Urban
youths’ science practices: Rethinking students’ narrative authority
Loaiza Ortiz
Doctoral Candidate
Urban
Department of Math, Science & Technology
Angela Calabrese Barton
Associate Professor of Science Education
Urban
Department of Math, Science & Technology
A paper presented at
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching annual meeting,
This research has been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (REC 0096032) and the Spencer Foundation. All ideas presented in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and not the NSF or the Spencer Foundation.
DRAFT! DRAFT! DRAFT! DRAFT! DRAFT! DRAFT!
Introduction: What do we mean when we talk about science practices?
“[L]earning does not take place only ‘between the ears’ but is eminently a social process” (González & Moll, 2002). Learning is bound by larger social, cultural, political, historical contexts and ideological frameworks; thus when we, as science educators, think about science teaching and learning, we ought to also think about how and why youth engage in science, beyond traditional academic goals. In the following section we outline our thinking around the construct of science practices, by drawing on the work in literacy studies around literacy practices and Calabrese Barton’s (2003) extension of that work in developing a framework for youths’ science practices, for understanding urban youth’s engagement and participation in science. By extending the traditional definitions of doing and learning science, we can begin to understand how youth use science and their reasons and motivations for doing so. Like Street (2001), whose research illuminates the “complexities of local, everyday, community literacy practices,” we want to make visible the complexities inherent in youths’ out-of-school science practices. By understanding youths’ science practices we hope to gain insight into what youth do with science and what science-related activities mean to youth? How does science fit into youths’ lives rather than the other way around? And finally, how do youth bring their science practices to bear on learning in science classrooms?
Literacy practices
Over the past 25, literacy theory years has widened the lens of what is considered literacy—both in and out of school and including events, practices, activities, ideologies, discourses and identities—and moved towards an understanding of literacy as a tool for specific purposes within specific contexts (Gee, 1996; Heath, 1983; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Street, 1984). Within the main theoretical perspectives in literacy studies we find the work out of the New Literacy Studies (NLS), with its emphasis on out-of-school literacies, to be most compelling and relevant to the ways in which we are trying to conceptualize youths’ engagement with science. The work in the NLS draws on understandings of literacies as multiple, socially, culturally and historically situated and an awareness of the connections between literacy, culture, identity and power. The notion of science practices emerges from this research in literacy studies, specifically in the research within the NLS. The parallels between literacy studies and science education may seem unobvious or even contrived at first, however traditional thinking about literacy as well as about science, is thinking about them as sets of skills possessed or lacked by individuals. Pardoe (2000) adds that both “face the challenge of studying practices and understandings that are already divided up into ‘right’ and ‘wrong’: science like literacy is usually seen as simply ‘right’ or ‘wrong’” (p.156).
Though Scribner & Cole (1981) were the first to use “practice” as a way to conceptualize literacy, they defined practice as “a recurrent, goal-directed sequence of activities using a particular technology and particular systems of knowledge” (p. 236). Their understandings of literacy practices place a greater focus on skill, technology, knowledge and patterned activity than the NLS do in their conceptualization of literacy practices. In our thinking on science practices we draw on the NLS’s definition of ‘practice’ because of its emphasis on ideology over technological and cognitive dimensions, however we are also influenced by Scribner & Cole’s (1981) emphasis on purpose—literacy as a socially organized practice “is not simply knowing how to read and write but applying this knowledge for specific purposes in specific contexts of use” (p.236). Interestingly school science knowledge and skills acquisition is rarely taught for more than “simply knowing” the content, rather than for a specific purpose. It follows that in order to understand the purposes and motivations behind youths’ engagement with/in science we need to understand the characteristics of youths’ science practices. Science learning is motivated by larger purposes and aims than the science itself.
A new way of thinking about the word “practice”
Just as use of the term literacy practices implies much more than just literacies, science practices encompass more than just science, by including the socially situated beliefs, values and purposes that shape how and why people engage with science. This focus on the purposes or motivations behind youths’ practices is particularly of interest because it emphasizes that “literacy is always about more than literacy” (Schultz & Hull, 2002); thus science “is always about more than” science. We borrow the word practice, and its implied meanings, deliberately in multiple ways: it implies the dynamic, lived experiences that constitute science in the lives of these youth; it implies purpose, strategic moves, adaptations, negotiations of contexts, relationships and resources. We do not mean ‘practice’ as it is used in the old saying, “practice makes perfect,” with its emphasis on repetition as tool for learning. Here ‘practice’ is used to “emphasize how actions are situated within a profession or community” as in an occupational practice or a community of scholars (Calabrese Barton, 2003). Using ‘practice’ in this way underscores how practices are shaped by social rules that regulate access to and interactions with science and who produces, learns and teaches science. Practices “straddle the distinction between individual and social worlds…existing in the relations between people, within groups and communities” (Barton & Hamilton, 2000). Practice refers to what kids actually do and what they think about what they do and why they do it. In her work with homeless youth Calabrese Barton (2003) has used this construct to help move the science education community beyond thinking about what youth learn and how they learn it, to understanding how and why youth engage in science. We want to extend that work in order to gain deeper understandings of youths’ everyday science practices and of how those practices are brought to bear in science classrooms.
What
are the constructs that make up youths’ science practices?
In order to operationalize science practices we have tried to identify some of the elements that, when taken together, make the notion of science practices more concrete (see Figure 1 below). In our work we conceptualize science practices as having three major components: discourses, science events/visible elements, and non-visible elements. We discuss each of these in the section that follows.
Figure 1. Elements of youths’ science practices
Discourses
Again, we draw on some of the work in literacy studies discussed above. An important part of science practices are the discourses that youth draw upon in their everyday and academic lives. Gee (1996) has defined “discourses,” as “ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are accepted as instantiations of particular roles (or ‘types of people’) by specific groups of people…always and everywhere social and products of social histories” (p. xx; emphasis in original). An important component of youths’ science practices is this “identity kit,” or group of behaviors, conventions, activities and beliefs, embedded in social hierarchies, reflective of the distribution of power, shaping how and why science is done/used/learned. Embedded within discourses are many of the forms of human, social and cultural capital that youth have access to and activate in order to engage and participate with/in science. In order to understand the capital that youth draw upon in their science practices we must look in the overlapping space between discourses and non-visible elements (see Figure 1 above).
Figure 1 shows the overlap between the discourses and the non-visible elements that make up youths’ science practices. Resources that youth draw upon to make sense of their everyday lives, like funds of knowledge, skills and social capital are also integral to making sense of and participating in science. It is important to note that the components of science practices as we have outlined in this section are not meant to be easily separated and thought of independent of one another, but are meant to be taken together, intertwined and overlapping. Non-visible elements are discussed below.
Non-visible elements
The non-visible elements of science practices are those that “can only be inferred from observable evidence,” including “hidden participants” who may be historically, culturally or socially involved in the event by not physically present (Hamilton, 2000). The other inferred elements are what Street (2001) refers to as embodiment of “folk models and beliefs,” including but not limited to resources like feelings, skills, knowledge, social purpose and values and understandings and ways of thinking, structures/rules that facilitate/regulate participation. As discussed in the above section on discourses, youths’ funds of knowledge and other sources of human, social and cultural capital are also integral pieces of their science practices.
Science events/visible elements
Another integral component of science practices are science events. Drawing on Heath’s (1982) writing on literacy events as occasions in which “a piece of writing is integral to the nature of participants’ interactions and their interpretive processes” (p.93), we can think about science events as being occasions when science plays a role in what people in particular time and place are doing, learning, and making sense of. Science events are the observable tasks and components that make up people’s engagement and participation with/in science. The visible, or as Street (2001) has called them, photographable, elements within science events include the participants, the context or setting, any artifacts used or produced during the events and the actions/activities performed by participants.
What kind of science can we expect to see in science events? We argue for a broad vision of what counts as science. A science event may occur around a piece of science writing, such as a textbook, an animal in a classroom or other obviously science-y objects like lab equipment or technology, but it can also be an instance related to cooking, watching a science fiction movie, or fixing a bicycle.
When thinking about how events arise from and are shaped by practices, it is important to keep in mind that “events are local activities whereas practices are more global patterns” (Hamilton, 2000). Hamilton (2000) reminds us that when we observe events or some other evidence of a practice, we are observing just a single, deceivingly static, point in time, that, as we must consciously remind ourselves, is a small piece of a dynamic, constantly changing practice.
Students’ narrative authority as a science practice
In this paper we highlight one science practice that concerns how, when and with whom youth choose to exert authority in the science classroom. In order to understand student authority as a science practice we should first take a step back and look at how authority has been documented in the education research literature. The kind of authority that has been described in educational research to date has been predominantly the traditional forms of positional and epistemological. Positional authority being that which a person is granted by virtue of his or her position within a particular social context, and epistemological being authority related to particular quality and quantity of knowledge possessed by a person. Youth, particularly minorities living in urban poverty, are rarely seen as being in positions, either social or epistemological, of authority. For this reason, we must think of youths’ authority as coming from a different place. There are a few researchers, particularly within the field of critical literacy studies, with interest in student authority and how it relates to the teacher’s authority, however that literature does not address the source of authority, i.e., what are youth drawing on to exert authority if not their social or epistemological positions? In order to make sense of this notion of student authority, its sources and manifestations, we drew on Olson’s (1995) concept of narrative authority. In the following section we briefly outline some of this literature around authority.
Epistemological and positional authority in education literature
Given that the prevalent forms of authority in education are based on teachers’ knowledge and position, these are the forms of authority addressed with most frequency and depth in the literature of research in education (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2001; Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv, Biran, & Sela, 2003; Ulrich, 1992). Munby and Russell (1994) call attention to “school's preoccupation with the authority of reason and of position [is such that it] can cause teachers and students to ignore a type of authority lying at the heart of action and performance: the authority of experience” (p.97). In this paper we take their assertion one step further: students, teachers and teacher educators effectively ignore the notion that students themselves have and enact authority in particular forms as well.
Scholars in critical literacy and writing studies like Albright (2000; 2002), Krämer-Dahl (2000) and Oyler (1996) take up this argument that students have and enact authority. Their work has contributed greatly to our understandings of how students and teachers perceive and chose to exert or not exert authority by examining instances of teachers explorations with pedagogical practices that cultivate student authority in reading and writing while limiting or sharing the teacher’s authority.
Narrative authority
Narrative authority is based on the argument that, “knowledge is personally and socially constructed and reconstructed in situations as people share their ideas and stories with others” (Olson, 1995). A narrative view of knowledge construction and authority is in direct contrast to how knowledge is constructed in epistemic/positional authority where knowledge transmission is hierarchical. All individuals possess narrative authority, which “forms, is informed and reformed through the continuous and interactive nature of experience” (p.123), making room for many “authoritative voices” and more than “one version of truth” (p.122).
Rethinking authority as a science practice
Understanding youth authority as a science practice is particularly compelling to us because of the sociocultural assumptions and deeply rooted beliefs about science as “truth” and scientists as authority figures. By associating science knowledge with authority and assuming urban youths’ science practices to be low-status or even non-existent, we move youth even further away from the possibility of being considered epistemological authorities in science. Thus if we understand youths’ enactment of authority, epistemological or positional, as a valuable science practice that can engage rather than alienate students in science class, we can facilitate their empowerment rather than marginalize urban youth with respect to science knowledge and participation. Once aware of these practices, teachers could utilize certain pedagogical strategies to both identify and explicitly draw on youths’ enactment of authority within science learning. Such strategies may include soliciting personal stories, making explicit connections between the investigation process and everyday problem-solving situations, and providing multiple examples of how investigations are used in both the scientific and non-scientific realm.
We have made two initial observations worth exploring in greater detail. First, in contrast to the more traditional forms of authority found in school (i.e., positional authority or the authority one has because of one’s role within the classroom, or epistemic authority, the authority one has because of what they know), youth often creatively draw upon nontraditional forms of social and human capital to gain authority in science class. For youth, this authority is narrative, in that youth are able to exert it by virtue of their experiences, not necessarily the possession of highly valued knowledge or their social position. However, though youths’ authority has its roots and initial manifestations in youths’ experiences, it often translates into some form of epistemic or positional authority depending on the context within which it was exerted. For example, a savvy student like Cristina, whom we highlight later in this paper, may draw upon her highly sophisticated social skills to exert authority and secure a highly coveted group of peers with which to work during a particular science project. However, once in that group, she may use her newfound positional authority to shape how and what science gets done.
Second, we have noticed that youths’ authority tends to be focused most towards one or more of the following goals: asserting home knowledge as a source of scientific evidence, promoting fairness in science class, strategic ways of negotiating teacher’s expectations and personal interests during science experimentation, gaining respect within social circles, and gaining freedom from stereotypes to their identities or ways of knowing in the classroom. Asserting authority in these ways has facilitated and constrained youths’ learning in science at different times. Given that high-poverty minority youth are often positioned as without authority in schooling and in life in general, recognizing when they choose to exert authority and for what reasons is particularly important because it helps us understand youths’ motivations and goals in school and in science, beyond traditional academic goals tied to grades and test scores. An emphasis on purposes and motivations, specifically tied to engagement and participation in science, is what drives our desire to understand youths’ science practices further. In the next section, we use data from a larger research project on the scientific literacy of urban youth that has been reanalyzed with a science practices lens to provide examples of instances in which youth exerted authority to meet one of these goals within the context of their science classrooms (Ortiz & Calabrese Barton, 2003).
We present the following examples, focused on asserting everyday knowledge as a source of scientific knowledge and asserting authority in strategic ways, for two important reasons: (1) they emphasize the goal-oriented motivations that are such an important part of youths’ science practices, and (2) they offer insight into how youths’ science practices play out in science classrooms.
Asserting everyday knowledge as a source of
scientific evidence
Cristina, the socially savvy seventh-grader with well-honed “debating” skills mentioned earlier, sometimes exerted narrative authority based on everyday experiences, in her science class in order to assert everyday knowledge as scientific. By drawing on everyday experiences as sources of valid scientific knowledge Cristina tried to assert herself as an epistemological authority in science. An example of Cristina’s efforts to make connections between everyday experiences and science content happened when her 6th grade class was learning about polymers and the properties of silicone. Attempting to bridge everyday and academic worlds, Cristina shared her knowledge about a popular singer who had silicon breast implants. Her teacher however, did not welcome her example and regarded it as deviating from the class’ discussion. He failed to see the relevance of her comment and rather than cultivate her interest he actively truncated the authority Cristina sought to exert in that moment.
Exerting authority in strategic ways
Youth also brought their science practices, particularly by exerting narrative authority, to bear on science learning in strategic ways in order to meet their personal goals within the constraints created by the more academic goals required by their teachers. As educators, especially in light of current educational legislation, we often focus much of our energy on the academic goals framed by high-stakes standardized tests and increased accountability for student achievement that we lose sight of the personal goals individual students have and are motivated to pursue in school and particularly in their science classes. What other goals do students have besides academic ones and how/when do they overlap with the goals of science education? Understanding how and why students exert authority in specific ways in order to meet personal goals in an important first step towards being able to integrate students’ individual goals with the often more academic goals of science teachers. We present examples of students strategically exerting their authority towards a science-related, though not necessarily an academic, goal in the section that follows.
Mariana, one of Cristina’s sixth-grade classmates, drew on her narrative authority in order to take active control over her own learning during one particular experiment her class did on making “goo.” The “goo” lab had been highly prescribed by her science teacher, Mr. Logan, and left little room for the students to experiment on their own. Mariana felt compelled to find a way to complete the tasks as required and address her own scientific interests and curiosity about the “goo”. By dividing up the materials given to her and setting aside a small amount of them for personal experimentation, Mariana was able to make two “goos.” She made one by following Mr. Logan’s instructions and another guided by her personal interests and creativity. In this case we are able to see not only how Mariana did science, by why she made the decisions she did about the experiment. Mariana knew that if she asked Mr. Logan to let her experiment with the materials on her own, that he would say no due to lack of materials, time and inclination, to let everyone experiment on their own; her goals as curious student did not mesh with his goals as science teacher in a large under-resourced public school. By understanding her engagement with science in terms of science practices, particularly as she exerted authority in order to do science on her own terms, we are able to see her actions as strategic not deviant, as students who chose paths not prescribed by their teachers often are.
In a similar example, Lara, a bright, friendly, fifth-grader, was labeled deviant by her teacher when attempting to meet personal and academic goals during a science activity in which the class made and ate salad using fruits and vegetables they’d brought from home. Lara had brought in a lime for her and her tablemates to enjoy with their salad. Lara explained to me (Loaiza) that they loved eating limes with vegetables at home and wanted to do it at school too. They followed instructions to cut the radishes they had brought in and took the opportunity to also cut their lime into wedges and proceeded to suck on them. By drawing on her standing as a “good” student in the class and on support from her peers, Lara was able to exert authority such that she could do what she had been told by the teacher (chop radishes) and do what she wanted to do (eat lime wedges). Their teacher, Mr. Reen, did not appreciate the girls’ actions and yelled at them several times that they should put away the lime. At one point Mr. Reen asked them why they’d brought it in when they had not been asked to do so. Knowing that they would not get in trouble because they were “good” students, Lara and her friends knew they could continue to defy Mr. Reem’s instructions and eat the limes with little fear of being reprimanded again. They seemed to understand that it would be more in their self-interest to appear to be following Mr. Reem’s instructions (yet continue to eat limes) than attempt to explain and have the lime taken away.
Another student in the class, who’s table was cutting apples, mentioned that he had heard that squirting lime juice on cut apples would keep them from getting brown. However, since an experiment with apples and limejuice was not on the agenda the opportunity to run with the students’ ideas was quickly lost. For various reasons, including difficulty with classroom management, Mr. Reen did not fully appreciate the relevance of Lara’s everyday experiences for her participation in science and the importance of the motivations behind her actions during science class. A broader understanding of Lara’s, and other students’ authority as one of their science practices, could help students make connections between their everyday lives and what goes on in science class, thus making room for more meaningful engagement and learning.
Implications: Why are science practices important for science education?
The predominantly held deficit model view of urban minority students’ knowledges and experiences as low-status facilitates and even encourages educational structures and pedagogical practices that are about replacing students’ existing practices rather than refining and adding to them. When everyday knowledges and science practices are central to students’ identities and functioning in other contexts replacing them does not cultivate youth empowerment because it only serves to marginalize them further. As science educators we are in positions to help youth make connections between the kinds of science and science practices that are meaningful to them and the kinds of science that is valued in schools and how the practices they value might be used to challenge assumptions about marginalized youths’ low-status science knowledge.
Science learning, as a product and a process, cannot be fully understood until we expand the borders of what we consider science learning to include youths’ science practices—the attitudes, values and beliefs that shape their engagement with science. If our goal is for all students to engage, participate, learn science, then we need to identify, acknowledge and find ways in which educators might integrate these practices into their pedagogy and curriculum development.