Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 73–103 | Cite as

Movement expressiveness, solidarity and the (re)shaping of African American students’ scientific identities

  • Rowhea Elmesky
  • Gale Seiler


Science educators have yet to identify ways to enable inner city African American high school students to experience success in science. In this paper, we argue that understanding the ways in which cultural practices from fields outside of school mediate what happens inside classrooms and contribute to the learning of students is crucial to addressing current disparities in science performance. Specifically, we explore the significance of movement expressiveness dispositions to the lives and the learning of economically disadvantaged African American youth. These particular dispositions have been repeatedly observed in our research, and they can be important resources for the creation of individual emotional energy, collective solidarity, and heightened engagement in learning activities since they provide resources for the (re)shaping of identity. Thus movement expressiveness dispositions hold potential for transforming the teaching and learning of these students.


African American students  Cultural dispositions  Movement expression Hybrid identities Creolized science 



The research described in this paper is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC-0107022. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We are grateful to Michael Roth and Ken Tobin for their extensive theoretical feedback, encouragement and patience during this process.


  1. Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Boykin, A. W. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American Children. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 57–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Boykin, A. W., & Cunningham, R. T. (2001). The effects of movement expressiveness in story content and learning context on the cognitive performance of African American children. The Journal of Negro Education, 70, 72–83.Google Scholar
  5. Carambo, C. (2005). Learning science and the centrality of student participation. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 165–180). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Elmesky, R., & Tobin, K. (2005). Expanding our understandings of urban science education by expanding the roles of students as researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 807–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19–25.Google Scholar
  11. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. LaVan, S. K., & Beers, J. (2005). The role of cogenerative dialogue in learning to teach, transforming learning environments. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 147–164). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  15. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  16. Noddings, N., & Shore, P. J. (1984). Awakening the inner eye: Intuition in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Noguera, P. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishments: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice, 42, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Office of Special Education Programs. (2003). Table AA15: Racial/ethnic composition (number and percentage) of students (ages 6–21) served by disability and state. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from
  19. Olitsky, S. (2005). Science learning, group membership, and identity in an urban middle school. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  20. Roth, W.-M. (2006). Making and remaking self in urban schooling: Identity as dialectic. In J. L. Kincheloe, K. Hayes, K. Rose, & P. M. Anderson (Eds.), The Praeger handbook of urban education (pp. 143–153). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  21. Roth, W-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  22. Roth, W.-M. (2007). Bricolage, métissage, hybridity, heterogeneity, diaspora: Concepts for thinking science education in the 21st century. Manuscript submitted to Cultural Studies of Science Education.Google Scholar
  23. Roth, W-M., & Tobin, K. (2007). Solidarity and conflict: Prosody as interactional resource in intra- and intercultural communication involving power differences. Manuscript submitted to American Journal of Sociology.Google Scholar
  24. Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1000–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seiler, G. (2005). All my life I been po’: Orality as a resource for science teaching and learning. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 113–130). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Seiler, G., & Elmesky, R. (2007). The role of communal practices in the generation of capital and emotional energy among urban African American students in science classrooms. Teachers College Record, 109, 391–419. Google Scholar
  27. Seiler, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 746–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sewell, W. H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell & L. Hunt (Eds.), Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture (pp. 35–61). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tobin, K. (2006). Aligning the cultures of teaching and learning science in urban high schools. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 219–252.Google Scholar
  32. Tobin, K., & Roth, W-M. (in press). In praise of heterogeneity. In A. Rodriguez (Ed.), The multiple faces of agency: Innovative strategies for effecting change in urban school contexts. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Watts, I. E., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 271–299.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations