At the Intersection of Contemporary Descriptions of Science and Issues of Equity and Diversity:...

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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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).


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


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


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


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


?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:



STUDENT TEACHERS’ VIEWS


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.



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:



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


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



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 [email protected]. 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.



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.



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.


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


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

.


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.



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.

At the Intersection of Contemporary Descriptions of Science and Issues of Equity and Diversity:...

Documents

Transcript of At the Intersection of Contemporary Descriptions of Science and Issues of Equity and Diversity:...