Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 327–334 | Cite as

Re-envisioning scientific literacy as relational, participatory thinking and doing

  • Amy Trauth-Nare
Forum
First Online:

Abstract

This review explores Michelle Hollingsworth Koomen’s “Inclusive science education: Learning from Wizard,” a case study of a middle school student with learning exceptionalities in a mainstream science classroom. The strength of Koomen’s work lies in her elucidation of the ways in which normative science instruction fails to adequately support Wizard’s learning. His classroom experiences position him, if unintentionally, as deficient and incapable, which in turn serves to undermine his ability to fully engage in science or to capitalize on his strengths as a learner in the service of developing disciplinary literacy. I extend this conversation by arguing for a broader view of scientific literacy and the need for a more relational pedagogy in classrooms that supports meaningful and productive engagement in science learning and fosters positive identification with science.

Keywords

Scientific literacy Relational pedagogy Student identity Equity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bingham, C., & Sidorkin, A. (2004). No education without relation. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802. doi: 10.1002/sce.20069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, B. A., & Sprang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92, 708–732. doi: 10.1002/sce.20251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–484. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.Google Scholar
  7. Gee, J. P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based perspective on assessment. Assessment in Education, 10(1), 27–46. doi: 10.1080/0969594032000085730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanrahan, M. U. (2005). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in classrooms. Science Education, 90, 8–43. doi: 10.1002/sce.20087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2015). Distinguishing models of professional development: The case of an adaptive model’s impact on teachers’ knowledge, instruction, and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 51–67. doi: 10.1177/0022487114549599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Lemke, J. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 247–271. doi: 10.1016/S0898-5898(99)00009-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. doi: 10.1002/sce.10066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olitsky, S. (2006). Structure, agency, and the development of students’ identities as learners. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 1, 745–766. doi: 10.1007/s11422-006-9033-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463. doi: 10.1126/science.1182595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Quigley, C., Trauth-Nare, A., & Beeman-Cadwallader, N. (2015). The viability of portraiture for science education research: Learning from portraits of two science classrooms. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(1), 21–49. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2013.847507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reeves, J. (2009). Teacher investment in learner identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schnellert, L. M., Butler, D. L., & Higginson, S. K. (2008). Co-constructors of data, co-constructors of meaning: Teacher professional development in an age of accountability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 725–750. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritaitve and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631. doi: 10.1002/sce.20131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034004014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shanahan, M.-C. (2009). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 43–64. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidorkin, A. (2004). In the event of learning: Alienation and participative thinking in education. Educational Theory, 54(3), 251–262. doi: 10.1111/j.0013-2004.2004.00018.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses and the “Third Space”. Science Education, 88, 901–914. doi: 10.1002/sce.20024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options