
(199
4) d
iscu
ssio
n of
rese
arch
on
Japa
nese
ato
mic
bom
b su
rviv
ors.
G
roup
s be
gan
by c
reat
ing
a sc
ript u
sing
a c
olle
ctio
n of
sta
tem
ents
, quo
tes,
poe
ms,
sho
rt st
orie
s, a
nd
fact
s fr
om b
oth
orig
inal
and
pub
lishe
d w
ork.
Eac
h gr
oup
then
read
its
scrip
t with
out u
se o
f cos
tum
e,
prop
s, o
r set
s. W
ords
or s
ente
nces
wer
e re
ad e
ither
indi
vidu
ally
or i
n un
ison
(see
Hel
ler,
1999
).
Equ
itab
le I
nstr
ucti
onal
Str
ateg
ies
Not
Tie
d to
NO
S
Gro
upw
ork:
Ski
llbu
ilde
rs,
norm
s, a
nd r
oles
St
uden
t tea
cher
s w
ere
intr
oduc
ed to
the
Com
plex
Ins
truc
tion
mod
el (
Coh
en, 1
994)
of
grou
pwor
k de
sign
ed to
add
ress
issu
es o
f eq
uity
and
acc
ess
in th
e sc
ienc
e cl
assr
oom
. The
y en
gage
d in
ski
llbu
ilde
r ac
tivi
ties
; dis
cuss
ed c
lass
room
nor
ms;
and
pra
ctic
ed th
e so
cial
rol
es
of f
acil
itat
or, m
ater
ials
man
ager
, har
mon
izer
, rep
orte
r, a
nd r
ecor
der.
Indi
vidu
al, g
roup
, and
w
hole
cla
ss a
ctiv
itie
s St
uden
t tea
cher
s pa
rtic
ipat
ed in
thre
e ac
tivi
ties
des
igne
d to
pus
h th
eir
thin
king
abo
ut w
ays
to
crea
te e
ffec
tive
lear
ning
opp
ortu
niti
es f
or a
ll s
tude
nts.
The
fir
st a
ctiv
ity,
the
Leg
o de
sign
, w
as c
ompl
eted
indi
vidu
ally
; the
sec
ond,
bui
ldin
g a
stra
w to
wer
, was
com
plet
ed in
pai
rs; a
nd
the
thir
d, th
e w
ater
bal
loon
laun
ch, w
as c
ompl
eted
by
the
who
le c
lass
. Aft
er e
ach,
stu
dent
te
ache
rs r
efle
cted
upo
n th
e ac
tivi
ty’s
adv
anta
ges
and
disa
dvan
tage
s an
d id
enti
fied
type
s of
ac
com
mod
atio
ns f
or s
tude
nts
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds.
STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS
290 BIANCHINI, CAVAZOS, & RIVAS
App
endi
x (c
onti
nued
)
NO
S Id
ea
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
y B
rief
Des
crip
tion
Equ
itab
le I
nstr
ucti
onal
Str
ateg
ies
Not
Tie
d to
NO
S (c
onti
nued
)
Inst
ruct
iona
l mod
els
to
enga
ge a
nd s
uppo
rt a
ll
stud
ents
Stud
ent t
each
ers
wer
e in
trod
uced
to a
ran
ge o
f in
stru
ctio
nal m
odel
s: f
emal
e-fr
iend
ly,
equi
tabl
e an
d in
clus
ive,
and
libe
rato
ry. T
hey
read
“T
owar
d In
clus
iona
ry M
etho
ds”
from
R
osse
r’s
(199
0) b
ook,
Fem
ale
Fri
endl
y Sc
ienc
e. T
hey
then
exa
min
ed a
list
of
incl
usiv
e st
rate
gies
, hig
hlig
hted
thos
e th
at r
eson
ated
wit
h th
em, a
nd c
ompa
red
thei
r pr
efer
ence
s by
ge
nder
and
eth
nici
ty. F
inal
ly, t
hey
exam
ined
The
Pri
vate
Eye
cur
ricu
lum
(R
uef,
199
2). a
nd
com
plet
ed a
ctiv
itie
s de
sign
ed to
rec
ogni
ze th
e id
eas
and
tale
nts
of a
ll s
tude
nts.
Tea
chin
g in
the
outd
oors
: P
roje
ct W
ild,
and
Pro
ject
Aqu
atic
Wil
d
Stud
ent t
each
ers
exam
ined
Pro
ject
Wil
d (C
ounc
il f
or E
nvir
onm
enta
l Edu
cati
on, 1
992b
) an
d P
roje
ct A
quat
ic W
ild
(Cou
ncil
for
Env
iron
men
tal E
duca
tion
, 199
2a),
two
curr
icul
a th
at
enco
urag
e st
uden
ts to
inve
stig
ate
envi
ronm
enta
l iss
ues.
The
y pa
rtic
ipat
ed in
sev
eral
act
ivit
ies
and
cons
ider
ed w
ays
they
cou
ld u
se th
ese
acti
viti
es in
a p
ubli
c sc
hool
set
ting
. In
addi
tion,
they
dis
cuss
ed h
ow th
ese
curr
icul
a m
ight
eng
age
and
supp
ort a
ll st
uden
ts in
lear
ning
.
Mul
tipl
e as
sess
men
ts f
or
all s
tude
nts
Stud
ent t
each
ers
exam
ined
3 s
ets
of a
sses
smen
ts g
iven
to s
econ
dary
sci
ence
stu
dent
s. T
hey
anal
yzed
eac
h se
t to
dete
rmin
e w
hat c
ould
be
lear
ned
abou
t stu
dent
s’ u
nder
stan
ding
; wha
t w
ere
the
bene
fits
of
each
type
of
asse
ssm
ent;
and
wha
t mod
ific
atio
ns a
spe
cial
nee
ds s
tude
nt
mig
ht r
equi
re. S
tude
nt te
ache
rs a
lso
disc
usse
d ad
diti
onal
alt
erna
tive
ass
essm
ents
and
the
chal
leng
es o
f as
sess
ing
lear
ning
for
a r
ange
of
stud
ents
.
Perf
orm
ance
ass
essm
ents
T
he st
uden
t tea
cher
s com
plet
ed th
e st
ate-
requ
ired
DM
V li
cens
ure
test
and
dis
cuss
ed w
hat t
his p
aper
-an
d-pe
ncil
test
dem
onst
rate
s abo
ut th
eir d
rivin
g ab
ility
. The
y th
en c
ompl
eted
a se
ries o
f han
ds-o
n ta
sks
to a
sses
s the
ir ab
ility
to p
erfo
rm sp
ecifi
c sc
ienc
e sk
ills (
mas
s of a
n ob
ject
, vol
ume
of re
gula
r and
irre
gula
r ob
ject
s, an
d a
wet
mou
nt).
The
ir fin
al ta
sk w
as to
com
plet
e a
high
scho
ol p
hysi
cs p
erfo
rman
ce
asse
ssm
ent o
n flu
ids.