Advertisement

Urban youths’ hybrid positioning in science practices at the margin: a look inside a school–museum–scientist partnership project and an after-school science program

  • Jrène Rahm
Article

Abstract

In what ways do urban youths’ hybridity constitute positioning and engagement in science-as-practice? In what ways are they “hybridizing” and hence surviving in a system that positions them as certain types of learners and within which they come to position themselves often as other than envisioned? To answer these questions, I draw from two ethnographic case studies, one a scientist–museum–school partnership initiative, and the other, an after-school science program for girls only, both serving poor, ethnically and linguistically diverse youth in Montreal, Canada. Through a study of the micro dialectics from the perspective of youth, I show what we can learn from examples of doing science in a formal and informal educational context supportive of marginalized science practices resembling in part, at least, science-as-practice. Through an integration of the findings with current discourses of relevance in science education such as funds of knowledge and youth centered, co-opted science, I contribute to the formulation of a global pedagogy of science education and in particular, what such may imply in the eyes of youth in French Canada.

Keywords

Hybrid identities Positioning Intercultural performances Science-as-practice Poor urban youth Qualitative case studies 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was made possible by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Supporting Montreal School Program and Minister of Education of Quebec. Discussions about some of the theoretical constructs with Jennifer Vadeboncoeur and feedback by Edna Tan and Angela Calabrese Barton greatly facilitated the writing. However, I bear responsibility for all content.

References

  1. ACFAS (2000). Avis sur La formation des enseignants en mathématiques et en science au primaire et au secondaire. Montréal, mars. Retrieved 22 October 2007, from http//:www.acfas.ca/maîtres/index.html.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. (2002). Whose scientific knowledge? The colonizer and the colonized. In W.-M. Roth & J. Désautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 151–166). New York: Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Baquedano-Lopez, P., Solis, J. L., & Kattan, S. (2005). Adaptation: The language of classroom learning. Linguistics and Education, 16, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barma, S., & Guilbert, L. (2006). Différentes visions de la culture scientifique et technologique: Défis et contraintes pour les enseignants. In A. Hasni, Y. Lenoir, & J. Lebeaume (Eds.), La formation à l’enseignement des sciences et des technologies au secondaire (pp. 11–39). Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  5. Bhabha, H. K. (1990). Interview with Homi Bhabha: The third space. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp. 207–221). London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  6. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, P., & Thésée, G. (2006). Race and identity in education in Québec. Directions, 3(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
  8. Conseil de la science et de la technologie du Québec (2004). La culture scientifique et technique: Une interface entre les sciences, la technologie et la société. Québec: Direction des communications du Conseil supérieur de l’éducation.Google Scholar
  9. Crossley, N. (2004). Key concepts in critical social theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Ghosh, R. (2004). Public education and multicultural policy in Canada: The special case of Quebec. International Review of Education, 50(5–6), 543–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh, R., & Abdi, A. A. (2004). Education and the politics of difference: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gonzàlez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Green, M. (1986). Landscapes and meanings. Language Arts, 63(8), 776–784.Google Scholar
  14. Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedeno-Lopez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 6, 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-Lopez, & Turner, M. G. (1997). Putting language back into language arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74, 368–378.Google Scholar
  16. Hammond, L. (2001). Notes from California: An anthropological approach to urban science education for language minority families. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 983–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin M. W., (Eds.) (1993). Identity and inner-city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins, E. (2006). The student voice and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 42, 49–88.Google Scholar
  20. Kostogriz, A. (2006). Putting ‘space’ on the agenda of sociocultural research. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 13(3), 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lam, W. S. E. (2006). Culture and learning in the context of globalization: Research directions. Review of Research in Education, 30, 213–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehner, E. (2007). Describing students of the African Diaspora: Understanding micro and meso level science learning as gateways to standards based discourse. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lenoir, Y. F., Larose, V., Grenon, & Hasni, A. (2000). La stratification des matières scolaires chez les enseignants du primaire au Québec: évolution ou stabilité des répresentations depuis 1981. Revue des sciences de l'éducation, XXVI(3), 483–514.Google Scholar
  24. McAndrew, M. (2001). Immigration et diversité à l’école. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  25. MEQ [Ministère de l’éducation du Québec] (2001). Programme de formation de l’école québécoise. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.Google Scholar
  26. Mo’je, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roth, M.-W. (in press). Bricolage, métissage, hybridity, heterogeneity, diaspora: Concepts for thinking science education in the 21st century. Cultural Studies of Science Education.Google Scholar
  28. Tippins, D. J., Hammond, L., & Hutchinson, C. B. (2006). International teachers negotiating 21st century science classrooms: A question of hybridized identities and pedagogical imaginaries. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vadeboncoeur, J. (2005). The difference that time and space make: An analysis of institutional and narrative landscapes. In J. A. Vadeboncoeur & L. P. Stevens (Eds.), Re/Constructing “the adolescent”: Sign, symbol, and body (pp. 123–152). New York: Lang.Google Scholar
  30. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Vianna, E., & Stetsenko, A. (2006). Embracing history through transforming it. Theory and Psychology, 16(1), 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de psychopédagogie et d’andragogieUniversité de Montréal MontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations