Are We Creating the Achievement Gap? Examining How Deficit Mentalities Influence Indigenous Science Curriculum Choices

  • Jennifer Lance Atkinson
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 3)

Abstract

Chigeza and Whitehouse highlight a significant negotiation indigenous Australian children face each day at school. The bridge between different languages presents a challenge for the students to score well on standardized science assessments. Rather than truly assessing students’ knowledge of science concepts, Chigeza and Whitehouse provide a wealth of evidence, which supports that students may be tested on the mastery of standard Australian English rather than science concepts due to their home language being different than English. Chigeza and Whitehouse recommend that science educators and researchers should develop more appropriate classroom instruction to help students successfully navigate between languages when learning science. Language is highly contextual and as Chigeza and Whitehouse discuss, students are characterized by their language use. Despite their science knowledge, indigenous Australian students are deemed deficient based upon standardized testing scores because of their language.

Keywords

Science Teaching Science Classroom Science Curriculum Science Standard Ecological Succession 
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.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
  4. Leonardo, Z. (2007). The war on schools: NCLB, nation creation, and the educational construction of whiteness. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lynch, S. J. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Sleeter, C. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Lance Atkinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington-Wilkes Comprehensive High SchoolWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations