CHAPTER 7
Science Education and Student Diversity: Race/Ethnicity, Language, Culture, and Socioeconomic Status
Knowledge about science and technology is increasingly important in today's world. Aside from the growing number of professions that require a working familiarity with scientific concepts and high-tech tools, the future of our society hangs in the balance of decisions that must be made on the basis of scientific knowledge. Yet, the increasing diversity of the school-aged population, coupled with differential science performance among demographic groups, makes the goal of “science for all” a challenge for many nations.
Reform-oriented instructional practices hold the promise of more meaningful science learning but have yet to be widely implemented. All too often, teachers’ knowledge of science and/or student diversity is insufficient to guide students from diverse backgrounds toward meaningful science learning. Limited resources often force a trade-off between providing modified instruction that takes student diversity into account and reinforcing general standards to raise the quality of instruction for mainstream students (often to the detriment of other student groups). In this way, the trend toward standardization of curricula and assessment may work against educational equity (McNeil, 2000), although efforts are made to promote both goals simultaneously (Delpit, 2003).
Standardized measures of science achievement have revealed significant gaps among students of diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Although achievement gaps have diminished in recent decades, the gains are often disappointingly small relative to the inequities that persist (see the description below). If we start from the assumption that high academic achievement is potentially attainable by most children, then achievement gaps are a product of the learning opportunities available to different groups of students and the degree to which circumstances permit them to take advantage of those opportunities. The questions that this poses for researchers and educators are: What constitutes equitable learning opportunities, how do they vary for different student populations, and how can they be provided in a context of limited resources and conflicting educational priorities?
This chapter addresses key issues concerning student diversity and equity in science education, with a focus on how science achievement1 relates to various factors or mechanisms. The chapter begins with conceptions of student diversity and science achievement gaps as two key constructs in this field of study. Next, it summarizes major findings in the literature with regard to the relation of science achievement gaps to curriculum, instruction, assessment, teacher education, school organization, educational policies, and students’ home and community environments. Finally, it proposes an agenda for future research.
Although this chapter addresses student diversity in general, it highlights race/ ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status (SES). The other chapters in this section of the Handbook address specific student populations that have traditionally been underserved by the education system, including girls, students in rural and inner-city settings, and students with special needs. The research studies considered for this chapter were carried out predominantly within the United States, although some studies conducted abroad (but published in English) are also considered.2 This chapter includes studies published since 1982, in consideration of the document “Science for All Americans” (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989), the release of which was a landmark for U.S. science education reform. The period between 1982 and 2003 spans the period from the years leading up to this document and to more than a decade after its release. In addition, the chapter considers primarily peer-reviewed journal articles that provide clear statements of research questions, clear descriptions of research methods, convincing links between the evidence presented and the research questions, and valid conclusions based on the results (Shavelson & Towne, 2002).
STUDENT DIVERSITY
A focus on student diversity presumes that choices made with regard to curriculum, instructional practices, assessment, and school organization affect different student populations differently. Therefore, differing science outcomes may be as much a product of the ways in which policies and schools define, delimit, and manage student diversity as they are of diversity itself. Regardless of the origin or nature of students’ marginalization, academic success often depends on assimilation into mainstream norms. Thus, the educational success of immigrant or U.S.-born racial/ethnic minority students depends to a large degree on acquiring the standard language and shared culture of mainstream U.S. society. For example, traditional science instruction generally assumes that students have access to certain educational resources at home and requires students living in poverty to adopt learning habits that require a certain level of economic stability.
The interplay of race/ethnicity, culture, language, and social class is complex. On the one hand, it is difficult methodologically to separate out the influences of different variables, which may cut across populations in ways that are not easily untangled (for example, when ethnic groups are internally stratified by class). On the other hand, these variables are not entirely separable, conceptually speaking; language is an important element of ethnicity, culture is partly determined by social class, and so on. Racial/ethnic identities and language proficiencies are less bounded than implied by commonly used demographic categories; they may vary within a single household or even with regard to a single individual, depending on the situation. Furthermore, although a shared language, culture, and racial background are important components of a collective ethnic identity, the relative importance of each component varies widely from one group to another.
Social theorists have proposed concepts such as “languaculture” (Agar, 1996), “class cultures” (Bourdieu, 1984), “social class dialects” (Labov, 1966), and even “Ebonics” to capture the inevitable intertwining of race/ethnicity, language, culture, and social class. Especially with regard to native speakers of non-standard dialects of English (e.g., African-American and some Hispanic and Native American populations), the influences of these different variables on student outcomes are more often conflated than systematically analyzed.
Throughout this chapter, the terms mainstream and non-mainstream are used with reference to students. Similar to contemporary usage of the term minority by social scientists, mainstream is understood to refer not to numerical majority, but rather to social prestige, institutionalized privilege, and normative power. Thus, in classroom settings, mainstream students (i.e., in the United States those who are White, middle or upper class, and native speakers of standard English) are more likely than non-mainstream students to encounter ways of talking, thinking, and interacting that are continuous with the skills and expectations they bring from home, a situation that constitutes an academic advantage for students of the former group.3 These group-level phenomena may not apply to particular individuals or may be offset by other factors within the group, such as the vast range of proficiency levels in both the home language and English, immigration history, acculturation to mainstream society, educational levels of parents, and family/community attitudes toward education in general and science education in particular. Recognizing overall differences between groups does not justify limiting one's expectations of individual students, but does provide a framework for interpreting observed patterns and processes that occur with differing frequency among different groups (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003).
Varying usages of terminology often reflect different theoretical stances or disciplinary traditions. The lack of consensus around designations for different categories of students reflects the rapidly changing demographic makeup of the country, the changing political connotations of different terms, and the specific aspects of identity that researchers and/or subjects may wish to emphasize. Although this sometimes causes difficulty with regard to comparability of studies, the lack of a standard terminology to describe the overlapping dimensions of student diversity is a valid reflection of the fluid, multiply determined, and historically situated nature of identity, and the ways in which such designations are used to stake out particular claims about the location and nature of social boundaries. Although much of the science education literature (especially those studies based on quantitative analysis of student outcome data) tends to treat such categories as discrete and un-problematic, this should be understood as a necessary fiction that makes possible the management of large data sets, thus revealing “the big picture” with regard to student diversity and science achievement. In reality, the number of students whose personal circumstances cross and confound such categorical boundaries is greater than ever, and will no doubt continue to increase as those boundaries become more flexible and porous.
Terminology can be problematic in any synthesis, because some researchers use particular terms with special meanings and others invent their own terms to express specifically intended meanings. In this chapter, terms are used as they appeared in the studies in order to represent the original intentions of the researchers, to the extent that this does not confuse or conflate the ways these terms are typically used in the literature.
ACHIEVEMENT GAPS
Science outcomes are defined in broad terms that include not only achievement scores on standardized tests but also meaningful learning of classroom tasks, affect (attitudes, interest, motivation), course enrollments, high school completion, higher education, and career choices. Racial/ethnic, gender, and class disparities are evident in nearly all of these areas, suggesting that the nation's schools have far to go in terms of providing an equitable science education to all students. In the current U.S. policy context, which stresses “structured English immersion” for English language learners (or ELL students) and severely limits content area instruction in languages other than English, English proficiency becomes a de facto prerequisite for science learning. In this sense, acquisition of oral and written English, although not a “science outcome” per se, plays a large role in determining science outcomes as they are commonly measured.
Ideological and Methodological Limitations
Description of science achievement gaps must be interpreted within the context of ideological and methodological limitations in the current knowledge base. In the ideological sense, Rodriguez (1998a) argued that failure to disaggregate science achievement data may create or reinforce stereotypes about certain groups. He also addressed achievement gaps in terms of social justice in the education system at large. Contrary to the notion of meritocracy—whereby academic achievement is viewed as a direct reflection of students’ ability and effort—his analysis of achievement data suggests that the educational system is structured so as to benefit those groups already in power. The students most adversely affected by the meritocracy myth come from the fastest-growing ethnic groups. According to Rodriguez, to promote participation and achievement of non-mainstream students in science, the meritocracy myth needs to be exposed and addressed.
In the methodological sense, achievement is typically measured by standardized tests administered with national and international student samples. These databases provide overall achievement results by ethnicity, SES, and gender, but contain limited information with regard to disaggregation of results, such as socioeconomic strata within ethnic groups or subgroups within broad ethnic categories (Rodriguez, 1998a). This lack of information hinders researchers’ and policy makers’ ability to gain insight into the causes of science achievement gaps among specific student groups. Furthermore, in the United States, ELL students were excluded from most large-scale assessments until recently. Although the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP] report card was the first (since the NAEP's inception in 1969) to analyze assessment accommodations in science, the results did not disaggregate students with disabilities from limited English proficient students (O'sullivan, Lauko, Grigg, Qian, & Zhang, 2003).
Gaps in Science Outcomes
The long-term trend assessments of U.S. students in science, as measured by the NAEP, indicate that the average score for students of every age level and race/ ethnicity has increased slightly since the 1970s (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000). Achievement gaps by race/ethnicity on the NAEP are gradually narrowing; the scores of Black and Hispanic students have improved since the 1970s at a slightly faster rate than the scores of White non-Hispanic students. Nevertheless, Black and Hispanic students’ scores remain well below those of White students, and the gaps persist across the three age levels.
Furthermore, the growth rates of African American and Hispanic students are so minimal that (with the exception of Hispanic males) their 12th-grade achievement level still fell well below the initial 8th-grade achievement of Whites and Asian Americans (Muller, Stage, & Kinzie, 2001). Although the long-term trend assessments of NAEP science achievement by SES are not available, the 1996 and 2000 results indicate that students who were eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program performed well below those who were not eligible (O'sullivan et al., 2003).
Rodriguez (1998a) conducted a systematic analysis of trends in science achievement by ethnicity, SES, and gender, using national databases including the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), the American College Test (ACT), the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and Advanced Placement (AP) exams. The results indicated improvement for all student groups in science achievement and participation, but wide gaps persisted between Anglo-European students and students from African and Latino groups (to use Rodriguez's terms). In addition, patterns of achievement gaps were alarmingly congruent over time and across studies with respect to race/ethnicity, SES, gender, and grade level.
Attitudes toward science vary among racial/ethnic groups, but this variation is not always consistent with the variation in science achievement results. In a study of four major ethnic groups of elementary, middle, and high school students in Hawaii, Greenfield (1996) reported that Filipino Americans and native Hawaiians had lower achievement and less positive attitudes toward science than Caucasian and Japanese American students. In contrast, researchers from the U.S. mainland reported that non-mainstream students have positive attitudes toward science and aspire to science careers, but have limited exposure and access to the knowledge necessary to realize this aspiration (Atwater, Wiggins, & Gardner, 1995; Rakow, 1985).
Other indicators of science outcomes include science course enrollment, college major, and career choice. Overall, minority racial/ethnic groups made gains with regard to enrollments in high school science courses, as well as bachelors’, master's, and doctoral degrees awarded in science and engineering fields, but gaps persist (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2002; Oakes, 1990).
KEY FINDINGS ON STUDENT DIVERSITY AND SCIENCE OUTCOMES
Research on diversity and equity in science education is a new and developing area. Most has been published since the mid-1990s, perhaps spurred in the United States by the emphasis on the dual goals of excellence and equity laid out in Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Prominent science education journals have increased their coverage of science-and-diversity-related topics; the Journal of Research in Science Teaching and Science Education each produced a number of special issues in recent years.
Studies have been conducted from a wide range of theoretical and disciplinary frames, including cognitive science, sociolinguistics, and sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives. They have utilized a variety of research methods, ranging from experimental designs, to surveys, case studies, and critical ethnography. The majority of studies are small-scale descriptive studies by individual researchers. There are only a small number of intervention-based studies, and relatively few of these are on a large scale. Experimental studies are rare, relative to the many studies using qualitative methods. We found no meta-analysis of statistical research studies in the literature.
Below, we summarize key findings and selected references on issues of student diversity in science education (see Lee & Luykx, 2006, for more detailed descriptions of individual studies). Although our focus is on student diversity and science outcomes, most of the studies we reviewed did not include concrete information about student outcomes in their results. Notably absent are quantitative achievement results.
Science Curriculum
One strand of the debate over science education among diverse student groups has focused on epistemological questions, such as what counts as science? and what are scientific ways of knowing? The definition of science constitutes “a de facto ‘gate-keeping’ device for determining what can be included in a school science curriculum and what cannot” (Snively & Corsiglia, 2001, p. 6; also see Hodson, 1993; Loving, 1997; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994). A full and nuanced account of the debate over what counts as science is beyond the scope of this chapter. While recognizing the existence of multiple views of science, we focus here on school science as defined in U.S. standards documents—the systematic search for empirical explanations of natural phenomena (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996).
Although appropriate instructional materials are essential for effective instruction, high-quality materials that meet current science education standards are difficult to find (NSF, 1996). In attempting to make science accessible to all students, the NSF (1998) emphasizes “culturally and gender relevant curriculum materials” that recognize “[diverse] cultural perspectives and contributions so that through example and instruction, the contributions of all groups to science will be understood and valued” (p. 29). However, efforts to develop such materials present challenges to science educators. On the one hand, they require a knowledge base of examples, analogies, and beliefs from a range of different cultures, related to specific science topics and scientific practices. Even when culturally relevant materials are developed and prove effective, their effectiveness may be limited to the particular group for which they are designed. On the other hand, materials developed for wide use, particularly those that can be accessed electronically, may be implemented across various settings. However, local adaptations are essential for such materials to be used effectively, which in turn requires expertise on the part of teachers.
The small body of literature on science curricula for diverse student groups indicates that (a) most materials currently used in U.S. classrooms are not culturally relevant to non-mainstream students and (b) cultural diversity is not adequately represented in textbooks and materials (Barba, 1993; Eide & Heikkinen, 1998; Ninnes, 2000). Materials that do incorporate experiences, examples, analogies, and values from specific cultural and linguistic groups foster higher science achievement, more positive attitudes toward science, and enhanced cultural identity among non-mainstream students (Aikenhead, 1997; Matthews & Smith, 1994).
In addition to text-based curriculum materials described above, several studies developed interactive computer-based curriculum materials. In contrast to culturally relevant materials that are designed for specific cultural groups, computer-based materials (accompanied by web-based technology) are intended for large-scale implementation, although local adaptations are necessary for effective use across educational settings. The results show the positive impact of inquiry-based, technology-rich learning environments on student outcomes as measured by standardized achievement tests in large urban school districts (Rivet & Krajcik, 2004; Songer, Lee, & McDonald, 2003).
Science Learning and Instruction
There is a rather extensive literature on science learning and instruction with non-mainstream students. The studies address a wide range of topics and employ various theoretical perspectives and research methods. This research is summarized below with regard to (a) culturally congruent instruction, (b) cognitively based instruction to promote scientific reasoning and argumentation, (c) the sociopolitical process of learning and instruction, and (d) science learning and instruction with ELL students.
Culturally Congruent Instruction
The literature on science education's relation to students’ worldviews (Allen & Crawley, 1998; Cobern, 1996; Lee, 1999b) and culturally specific communication and interactional patterns (see the review by Atwater, 1994) indicates that the culture of Western science is foreign to many students (both mainstream and non-mainstream), and that the challenges of science learning may be greater for students whose cultural traditions are discontinuous with the “ways of knowing” characteristic of Western science and science instruction. The challenge for these students is “to study a Western scientific way of knowing and at the same time respect and access the ideas, beliefs, and values of non-Western cultures” (Snively & Corsiglia, 2001, p. 24).
Teachers need to be aware of a variety of cultural experiences in order to understand how different students may approach science learning (Moje, Collazo, Carillo, & Marx, 2001). Teachers also need to use cultural artifacts, examples, analogies, and community resources that are familiar to students in order to make science relevant and intelligible to them (Barba, 1993). Lee and Fradd (1998; see also Lee, 2002, 2003) proposed the notion of “instructional congruence,” which highlights the importance of developing congruence not only between students’ cultural expectations and the norms of classroom interaction, but also between academic disciplines and students’ linguistic and cultural experiences. It also emphasizes the role of instruction (or educational interventions), as teachers explore the relationship between academic disciplines and students’ cultural and linguistic knowledge, and devise ways to link the two.
Effective science instruction should enable students to cross cultural borders between their home cultures and the culture of science (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Costa, 1995). According to the multicultural education literature, school knowledge represents the “culture of power,” that is, the dominant society (Delpit, 1988; Reyes, 1992). The cultural norms governing classroom discourse are largely implicit and tacit, and thus are not easily accessible to students who have not learned them at home. For students who are not from the culture of power, teachers need to initially provide explicit instruction about that culture's rules and norms and gradually lead students to take greater initiative and responsibility for their own learning.
Cognitively Based Instruction
An emerging body of literature argues that the ways of knowing and talking characteristic of children from outside the cultural and linguistic mainstream are generally continuous with the ways of knowing and talking characteristic of scientific communities. The Chèche Konnen Project has promoted collaborative scientific inquiry among language minority and low-SES students in order to help them use language, think, and act as members of a science learning community (Ballenger, 1997; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery, & Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001). When presented with meaningful science learning opportunities, these children employ sense-making practices—deep questions, vigorous argumentation, situated guesswork, embedded imagining, multiple perspectives, and innovative uses of everyday words to construct new meanings—that intersect in potentially productive ways with scientific practices. As students engage in scientific inquiry, teachers can identify intersections between students’ everyday knowledge and scientific practices and use these intersections as the basis for instructional practices. The results indicate that low-income immigrant students or those with limited science experience are capable of scientific inquiry, reasoning, and argumentation.
Sociopolitical Process of Learning and Instruction
As an outgrowth of critical studies of schooling, a small number of studies have examined science learning as a sociopolitical process (Calabrese Barton, 1998, 2001; Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002). This literature is distinguished from that discussed above in several ways. First, it questions the relevance of science to students who have traditionally been underserved by the education system and argues that science education should begin with the intellectual capital of the learner and his/her lived experiences, not with externally imposed standards. In this way, it attempts to invert the power structure of schooling and its oppressive effects on these students. Second, it addresses issues of poverty, as well as cultural and linguistic diversity, from a critical perspective that focuses on the unequal distribution of social resources and the school's role in the reproduction of social hierarchy. Third, the researchers generally employ ethnographic methods and ground their analyses in the political, cultural, and economic history of the groups under study.
Several studies have found that science instruction often reinforces power structures that privilege mainstream students and that other students actively resist school science (Gilbert & Yerrick, 2001; Seiler, 2001; Tobin, 2000). The studies describe mistrust of schooling, of science instruction, and of science teachers among those students who have traditionally been disenfranchised and marginalized by schooling in general and science education in particular. This mistrust is exacerbated when science teachers do not expect students to succeed in science, thus presenting a serious barrier to achievement. Inquiry-based instruction is particularly trust-intensive, inasmuch as science inquiry demands skepticism, patience, and a tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, all of which require a certain level of trust between teacher and students (Sconiers & Rosiek, 2000). The researchers argue that building trusting and caring relationships between teachers and students is necessary in order for students to take intellectual risks, which are in turn necessary in order to develop deep understandings of science content and practices.
Science Learning and Instruction with ELL Students
A number of studies have focused on the role of language in ELL students’ science learning in either bilingual or mainstreamed classrooms. Research within the United States has, unsurprisingly, focused on Spanish speakers (Duran, Dugan, & Weffer, 1998; Torres & Zeidler, 2002), whereas research in other parts of the English-speaking world has focused on students from a broad range of language communities, both immigrant and indigenous (Curtis & Millar, 1988; Kearsey & Tuner, 1999; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996). Some of the latter studies go beyond examination of language use in the classroom to consider the social, cultural, and demographic dynamics of students’ language communities. Overall, the research suggests that students’ limited proficiency in English constrains their science achievement when instruction and assessment are undertaken exclusively or predominantly in English.
In order to keep up with their English-speaking peers, ELL students need to develop English language and literacy skills in the context of content area instruction (August & Hakuta, 1997). Ideally, content areas should provide a meaningful context for English language and literacy development, while students’ developing English skills provide the medium for engagement with academic content (Lee & Fradd, 1998). As more U.S. states adopt immersion approaches to English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) instruction, ELL students must confront the demands of academic learning through a yet-unmastered language. Furthermore, teachers often lack the knowledge and the institutional support needed to address the complex educational needs of ELL students.
Recently, several studies have examined the impact of instructional interventions to promote ELL students’ English language and literacy development simultaneously with science learning (Amaral, Garrison, & Klentschy, 2002; Merino & Hammond, 2001). These studies have focused on hands-on and inquiry-based science instruction, which enables ELL students to develop scientific understanding, engage in inquiry, and construct shared meanings more actively than does traditional textbook-based instruction. By engaging in science inquiry, ELL students develop English grammar and vocabulary as well as familiarity with scientific genres of writing. Furthermore, inquiry-based science instruction provides both authentic, communicative language activities and hands-on, contextualized exploration of natural phenomena, while promoting students’ communication of their understanding in a variety of formats, including written, oral, gestural, and graphic (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Rosebery et al., 1992). Overall, the results indicate students’ active engagement in science classroom tasks and improved achievement on standardized tests of science and literacy.
Assessment
Research on science assessment (both large-scale and classroom) with non-mainstream students is extremely limited, for various reasons. Because assessment of ELL students tends to concentrate on basic skills in literacy and numeracy, other subjects such as science tend to be ignored. Because science is often not part of large-scale or statewide assessments, and usually does not count toward accountability measures even when it is tested, research on science assessment and accommodations with diverse student groups is sparse. Given these limitations, it is unclear whether new assessment technologies and innovations present more hopes or obstacles to non-mainstream students.
Science Assessment with Culturally Diverse Groups
One way to promote valid and equitable assessment is to make science assessments relevant to the knowledge and experiences that students of diverse backgrounds acquire in their home and community environments (Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001). This approach, which advocates tailoring assessments to specific student populations, contrasts with efforts to avoid cultural bias by making assessments as culturally “neutral” as possible. Solano-Flores and Trumbull (2003) argued that it is difficult to remove cultural bias from assessment practices because tests are inevitably cultural devices and that a more equitable and realistic approach is to consider students’ cultural beliefs and practices throughout the assessment process. However, this requires more knowledge about the cultural backgrounds of specific student groups than teachers and test developers usually have access to.
Another way to promote equitable assessment is to identify more effective formats for assessing student achievement. Advocates of alternative (or performance) assessments have argued that traditional multiple-choice tests fail to measure non-mainstream students’ knowledge, abilities, and skills (Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson, 1996). An important issue in using alternative assessments is their fairness to different student groups—”the likelihood of any assessment allowing students to show what they understand about the construct being tested” (Lawrenz, Huffman, & Welch, 2001, p. 280). Given the limited research on alternative science assessments with non-mainstream students, both advocates and critics have based their claims on inferences and insights drawn from related research endeavors, rather than on empirical studies that address the topic directly (see the discussion in Lee, 1999a). Furthermore, existing studies in science education show contradictory results (Klein et al., 1997; Lawrenz et al., 2001).
Science Assessment with ELL Students
Assessment of ELL students is complicated by issues such as which students to include in accountability systems, what constitutes fair and effective assessment accommodations (Abedi, 2004), and how to assess content knowledge separately from English proficiency or general literacy (Shaw, 1997). Research on these issues with regard to school science is very limited. Although efforts to ensure valid and equitable assessment of ELL students generally focus on eliminating specific linguistic effects as a way to ensure test validity, Solano-Flores and Trumbull (2003) argued that consideration of students’ home languages should guide the entire assessment process, including test development, test review, test use, and test interpretation.
Regarding assessment of students with disabilities (SD) and limited English proficiency (LEP), the 2000 NAEP report is the first since its inception in 1969 to display two different sets of results: “accommodations-permitted” and “accommodations-not-permitted” (O'sullivan et al., 2003). Accommodations included, but were not limited to, one-on-one testing, small-group testing, access to bilingual dictionaries, extended time, reading aloud of directions, and recording of students’ answers by someone else. At grade 4, the accommodations-permitted results, which included slightly more SD and LEP students because of the availability of accommodations, were 2 points lower than the accommodations-not-permitted results, and this difference was statistically significant. At grades 8 and 12, there was no statistically significant difference between the two sets of results. Because of the small numbers of SD and LEP students who were assessed at each grade level, with or without accommodations, the results were not disaggregated by SD or LEP separately.
Teacher Education
Teachers need not come from the same racial/ethnic backgrounds as their students in order to teach effectively (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Given the increasing student diversity even within individual classrooms, matching teachers with students of similar backgrounds is often not feasible. But when teachers of any background are unaware of the cultural and linguistic knowledge that their students bring to the classroom (Gay, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002), or when they lack opportunities to reflect upon how students’ minority or immigrant status may affect their educational experience (Cochran-Smith, 1995), there is clearly a need for teacher education that specifically addresses teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to student diversity as it relates to subject areas. Teachers must be equipped with knowledge of (a) academic content and processes, (b) ways in which academic content and processes may articulate with students’ own linguistic and cultural knowledge, (c) pedagogical strategies appropriate to multicultural settings, and (d) awareness of how traditional curriculum and pedagogy have functioned to marginalize certain groups of students and limit their learning opportunities.
Teacher Preparation
Most prospective science teachers enter their teacher preparation programs with beliefs that undermine the goal of equitable education for all students and graduate without fundamentally changing these beliefs (Bryan & Atwater, 2002). A sparse but emerging literature indicates the challenges and difficulties in making fundamental or transformative changes in the beliefs and practices of prospective U.S. science teachers (who are mostly from White, monolingual English, middle-class backgrounds) with regard to student diversity (Bianchini, Johnston, Oram, & Cavazos, 2003; Luft, Bragg, & Peters, 1999; Tobin, Roth, & Zimmerman, 2001; Yerrick & Hoving, 2003). Even when changes in teacher beliefs and practices occur, such changes are demanding and slow.
Rodriguez (1998b) proposed a conception of multicultural education as integrating a political theory of social justice with a pedagogical theory of social constructivism. This approach aims to enable prospective teachers to teach for both student diversity (via culturally inclusive and socially relevant pedagogy) and scientific understanding (via critically engaging and intellectually meaningful pedagogy). The results showed promise in terms of assisting prospective teachers to critically examine their prior beliefs about what it means to be a successful science teacher. Most became aware of the importance of creating science classrooms where all students are provided with opportunities for successful learning. However, several teachers demonstrated a strong resistance to both ideological and pedagogical change.
Teacher Professional Development
Research on professional development indicates that teachers need to engage in reform-oriented practices themselves in order to be able to provide effective science instruction for their students. However, affecting changes in teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices in science instruction is an arduous process (Knapp, 1997). Despite the critical need for professional development of science teachers working with diverse student groups, the literature is extremely limited. A small body of studies reports the positive impact of professional development on change in teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices and ultimately science achievement and attitudes of non-mainstream students (Kahle, Meece, & Scantlebury, 2000).
Several studies revealed both advantages and limitations of school-wide professional development initiatives in science (Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, & Marx, 2000; Gamoran et al., 2003). On one hand, collective participation of all teachers from the same school or grade level in professional development activities allows them to develop common goals, share instructional materials or assessment tools, and exchange ideas and experiences arising from a common context. On the other hand, unlike programs composed of volunteer teachers seeking opportunities for professional growth, school-wide implementation inevitably includes teachers who are not interested in or even resist participation. Additionally, the intensity of professional development activities may be compromised because of various constraints on urban schools. Despite these hurdles, school-wide professional development can provide valuable insights for large-scale implementation (Luykx, Cuevas, Lambert, & Lee, 2005).
Teacher Education with ELL Students
Teachers of ELL students are charged with promoting students’ English language and literacy development as well as academic achievement in subject areas. This may require subject-specific instructional strategies that go beyond the general preparation in ESOL or bilingual education that many teachers receive. Unfortunately, a majority of teachers working with ELL students do not feel adequately prepared to meet their students’ learning needs (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). Most teachers also assume that ELL students must acquire English before learning subject matter, though this approach almost inevitably leads such students to fall behind their English-speaking peers (August & Hakuta, 1997).
Professional development to promote science along with English language and literacy development involves teacher knowledge, beliefs, and practices in multiple areas (Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2002). In addition to ensuring that ELL students acquire the language skills necessary for social communication in English, teachers need to promote development of both general and content-specific academic language. Furthermore, teachers must be able to view language within a human development perspective. Such an understanding would enable them to formulate developmentally appropriate expectations about language comprehension and production over the course of students’ learning of English. The amalgamation of these knowledge sources should result in teaching practices that (a) engage students of all levels of English proficiency in learning academic language, (b) allow students to display learning in multiple modes, (c) provide learning activities that have multiple points of entry for students of differing levels of English proficiency, and (d) ensure that students participate in a manner that allows for maximum language development at their own level.
We found no study involving preservice science teachers of ELL students in the literature. A limited body of research indicates that professional development efforts have a positive impact on helping practicing teachers examine their beliefs and improve their practices in integrating science with literacy for ELL students (Amaral et al., 2002; Hart & Lee, 2003; Lee, 2004; Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002).
School Organization and Educational Policies
Policies are interpreted and mediated by educational actors at every level of their implementation, to the extent that they are sometimes implemented in ways that are directly contrary to their presumed goals. School organization, in turn, is influenced by policies mandated by the state and the school district. The literature highlights features of school organization or restructuring that influence science teaching for students from non-mainstream backgrounds (Oakes, 1990). The majority of the studies in this limited literature focus on urban education (see also Chapter 13, this volume).
School Organization
One area of research has examined the effect of tracking or ability grouping on science learning opportunities and achievement among diverse student groups (see an extensive review of the literature in Oakes, 1990). In theory, such practices separate the academically stronger from the academically weaker students; in practice, this often means segregating students by SES, racial/ethnic origin, or degree of English proficiency. Educational scholars are in general agreement that tracking or ability grouping creates a cycle of restricted opportunities, diminished outcomes, and exacerbated inequalities for students from poor and non-mainstream backgrounds; nevertheless, it remains a common practice in schools throughout the nation.
School restructuring efforts (which often address tracking, among other issues) can narrow SES and race/ethnicity-based science achievement gaps. Valerie Lee and colleagues conducted a series of studies to examine how the structure of high schools affects student learning (Lee & Smith, 1993, 1995; Lee, Smith, Croninger, & Robert, 1997). The results indicated that in schools that engaged in practices consistent with the restructuring movement, student engagement and achievement were significantly higher (i.e., schools were more effective) and differences in engagement and achievement among students from different SES backgrounds were reduced (i.e., schools were more equitable). These schools had a strong academic focus, all students took a highly academic curriculum with limited tracking options, and teachers had strong professional communities emphasizing the quality of instruction.
Spillane, Diamond, Walker, Halverson, and Jita (2001) examined how the school leadership (administrators and lead teachers in science) at one urban elementary school successfully identified and activated resources for leading change in science education. Gamoran and associates (2003) examined how teachers from elementary through high school in six school districts across the nation taught mathematics and science for understanding with diverse student groups. Both studies emphasized that strategic use of resources (human, intellectual, social, and financial) and “distributed leadership” (i.e., administrators and teacher leaders support and sustain the professional community) are essential to bringing about change in school policies and practices.
Educational Policies
All of the studies in the limited literature about policies addressing student diversity in science education focus on U.S. urban contexts. Although educational policies influence all districts and all schools, consequences are especially critical in urban schools because of the sheer number of students attending them, the array and scope of the obstacles they face, and the institutional precariousness under which they operate.
After almost a decade of high-stakes testing in reading, writing, and mathematics, school systems are now moving to include science and social studies as well. As states increasingly embrace accountability measures, high-stakes testing influences instructional practices both in subject areas being tested and in those that are not tested. When science is not part of accountability measures, it is taught minimally in the elementary grades (Knapp & Plecki, 2001; Spillane et al., 2001). When science is part of accountability measures, teachers are pressured to mold their teaching practices to the demands of high-stakes testing, sometimes leading to unintended and harmful consequences (Settlage & Meadows, 2002).
Several studies have examined systemic reform to improve science education in U.S. urban schools (see also Chapter 31, this volume). Knapp and Plecki (2001) provided a conceptual framework for renewing urban science teaching. Kahle (1998) developed an “equity metric” to monitor the progress of educational reform over time. Hewson, Kahle, Scantlebury, and Davies (2001) and Rodriguez (2001) borrowed Kahle's equity metric to assess the progress toward equity of two urban middle schools and an urban school district, respectively. Finally, Kim and colleagues (2001) examined the impact of the NSF-supported Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI) on teacher education, classroom practices, and student achievement in mathematics and science. The results indicated noteworthy gains in science achievement with non-mainstream students and strengthening of the infrastructure to sustain achievement gains.
Whereas systemic reform efforts continued from the 1990s to the present, strategies for scaling up of educational innovations have emerged more recently. Systemic reform involves restructuring various components of an educational system in interactive ways, whereas scaling up focuses on implementing effective educational innovations on a large scale. In the climate of standards-based instruction and accountability, scaling up is increasingly called for to bring about system-wide improvements (Elmore, 1996). However, scaling up compromises conceptual rigor and fidelity of implementation, because of the demands and constraints imposed by educational policies, local institutional conditions, and individual teacher practices (Coburn, 2003). Furthermore, scaling-up efforts in multilingual, multicultural, or urban contexts involve numerous challenges, due to fundamental conflicts and inconsistencies in educational policies and practices as well as lack of resources and funding. For example, Blumenfeld et al. (2000) and Fishman, Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, and Soloway (2004) described the difficulties involved in scaling up technology innovations for science education in a large urban school district. They suggested that issues of scalability and sustainability be addressed in technology innovations, so that such innovations can be used widely in K–12 schools to foster deep thinking and learning.
School Science and Home/Community Connection
Several studies have examined the influences of families and home environments on students’ science achievement. A challenge facing many schools, especially those serving diverse student populations, is the lack of connection between schools and students’ homes and communities. This may lead to student disengagement from schooling that they see as irrelevant and meaningless to their lives beyond school. Yet, students bring to the science classrooms “funds of knowledge” from their communities that can serve as resources for science learning (Moll, 1992; Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1988).
There is clear evidence that family support (e.g., homework supervision, learning materials and resources, and parent's educational background) influences children's achievement, attitudes, and aspirations in science (Peng & Hill, 1994). Smith and Hausafus (1998) reported that low SES, ethnic minority students whose parents communicated and enforced high expectations for science and mathematics achievement had higher test scores than similar students with less supportive parents. This result is important in the sense that such support does not require parental knowledge of science and mathematics, areas in which parents often feel inadequate.
Several studies reported the positive impacts of intervention programs to help students recognize the meaning and relevance of science and connect school science to their homes and communities. Bouillion and Gomez (2001) explored a form of “connected science,” in which real-world problems (i.e., current, unresolved, and of consequence) and school-community partnerships were used as contextual scaffolds for bridging students’ community-based knowledge and school-based knowledge. Hammond (2001) reported collaborative efforts in which mentor and preser-vice teachers worked together with immigrant students and their families and utilized the funds of knowledge that these students and their families brought to the science learning contexts. Rahm (2002) described an inner-city youth gardening program and the kinds of learning opportunities it supported. The results indicate that the intervention fostered inner-city students’ active participation in science-related activities in informal settings.
The research program led by Calabrese Barton has examined science teaching and learning with urban homeless children who are most at risk for receiving an inequitable education (Calabrese Barton, 1998, 2001; Fusco, 2001). Grounded in post-modern feminism, the research program employs critical ethnography, conceived of as a methodology that emerges collaboratively from the lives of the researcher and the researched and centers on the political commitment to the struggle for liberation (Calabrese Barton, 2001). This view of “science for all” challenges the traditional paradigm whereby science lies at the center as a target to be reached by students at the margins and offers a paradigm of inclusion whereby students’ experiences and identities remain in tension with the study of the world.
RESEARCH AGENDA
Considering that research on diversity and equity in science education is a relatively new and emerging field, there are multiple directions that future research might pursue. Virtually all of the areas discussed in this chapter require further investigation. However, it is necessary to prioritize in order to produce research out-comes that are rigorous, cumulative, and useful to educational practice. The suggestions below reflect those areas of research that have shown promise in establishing a robust knowledge base, as well as others in which research is limited despite the urgent need for a knowledge base.
Student Diversity
Although the studies mentioned here were selected because of their focus on diversity and equity, many do not address these issues in sufficient depth or complexity. Future research needs to conceptualize the interrelated effects of race/ethnicity, culture, language, and SES on students’ science learning in more nuanced ways. Although the intersections among the multiple strands that make up student (and teacher) identities are being theorized in increasingly sophisticated ways, as are the social forces, processes, and practices that shape students’ educational experiences (Levinson, Foley, & Holland, 1996), these new perspectives have rarely been applied to the area of school science.
Studies need to combine cognitive, cultural, sociolinguistic, and sociopolitical perspectives on science learning, rather than focus on one aspect to the exclusion of others. This will require multidisciplinary efforts that bring together research traditions that have too often been developed in opposition or isolation from one another.
With ELL students, future research needs to consider science learning/achievement, literacy development, and English proficiency as conceptually distinct but interrelated, and to operationalize the complex interplay of multiple variables in methodologically rigorous research designs. Science educators and researchers also need to engage more deeply the broad scholarship on classroom discourse, second language acquisition, and literacy development (see Chapters 4 and 17, this volume). Though this literature has seldom addressed school science directly, its potential contribution to science education is considerable.
Science Achievement
Another area ripe for investigation involves conceptions and measurement of science achievement. Some research programs emphasize students’ agency and empowerment with regard to science, rather than more commonly recognized outcome measures based on academic achievement. These conceptions vary widely from one research program to another and tend to differ from classroom assessment practices, which continue to emphasize memorization of facts. Although science educators (researchers, teachers, policymakers, and others) share the dual goals of improving science achievement and eliminating achievement gaps, existing research programs often do not address student outcomes, especially with quantitative achievement data. Although such data should not be the sole currency of educational research, they can provide an additional perspective that confirms or complicates narrative descriptions about other types of student outcomes, which are common in many research studies.
Lack of emphasis on science in current educational policies presents a unique set of issues. On the one hand, there are few assessment instruments that are widely used in science. This obliges researchers to develop their own assessment instruments, often around authentic or performance assessments that are aligned with the goals of the research. Such instruments may be well tailored to the goals of a specific research project, but limit comparability across studies. On the other hand, the limited range of standardized tests in science makes it difficult to develop a cumulative knowledge base about student achievement in specific science disciplines or topics.
More research is also needed to examine the effectiveness of educational innovations on achievement gaps among different student groups. Such research should consider disaggregation of achievement results for the intersections of different demographic categories, as well as subgroups within categories. Longitudinal analysis of student achievement across several grade levels or beyond the K–12 years is conspicuously absent from the current literature. Finally, future research should attempt to establish (causal) relationships among educational innovations, learning processes, and student outcomes.
Diversity of Student Experiences in Relation to Science Curriculum and Pedagogy
A major area of future research should be the cultural and linguistic experiences that students from diverse backgrounds bring to the science classroom, and the articulation of these experiences with science disciplines (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Warren et al., 2001). Future research should aim to identify those cultural and linguistic experiences that can serve as intellectual resources for science learning, as well as those beliefs and practices that may be discontinuous with the specific demands of science disciplines. This will require a balanced view of non-mainstream students’ intellectual resources as well as the challenges they face in learning science.
An expanded knowledge base around students’ non-school experiences related to science could offer a stronger foundation for science curriculum and instruction. Students of all backgrounds should be provided with academically challenging learning opportunities that allow them to explore and construct meanings based on their own linguistic and cultural experiences. At the same time, some students may need more explicit guidance in articulating their linguistic and cultural experiences with scientific knowledge and practices. Teachers (and curriculum designers) need to be aware of students’ differing needs when deciding how much explicit instruction they should provide and to what extent students can assume responsibility for their own learning (Fradd & Lee, 1999; Lee, 2002). The proper balance of teacher-centered and student-centered activities may depend on the degrees and types of continuity or discontinuity between science disciplines and students’ backgrounds, the extent of students’ experience with science disciplines, and the level of cognitive difficulty of science tasks. Further research could examine what is involved in explicit instruction, when and how to provide it, and how to determine appropriate scaffolding for specific tasks and students.
Another area for future research concerns the demands involved in learning science through inquiry. Although current U.S. reforms in science education emphasize inquiry as the core of science teaching and learning (NRC, 1996, 2000), inquiry presents challenges to all students (and many teachers), inasmuch as it requires a critical stance, scientific skepticism, a tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, and patience. These challenges are greater for students whose homes and communities do not encourage inquiry practices, or for those who have been historically disenfranchised by the social institutions of science and do not see the relevance of science to their daily lives or to their future (Gilbert & Yerrick, 2001; Seiler, 2001; Tobin, 2000). Recent research emphasizes the importance of role models, trust, and personal connections between teachers and students as the starting point for non-mainstream students’ participation in science inquiry (Sconiers & Rosiek, 2000). Future research may identify essential aspects of inquiry-based teaching and learning, and how these articulate with the experiences of diverse student groups.
Teacher Education
The literature is replete with accounts of the difficulties that science teachers (who are mostly from mainstream backgrounds) experience in teaching students from non-mainstream backgrounds (see the discussion about teacher education above; also see Bryan & Atwater, 2002, and Lee & Luykx, 2006, for comprehensive reviews of the literature). Some teachers have low expectations for such students and blame students or their families for academic failure, but even those teachers who are committed to promoting equity face challenges related to student diversity in their teaching. These problems will be exacerbated as diversity within the teaching population fails to keep pace with increasing diversity among students (Jorgenson, 2000).
Teachers may not need to share the language and culture of their students in order to teach effectively; however, effective teachers should have an understanding of students’ language and culture and the ability to articulate their students’ experiences with science in ways that are meaningful and relevant to students as well as scientifically accurate. Some teachers may lack the cultural knowledge necessary to identify students’ learning resources, but even teachers with the relevant cultural knowledge may not recognize it as such or may be unsure of how to relate their students’ experiences to science (Lee, 2004). Future research may address how to design teacher education programs to enable preservice and practicing teachers to articulate science disciplines with students’ linguistic and cultural practices, particularly when the discontinuities between the two domains are large. Research may also examine how teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices evolve as they reflect on ways to integrate these two domains. In addition, research may examine challenges in bringing about change with teachers who deride student diversity, resist multicultural views, or reproduce racism through their educational practice (Ladson-Billings, 1999).
Teacher education programs that successfully promote fundamental change in teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices concerning non-mainstream students tend to involve small numbers of committed teachers over an extended period of time. Effective teacher professional development requires adequate time, resources, and personal commitment on the part of both teachers and teacher educators. Future research may examine what is involved in taking effective teacher education models to scale, identifying a balance between resources required and the extent of impact on large numbers of teachers. Such research may also intersect with policies on teacher education at the state or local level, and this intersection deserves further investigation.
High-Stakes Testing and Accountability
The most dominant U.S. educational policy currently, which is particularly consequential for non-mainstream students, involves high-stakes testing and accountability (Abedi, 2004). After almost a decade of high-stakes testing in reading, language arts, and mathematics, more U.S. states are now moving to incorporate science and social studies as well. This trend coincides with the planned U.S. policy on science assessment within the No Child Left Behind Act, according to which science will be required to be included in accountability measures starting from 2007.
This policy change at the federal and state levels may bring about dramatic changes in many aspects of science education. The culture of high-stakes testing already dominates the teaching landscape in many countries. For example, an emphasis on discrete facts and basic skills in high-stakes science testing discourages teachers from promoting deeper understanding of key concepts or inquiry practices (Settlage & Meadows, 2002). Also, complex issues around assessment abound, such as which students are to be included in accountability systems, what assessment accommodations are appropriate, and how content knowledge may be assessed separately from English proficiency or general literacy (O'sullivan et al., 2003). A basic concern is that ELL students’ science achievement is underestimated when they are not allowed to demonstrate their knowledge and abilities in their home language (Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). On the other hand, if science instruction is in the dominant language, simply assessing second language learners in the home language will not guarantee an accurate picture of their science knowledge and abilities.
Future research may examine the impact of policy changes on various aspects of science education. For example, research may address whether teaching for inquiry and reasoning also prepares students for high-stakes testing (and vice versa). From an equity perspective, research may examine whether recent policy changes differentially affects students from different backgrounds. More generally, research may examine the institutional, social, and political factors that so often lead educational policies to work at cross-purposes to empirically tested “best practices” in science education.
School Science and the Home/Community Connection
Students’ early cultural and linguistic experiences occur in their homes and communities. If science education is to build upon students’ experiences, it requires a knowledge base about the norms, practices, and expectations existing in students’ homes and communities. Unfortunately, research on the connection between school science and students’ home/community environments is limited. One consequence of this is that school science tends to be presented exclusively from the perspective of Western modern science, without adequate consideration of how science-related activities are carried out in diverse cultures and speech communities. Generally speaking, the daunting task of bridging the two worlds of home and school falls on students, who may be forced to choose one at the cost of the other. Given this dilemma, it is not surprising that non-mainstream students are so often under-served, underrepresented, and disenfranchised in science.
Future research may examine the science-related “funds of knowledge” existing in diverse contexts and communities. It may focus on how parents and other community members can serve as valuable resources for school-based science learning, or explore various educational approaches in community-based projects that can help students recognize the meaning and relevance of science for their daily lives and for their future.
CLOSING
The literature on the intersection of school science and student diversity is currently insufficient to the task of effectively addressing persistent achievement gaps, but points in some promising directions. Deeper examination of the complex relationships among the various factors influencing student outcomes, combined with greater attention to the potential contributions of multiple theoretical perspectives and research methods, should produce significant and powerful additions to the existing knowledge base in this emerging field. Just as teachers must learn to cross cultural boundaries in order to make school science meaningful and relevant for all children, researchers must learn to cross the boundaries separating different theoretical and methodological traditions if they are to disentangle the complex connections between student diversity and science education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Parts of this chapter appear in our book, Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda (Lee & Luykx, 2006). The preparation of this chapter was supported in part by grants from the Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement to the National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science (R305A60007) and to the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (R306A60001). The findings and opinions expressed in this chapter do not necessarily reflect the position, policy, or endorsement of the Department of Education, OERI, or the respective national centers. The authors acknowledge the electronic search of the literature by Margarette Mahotiere.
Thanks to Julie Bianchini and Randy Yerrick, who reviewed this chapter.
REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.
Agar, M. (1996). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217–238.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 269–287.
Allen, N. J., & Crawley, F. E. (1998). Voices from the bridge: Worldview conflicts of Kickapoo students of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 111–132.
Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 213–239.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Atwater, M. M. (1994). Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 558–576). New York: Macmillan.
Atwater, M. M., Wiggins, J., & Gardner, C. M. (1995). A study of urban middle school students with high and low attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 665–677.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, scientific argumentation: Science talk in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11(1), 1–14.
Barba, R. H. (1993). A study of culturally syntonic variables in the bilingual/bicultural science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1053–1071.
Bianchini, J. A., Johnston, C. C., Oram, S. Y., & Cavazos, L. M. (2003). Learning to teach science in contemporary and equitable ways: The successes and struggles of first-year science teachers. Science Education, 87, 419–443.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.
Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 878–898.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.
Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821–839.
Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 379–394.
Calabrese Barton, A. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 899–917.
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance (NCES 2000-469). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80, 579–610.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 493–522.
Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is “another world“: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79, 313–333.
Curtis, S., & Millar, R. (1988). Language and conceptual understanding in science: A comparison of English and Asian language speaking children. Research in Science and Technological Education, 6(1), 61–77.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as “seed people” growing a new future. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 14–21.
Duran, B. J., Dugan, T., & Weffer, R. (1998). Language minority students in high school: The role of language in learning biology concepts. Science Education, 82, 311–341.
Eide, K. Y., & Heikkinen, M. W. (1998). The inclusion of multicultural material in middle school science teachers’ resource manuals. Science Education, 82, 181–195.
Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295.
Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26.
Fishman, B., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.
Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 14–20, 42.
Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 860–877.
Gamoran, A., Anderson, C. W., Quiroz, P. A., Secada, W. G., Williams, T., & Ashmann, S. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
Gilbert, A., & Yerrick, R. (2001). Same school, separate worlds: A sociocultural study of identity, resistance, and negotiation in a rural, lower track science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 574–598.
Greenfield, T. A. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 901–933.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Hammond, L. (2001). An anthropological approach to urban science education for language minority families. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 983–999.
Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 475–501.
Hewson, P. W., Kahle, J. B., Scantlebury, K., & Davies, D. (2001). Equitable science education in urban middle schools: Do reform efforts make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1130–1144.
Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77, 685–711.
Jorgenson, O. (2000). The need for more ethnic teachers: Addressing the critical shortage in American public schools. Retrieved on September 13, 2000, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID10551
Kahle, J. B. (1998). Equitable systemic reform in science and mathematics: Assessing progress. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4(1, 2), 91–112.
Kahle, J. B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1019–1041.
Kearsey, J., & Tuner, S. (1999). The value of bilingualism in pupils’ understanding of scientific language. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1037–1050.
Kim, J. J., Crasco, L., Smith, R. B., Johnson, G., Karantonis, A., & Leavitt, D. J. (2001). Academic excellence for all students: Their accomplishment in science and mathematics. Norwood, MA: Systemic Research.
Klein, S. P., Jovanovic, J., Stecher, B. M., McCaffrey, D., Shavelson, R. J., Haertel, E., et al. (1997). Gender and racial/ethnic differences on performance assessment in science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 83–97.
Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 227–266.
Knapp, M. S., & Plecki, M. L. (2001). Investing in the renewal of urban science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1089–1100.
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211–247.
Lawrenz, F., & Huffman, D., & Welch, W. (2001). The science achievement of various subgroups of alternative assessment formats. Science Education, 85, 279–290.
Lee, O. (1999a). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 83–115.
Lee, O. (1999b). Science knowledge, world views, and information sources in social and cultural contexts: Making sense after a natural disaster. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 187–219.
Lee, O. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 26, pp. 23–69). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Lee, O. (2003). Equity for culturally and linguistically diverse students in science education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105, 465–489.
Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 65–93.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12–21.
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle grade students. Sociology of Education, 66, 164–187.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 241–247.
Lee, V., Smith, J., Croninger, J. B., & Robert, G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70, 128–150.
Levinson, B. A., Foley, D. E., & Holland, D. C. (Eds.). (1996). The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Loving, C. C. (1997). From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science education's journey through positivist-postmodern territory. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 421–452.
Luft, J. A., Bragg, J., & Peters, C. (1999). Learning to teach in a diverse setting: A case study of a multicultural science education enthusiast. Science Education, 83, 527–543.
Luykx, A., Cuevas, P., Lambert, J., & Lee, O. (2005). Unpacking teachers’ “resistance” to integrating students’ language and culture into elementary science instruction. In A. Rodríguez & R. S. Kitchen (Eds.), Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: Promising strategies for transformative pedagogy (pp. 119–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matthews, C. E., & Smith, W. S. (1994). Native American related materials in elementary science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 363–380.
McNeil, L. M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 729–734.
Merino, B., & Hammond, L. (2001). How do teachers facilitate writing for bilingual learners in “sheltered constructivist” science? Electronic Journal of Literacy through Science, 1(1). Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://sweeneyhall.sjsu.edu/ejlts/archives/bilingualism/merino.htm
Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is quality?“: Examining competing discourses in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469–495.
Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20–24.
Muller, P. A., Stage, F. K., & Kinzie, J. (2001). Science achievement growth trajectories: Understanding factors related to gender and racial-ethnic differences in pre-college science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 981–1012.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Foundation. (1998). Infusing equity in systemic reform: An implementation scheme. Washington, DC: Author.
National Science Foundation. (2002). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author.
National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (1996). Review of instructional materials for middle school science. Washington, DC: Author.
Ninnes, P. (2000). Representations of indigenous knowledges in secondary school science textbooks in Australia and Canada. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 603–617.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 153–221). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
O'sullivan, C. Y., Lauko, M. A., Grigg, W. S., Qian, J., & Zhang, J. (2003). The nation's report card: Science 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Peng, S., & Hill, S. (1994). Characteristics and educational experiences of high-achieving minority secondary students in science and mathematics. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 137–152.
Rahm, J. (2002). Emergent learning opportunities in an inner-city youth gardening program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 164–184.
Rakow, S. J. (1985). Minority students in science: Perspectives from the 1981–1982 national assessment in science. Urban Education, 20(1), 103–113.
Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for linguistically diverse students. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 427–446.
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Project-based science curricula: Achieving standards in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692.
Rodriguez, A. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the NRC's National Science Education Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 19–37.
Rodriguez, A. (1998a). Busting open the meritocracy myth: Rethinking equity and student achievement in science education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4(2, 3), 195–216.
Rodriguez, A. (1998b). Strategies for counter-resistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 589–622.
Rodriguez, A. J. (2001). From gap gazing to promising cases: Moving toward equity in urban education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1115–1129.
Rodriguez, A. J., & Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher's journey. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1017–1045.
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 61–94.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1045–1063.
Sconiers, Z. D., & Rosiek, J. L. (2000). Historical perspective as an important element of teachers’ knowledge: A sonata-form case study of equity issues in a chemistry classroom: Voices inside schools. Harvard Educational Review, 70, 370–404.
Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1000–1014.
Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America's urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 114–127.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Shaw, J. M. (1997). Threats to the validity of science performance assessments for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 721–743.
Smith, F. M., & Hausafus, C. O. (1998). Relationship of family support and ethnic minority students’ achievement in science and mathematics. Science Education, 82, 111–125.
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 6–34.
Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553–573.
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3–13.
Songer, N. B., Lee, H-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490–516.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Walker, L. J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 918–940.
Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 78, 387–398.
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 664–687.
Tobin, K. (2000). Becoming an urban science educator. Research in Science Education, 30, 89–106.
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Significance of limited English proficiency and cultural capital to the performance in science of Chinese-Australians. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 265–282.
Tobin, K., Roth, W., & Zimmerman, A. (2001). Learning to teach science in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 941–964.
Torres, H. N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). The effects of English language proficiency and scientific reasoning skills on the acquisition of science content knowledge by Hispanic English language learners and native English language speaking students. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(3). Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/torreszeidler.pdf
Vélez-Ibáñez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23, 313–335.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529–552.
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Yerrick, R. K., & Hoving, T. J. (2003). One foot on the dock and one foot on the boat: Differences among preservice science teachers’ interpretations of field-based science methods in culturally diverse contexts. Science Education, 87, 390–418.
1. U.S. science educators and researchers generally support the goals of school science laid out in science education standards documents (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996): to enable students to develop an understanding of key science concepts, conduct scientific inquiry and reasoning, engage in scientific discourse, and cultivate scientific habits of mind. We acknowledge the concerns, expressed by various scholars, that science education reform in general and standards documents in particular espouse an assimilationist perspective by defining science and science achievement in terms of the Western modern science tradition, with little consideration of alternative views of science and ways of knowing from diverse backgrounds (Eisenhart, Finkel, & Marion, 1996; Lee, 1999a; Lynch, 2000; Rodriguez, 1997). However, engaging in this debate is beyond the scope of this chapter.
2. The decision to focus on the U.S. context is due to: (a) a wide range of student diversity in different countries; (b) various political, racial/ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic contexts in society at large and the educational systems in particular in different countries; and (c) a vast body of literature on this topic in different countries and in different languages. Despite such variations, major issues discussed about the U.S. context in this chapter have implications for issues of student diversity in other countries to the extent that non-mainstream students are marginalized from the mainstream in their societies.
3. The focus on non-mainstream students should not obscure the fact that the culture and language of mainstream students play no less a role in their educational experience. Furthermore, the mainstream language and culture can no longer be assumed to be representative of most students’ experience, especially in inner-city schools or large urban school districts where non-mainstream students tend to be concentrated.