Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 1223–1242 | Cite as

Co-constructing cultural landscapes for disciplinary learning in and out of school: the next generation science standards and learning progressions in action

  • Ralph A. Córdova
  • Phyllis Balcerzak
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The authors of this study are teacher-researchers, the first is a university researcher and former third and fourth grade teacher, while the second author is a university-based science educator. They report findings from a community-based study that Ralph, the first author, and his students conducted across two academic years (2001–2003) in order to illustrate the ways in which the next generation science standards and learning progressions can be appropriated as social-constructed practices inside and outside of school. The authors argue that what constitutes science learning in school is not a ‘state of grace’ dictated by standards. Rather, becoming a scientist within a community of learners is a cultural phenomenon that teachers and students co-construct and as such teachers can approach the next generation science standards and learning progressions as opportunities to create intentional, disciplinary practice-based learning communities inside and outside of school.

Keywords

NGSS Teacher research Interactional ethnography Classrooms as cultures Teaching scientific practices 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres(V. W. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson & M. Holmquist (Eds.), M.M. Bakhtin, speech genres and other late essays, (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2004). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bloome, D., & Theodorou, E. (1988). Analyzing teacher–student and student–student discourse. In J. Green & J. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 217–248). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  4. Córdova, R. (2008). Writing and painting our lives into being: Learning to see learning in the transformative spaces between school and home. Language Arts, 86(1), 18–27.Google Scholar
  5. Córdova, R., & Matthiesen, M. (2010). Reading, writing and mapping our worlds into Being: Shared inquiries into whose literacies count. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 452–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Córdova, R., Kumpulainen, K., & Hudson, J. (2012). Nurturing creativity and professional learning for 21st century education: Responsive design and the cultural landscapes collaboratory. Learning Landscapes, 6(1), 157–180.Google Scholar
  7. Córdova, R. A., Taylor, A., Hudson, J., Sellers, J., Pilgreen, J., Goetz, D., et al. (2014). Using responsive design as a shared approach to address the challenge of composing with digital tools. In R. Anderson & C. Mims (Eds.), Handbook of research on digital tools for writing instruction in K-12 settings (pp. 431–458). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  8. Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4(3–4), 269–293. doi: 10.1016/0898-5898(92)90004-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frake, C. R. (1977). Plying frames can be dangerous: Some reflections on methodology in cognitive anthropology. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development, 3, 1–7.Google Scholar
  10. Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for literacy educators: Research in the communicative and visual arts (pp. 181–202). NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  11. Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., & Zaharlick, A. (2003). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on the teaching of the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). Interactional sociolinguistics in the study of schooling. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The social construction of literacy (pp. 45–68). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511617454.004.Google Scholar
  13. Ivanic, R. (1994). I is for interpersonal: Discoursal construction of writer identities and the teaching of writing. Linguistics and Education, 6(1), 3–15. doi: 10.1016/08985898(94)90018-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching and Learning., 46(6), 675–698. doi: 10.1002/tea.20314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi: 10.1080/00405849209543534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. Putney, L. G., Green, J., Dixon, C., Durdn, R., & Yeager, B. (2000). Consequential progressions: Exploring collective-individual development in a bilingual classroom. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 86–126). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Reveles, J., Córdova, R., & Kelly, G. (2004). Science literacy and academic identity formulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1111–1144. doi: 10.1002/tea.20041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (Green, Dixon, Lin, Floriani, and Bradley). (1992). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate actions as social accomplishement. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 119–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1–98.Google Scholar
  21. Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: HarcourtBrace.Google Scholar
  22. Yeager, E., & Córdova, R. (2010). How knowledge counts: Families and their lived experiences as resources for academic and social action. In M. Dantas, & P. Manyak (Eds.), Home-school connections in a multicultural society: Learning from and with culturally and linguistically diverse families (pp. 218–236). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Yeager, B., Floriani, A., & Green, J. (1998). Learning to see learning in the classroom: Developing an ethnographic perspective. In A. Egan-Robertson & D. Bloome (Eds.), Students as researchers of culture and language in their own communities (pp. 115–139). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options