Science & Education

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 533–552 | Cite as

Cortes' Multicultural Empowerment Model and¯Generative Teaching and Learning in Science

  • Cathleen C. Loving


Using Cortes' Multicultural Empowerment Model as a guide, and a moderate rational, realist philosophical framework (somewhat broadened by a postmodern perspective), I adapt the Cortes' model to science teaching and to Wittrock's Model of Generative Learning and Teaching in science. My goal is to develop and demonstrate a balanced “multicultural” approach to teaching children of different ethnic cultures about the nature of science – one that both values and teaches their cultures and beliefs, while moving them towards important mainstream notions of good science. I justify the Cortes model by comparing it to other major multicultural approaches. I then interweave Cortes' notion of multicultural empowerment with Wittrock's generative attributes, using a lesson about plants as an example. The intent is to succeed not only in having all children learn science, but also learn about science.


Science Teaching Generative Attribute Generative Teaching Good Science Generative Learn 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, H.H. III.: 1990, African-American Baseline Essays — Science Baseline Essay: African and African-American Contributions to Science and Technology, Multnomah School District, Portland Public Schools. Portland Oregon.Google Scholar
  3. Banks, J.A.: 1993, ‘The Canon Debate, Knowledge Construction and Multicultural Education’, Educational Researcher 22(5), 4–14.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, A.: 1987, The Closing of the American Mind, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E. & Unger, C.: 1989, ‘“An Experiment is When You Try It and See II It Works”: A Study of Grade 7 Students' Understanding of the Construction of Scientific Knowledge’, International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514–529.Google Scholar
  6. Cobern, W.W.: 1991, ‘World View Theory and Science Education Research’, NARST Monograph No. 3, National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  7. Cortes, C.E.: 1990a, ‘E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One’, Calfornia Perspectives: An Anthology From the Immigrant Students Project Vol. 1, California Tomorrow, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  8. Cortes, C.E.: 1990b, ‘A Curricular Basic for our Multicultural Future’, Doubts and Certainties: Newsletter of the NEA Mastery in Learning Project, IV(7/8), 1–5.Google Scholar
  9. Cortes, C.E.: 1993, ‘Acculturation, Assimilation, and “Adducation”’, BEO Outreach, March, 3–5.Google Scholar
  10. Cortes, C.E.: 1994, ‘Limits to “Pluribus” Limits to “Unum”: Unity, Diversity and the Great American Balancing Act’, National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi, 74(1), 6–8.Google Scholar
  11. Cosgrove, M. & Osborne, R.: 1985, ‘Lesson Frameworks for Changing Children's Ideas’, in R. Osborne & P. Freyburg (eds.), Learning in Science: The Implications of Children's Science, Heinemann Press: Auckland, pp. 101–111.Google Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L.: 1994, ‘Standards for Teachers’ (34th Charles W. Hunt Memorial Lecture), February 17, Chicago, IL, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. DePalma, A.: 1990, ‘The Culture Question’, New York Times Education Life, November 4, IV-A, 22–23.Google Scholar
  14. Fee, E.: 1987, ‘Is Feminism a Threat to Scientific Objectivity?’, Journal of College Science Teaching XI(2), 84–94.Google Scholar
  15. Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (eds.): 1994, The Content of Science: A Constructiv ist Approach to its Teaching and Learning, Falmer Press, London.Google Scholar
  16. Glasersfeld, E. von: 1992, ‘Questions and Answers About Radical Constructivism’, in M.K. Pearsall (ed.), Scope, Sequence and Coordination of Secondary School Science: Relevant Research, Vol 11, National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), Washington, DC, pp. 169–182.Google Scholar
  17. Gross, P.R. & Levitt, N.: 1994, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  18. Harding, S. & O'Barr, J.F.: 1987, Sex and Scientific Inquiry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Harding, S.: 1991, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking From Women's Lives, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  20. Hazen, R.M. & Trefil, J.: 1990, Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy, Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Hirsch, E.D. Jr.: 1987, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  22. Hooks, B.: 1992, ‘Columbus: Gone But Not Forgotten’, Z Magazine, December, 25–28.Google Scholar
  23. Klapper, M.H.: 1994, ‘Education Standards: A Conference Issue’, COGNOSOS, 3(1), Winter, National Center for Science Teaching and Learning (NCSTL), Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M.: 1988, The Development of Scientific Thinking Skills, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, T.S.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (second edition), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Loving, C.C.: 1991, ‘The Scientific Theory Profile: A Philosophy of Science Model for Science Teachers’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 823–838.Google Scholar
  27. Loving, C.C.: 1993, ‘From Constructive Realism to Deconstructive Anti-Realism: Helping Science Teachers Find a Balanced Philosophy of Science’, in: S. Hills (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching, Vol. II. Kingston, Ontario: Queens University.Google Scholar
  28. Loving, C.C.: 1995, ‘Comment on “Multiculturalism, Universalism, and Science Education”’, Science Education, 79(3), 341–348.Google Scholar
  29. Matthews, M.R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  30. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): 1995, Understanding Racial-Ethnic Differences in Secondary School Science and Mathematics Achievement, February, U.S. Department of Education Office of Research and Improvement (OERI), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council (NRC): 1995, National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. Ortiz de Montellano, B.: 1991, ‘Multicultural Pseudoscience: Spreading Scientific Illiteracy Among Minorities: Part I’, Skeptical Inquirer, 46–50.Google Scholar
  33. Ortiz de Montellano, B.: 1992a, ‘Avoiding Egyptocentric Pseudoscience: Colleges Must Help Set Standards For Schools’, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 25, B1–2.Google Scholar
  34. Ortiz de Montellano, B.: 1992b, Aztec Medicine, Nutrition, and Health, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  35. Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M.C.: 1983, ‘Learning Science: A Generative Process’, Science Education, 64(4), 489–508.Google Scholar
  36. Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M.C.: 1985, ‘The Generative Learning Model and its Implications for Science Education’, Studies in Science Education, 12, 59–87.Google Scholar
  37. Paley, V.G.: 1995, Kwanzaa and Me. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Pearson, W. Jr. & Fechter, A. (eds.): 1994, Who Will Do Science? Educating the Next Generation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  39. Pomeroy, D.: 1993, ‘Implications of Teachers' Beliefs About the Nature of Science: Comparisons of the Beliefs of Scientists, Secondary Science Teachers, and Elementary Teachers’, Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.Google Scholar
  40. Ravitch, D. & Finn, C.E. Jr.: 1987, What do Our 17-year Olds Know? A Report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Rorty, R.: 1989, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Rorty, R.: 1991, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Rorty, R.: 1994, ‘The Unpatriotic Academy’, New York Times, February 13, E15.Google Scholar
  44. Rutherford, F.J. & Ahlgren, A.: 1990. Science for all Americans, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Samarapungavan, A.: 1992, ‘Childrens' Judgements in Theory Choice Tasks: Scientific Rationality in Childhood’, Cognition, 45(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  46. Schaverien, L. & Cosgrove, M.: 1996, ‘A Biological Basis for Generative Learning in Science’, July, Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Association, University of Canberra, Canberra, AU.Google Scholar
  47. Sims, C.: 1990, ‘World Views’, New York Times Education Life, November, 4, IV-A, 23–24.Google Scholar
  48. Sokal, A.: 1996a, ‘A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies’, Lingua Franca, May/June, 62–64.Google Scholar
  49. Sokal, A., 1996b, ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermencuties of Quantum Gravity’. Social Text, 46/47, 217–251.Google Scholar
  50. Sommers, C.H.: 1995, ‘The Flight From Science and Reason’, Wall Street Journal, July 10, A12.Google Scholar
  51. Van Sertima, I.: 1984. Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  52. Weiss, I.R.: 1994, A Profile of Science and Mathematics Education in the United States: 1993, Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  53. Wilkerson, I.: 1990, ‘Blacks Look to Basics’, New York Times Education Life, November 4, IV-A, 26.Google Scholar
  54. Wittrock, M.C.: 1974, ‘Learning as a Generative Process’, Educational Psychologist 11(2), 87–95.Google Scholar
  55. Wittrock, M.C.: 1994, ‘Generative Science Teaching’, in P. Fensham, R. Gunstone & R. White (eds.), The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning, Falmer Press, London, pp. 29–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cathleen C. Loving
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational Curriculum and InstructionTexas A & M UniversityCollege StationUSA. E-mail

Personalised recommendations