Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 275–298 | Cite as

SciJourn is magic: construction of a science journalism community of practice

  • Celeste R. Nicholas
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This article is the first to describe the discoursal construction of an adolescent community of practice (CoP) in a non-school setting. CoPs can provide optimal learning environments. The adolescent community centered around science journalism and positioned itself dichotomously in relationship to school literacy practices. The analysis focuses on recordings from a panel-style research interview from an early implementation of the Science Literacy Through Science Journalism (SciJourn) project. Researchers trained high school students participating in a youth development program to write science news articles. Students engaged in the authentic practices of professional science journalists, received feedback from a professional editor, and submitted articles for publication. I used a fine-grained critical discourse analysis of genre, discourse, and style to analyze student responses about differences between writing in SciJourn and in school. Students described themselves as agentic in SciJourn and passive in school, using an academic writing discourse of deficit to describe schooling experiences. They affiliated with and defined a SciJourn CoP, constructing positive journalistic identities therein. Educators are encouraged to develop similar CoPs. The discursive features presented may be used to monitor the development of communities of practice in a variety of settings.

Keywords

Critical discourse analysis Community of practice Hybridity Science literacy Writer identity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Clarke, M. (2009). The discursive construction of interpersonal relations in an online community of practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2333–2344. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Common Core State Standards. (2010). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/WHST/6-8/.
  3. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. doi: 10.1108/17504971311312636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Farrar, C. (2012). Assessing the impact participation in science journalism activities has on scientific literacy among high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from https://apps.umsl.edu/webapps/weboffice/ETD/query.cfm?id=r7382.
  6. Fernsten, L. (2005). Discourse and difference. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9, 371–387. doi: 10.1080/13603110500147138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th anniversary edition. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.) (30th anniversary edition.). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A tool kit. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Hanrahan, M. U. (2004). Power-sharing in science classrooms: Utilising CDA for research in science education. In Jeffrey, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian association for research in education annual conference (pp. 1–22). Melbourne, AU: Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2004/han04209.pdf.
  10. King, B. (2014). Tracing the emergence of a community of practice: Beyond presupposition in sociolinguistic research. Language in Society, 43, 61–81. doi: 10.1017/S0047404513000870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kohnen, A. (2013). “I wouldn’t have said it that way”: Mediating professional editorial comments in a secondary school science classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(2), 75–85. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2012.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. Lillis, T. M. (2009). Bringing writers’ voices to writing research: Talk around texts. In A. Carter, T. M. Lillis, S. Parkin, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Why writing matters: Issues of access and identity in writing research and pedagogy (pp. 169–187). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub Co. doi: 10.1075/swll.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norris, S. (2002). The implication for visual research for discourse analysis: Transcription beyond language. Visual Communication, 1, 97–121. doi: 10.1177/147035720200100108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Ochs, E. (1999). Transcription as theory. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 167–182). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Polman, J. L., & Hope, J. M. G. (2014). Science news stories as boundary objects affecting engagement with science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 315–341. doi: 10.1002/tea.21144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Polman, J. L., Newman, A., Saul, E. W., & Farrar, C. (2014). Adapting practices of science journalism to foster science literacy. Science Education, 98, 766–791. doi: 10.1002/sce.21114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pomerantz, A. (2000). Interviews and identity: A critical discourse perspective. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 16, 25–37.Google Scholar
  22. Puvirajah, A., Verma, G., & Webb, H. (2012). Examining the mediation of power in a collaborative community: Engaging in informal science as authentic practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 375–408. doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9394-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rogers, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, R., & Schaenen, I. (2013). Critical discourse analysis in literacy education: A review of the Literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 121–143. doi: 10.1002/rrq.61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogers, R., & Wetzel, M. M. (2014). Designing critical literacy education through critical discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Rowe, S. (2011). Discourse in activity and activity as discourse (revised). In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed., pp. 227–241). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saul, W., Kohnen, A., Newman, A., & Pearce, L. (2012). Front-page science: Engaging teens in science literacy. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association - NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  29. SciJourner. (2014). SciJourner homepage. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.SciJourner.org/.
  30. UMSL College of Education. (2008). Science literacy through science journalism. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://coe.umsl.edu/w2/initiatives/SciJourn%20Web/projects.html.
  31. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options