Science Education and Females of Color: The Play Within a Play

Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I discuss females of color in science education by borrowing from the Shakespearean “play within a play” device to highlight their unique experiences. Though much fanfare has been issued concerning the progress made by females in general, further scrutiny finds that females of color in particular do not fare as well. Thus, I begin by first lifting the veil so to speak on the “double bind” in Science that females of color find themselves in. As they attempt to navigate their way through school and subsequently into Science professions, females of color find themselves hampered by both race and gender at every turn. In an effort to break this cycle, I finish by offering science teacher educators tools and solutions they can incorporate into their own preservice programs. Finally, I close by offering a vision of what an effective K-12 science classroom for females of color would look like.

Keywords

Science Education Preservice Teacher Future Teacher Science Teacher Educator African American Female 
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. (1989). Project 2061: Science for All Americans. Washington DC: Author; also published by Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
  2. American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls, executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Association of University Women. (2004). Under the microscope: A decade of gender equity projects in the sciences. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. American Association of University Women. (2010). Why so few: Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Atwater, M. M. (1994). Introduction: Invitations of the past and inclusion of the future in science and mathematics. In M. M. Atwater, K. Radzik-Marsh, & M. Strutchens (Eds.), Multicultural education: Inclusion of all (pp. 1–3). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  6. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2012). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2012–045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, D. R. (2002). Good intentions: An experiment in middle school single-sex science and mathematics classrooms with high minority enrollment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 1–23.Google Scholar
  8. Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011, August). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J., & Newsome, B. J. (1966). It’s a man’s, man’s, man’s world [Recorded by J. Brown]. On It’s a man’s, man’s, man’s world [record]. New York: King (February 16, 1966).Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs: BSCS.Google Scholar
  11. Carey, S. S. (1994). A beginner’s guide to scientific method. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Catell, J. M. (1914). Correspondence. Science, 39, 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chalmers, A. (1990). Science and its fabrication. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientists: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coburn, A. (2000, March). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 42–44.Google Scholar
  16. Coles, P. (2007). The trailing spouse syndrome. The UNESCO Courier, 2, 8–9.Google Scholar
  17. Conner, C. D. (2005). A people’s history of science: Miners, midwives and low mechanicks. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  18. Elgar, A. G. (2004). Science textbooks for lower secondary schools in Brunei: Issues of gender equity. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 875–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2007). Movement expressiveness, solidarity and the (re)shaping of African American students’ scientific identities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(1), 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fouad, N. A., & Walker, C. M. (2005). Cultural influences on responses to items on the Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 104–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freire, P. (1988). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbs, A., & Lawson, A. E. (1992). The nature of scientific thinking as reflected by the work of biologists and by biology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 54, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, W. S. (2011). Developing culturally based science curriculum for Native American classrooms. In J. Reyhner, W. S. Gilbert, & L. Lockard (Eds.), Honoring our heritage: Culturally appropriate approaches to indigenous education (pp. 43–55). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  24. Gjertsen, D. (1989). Science and philosophy past and present. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Haberman, M. (2000, November). Urban schools: Day camps or custodial centers? Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), 203–208.Google Scholar
  26. Halpern, D., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., Star, J., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  27. Hanson, S. L. (2004). African American women in science: Experiences from high school through the post-secondary years and beyond. NWSA Journal, 16, 96–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2007). Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 16–21.Google Scholar
  29. Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83, 775–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iaccarino, M. (2003). Science and culture. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 4, 220–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahle, J. B. (1998). Gender equity in science classrooms. Teacher Education Materials Project. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.te-at.org/Essays/kahle_pf.aspx
  32. Kahle, J. B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leggon, C. B. (2006). Women in science: Racial and ethnic differences and the differences they make. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principle elements of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53–70). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  39. Modi, K., Schoenberg, J., & Salmond, K. (2012). Generation STEM: What girls say about science, technology, engineering, and math. New York, NY: Girl Scout Research Institute.Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators: 2008. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  43. National Science Foundation. (1999). Division of science resources statistics, Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 1998 (NSF 99-338). Arlington, VA. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
  44. National Science Foundation. (2002). Division of science resources statistics, Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2002 (NSF 02-336). Arlington, VA. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
  45. National Science Foundation. (2007). Division of science resources statistics, Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2007 (NSF 07-315). Arlington, VA. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
  46. National Science Foundation. (2009). Division of science resources statistics Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2006 (NSF 09-305). Arlington,VA. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
  47. Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques [OST]. (2004). Science and technology indicators. Paris: Economca. 576 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 172–209.Google Scholar
  49. Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  50. Shakespeare, W. (1980a). As you like it. In John Dover Wilson (Ed.), The complete works Of William Shakespeare (pp. 243–266). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Shakespeare, W. (1980b). Romeo and Juliet. In John Dover Wilson (Ed.), The complete works of William Shakespeare (pp. 781–808). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Shakespeare, W. (1980c). The Tragedy of Hamlet: Prince of Denmark. In John Dover Wilson (Ed.), The complete works of William Shakespeare (pp. 885–919). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Shiva, V. (1993). Reductionism and regeneration: A crisis in science. In M. Mies & V. Shiva (Eds.), Ecofeminism (pp. 22–35). Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publications.Google Scholar
  54. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card: America’s high school graduates: Results from the 2005NAEP high school transcript study, by C. Shettle, S. Roey, J. Mordica, R. Perkins, C. Nord, J. Teodorovic, J. Brown, M. Lyons, C. Averett, & D. Kastberg. (NCES 2007–467). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  55. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012–045). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  56. Vvgotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walls, L. (2012). Third grade African American students’ views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations