Equity for whom? Synthesizing examinations of multilingual learners’ language practices across asset-based science education research

References

Referebces

Guest Editorial: Science education in the developing world: Issues and considerations

Guest editorial: Improving the interpretation and reporting of quantitative research

The Elementary School Journal Volume 84, Number 4 S1984 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984/84/8404-0004$01.00 Assumptions, even assumptions that seem logical and reasonable, can make it difficult or impossible for people to understand scientific concepts. Everyone makes assumptions about the way the world works, assumptions like "When the sky is cloudy and dark, it will probably rain" or "Bits of wood float in water." People often use those assumptions to explain how things work: "I can see myself in a mirror because light bounces off me to the mirror and off the mirror to my eyes." Such explanations or conceptions are often based on experience and common sense; however, experience and common sense can sometimes

Contents: D. Williams, A Framework for Thinking About Research in Mathematics and Science Education. R. Zevenbergen, Ethnography in the Mathematics and Science Classrooms. J.S. Schaller, K. Tobin, Establishing Credibility and Authenticity in Ethnographic Studies. J. Truran, K. Truran, Using Clinical Interviews in Qualitative Research. R. Bleicher, Classroom Interactions: Using Interactional Sociolinguistics to Make Sense of Recorded Classroom Talk. P. Taylor, V. Dawson, Critical Reflections on a Problematic Student-Supervisor Relationship. G. Leder, H. Forgasz, J. Landvogt, Higher Degree Supervision: Why It Worked. L. White, Teacher, Researcher, Collaborator, Student: Multiple Roles and Multiple Dilemmas. F.E. Crawley, Guiding Collaborative Action Research in Science Education Contexts. J.A. Malone, On Supervising and Being Supervised at a Distance. W-M. Roth, M.K. McGinn, Legitimate Peripheral Participation in the Training of Researchers in Science and Mathematics Education. A. Begg, B. Bell, V. Compton, E.A. McKinley, Supervision in a Graduate Centre. T. Cooper, A.R. Baturo, L. Harris, Scholarly Writing in Mathematics and Science Education Higher-Degree Courses. J. Hourcade, H. Anderson, Writing for Publication. D. Squires, The Impact of New Developments in Information Technology on Postgraduation Research and Supervision. P. Rillero, B. Gallegos, Databases: A Gateway to Research in Mathematics and Science Education Research.

Previous articleNext article No AccessA New Use of Randomization in Experimental Curriculum EvaluationHerbert J. Walberg and Wayne W. WelchHerbert J. Walberg Search for more articles by this author and Wayne W. Welch Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 75, Number 4Winter, 1967 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/442821 Views: 3Total views on this site Citations: 26Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1967 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Joy Cumming, Adrian Coulston, John Elkins Planning for incomplete data collection in educational research, Research Papers in Education 2, no.11 (Jul 2006): 31–46.https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152870020103Barry J. Fraser Learning environment in curriculum evaluation: A review, Evaluation in Education 5, no.11 (Jan 1981): 1–93.https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-765X(81)90014-8VICTOR L. WILLSON Research Techniques in AERJ Articles: 1969 to 1978, Educational Researcher 9, no.66 (Jul 2016): 5–10.https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X009006005Frances Lawrenz The stability of student perception of the classroom learning environment, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 14, no.11 (Jan 1977): 77–81.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660140113Frances Lawrenz Student perception of the classroom learning environment in biology, chemistry, and physics courses, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13, no.44 (Jul 1976): 315–323.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660130405William H. Ward A test of the association of class size to students' attitudes toward science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13, no.22 (Mar 1976): 137–143.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660130206Frances Lawrenz The relationship between science teacher characteristics and student achievement and attitude, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 12, no.44 (Oct 1975): 433–437.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660120415Wayne W. Welch The process of evaluation, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11, no.33 (Sep 1974): 175–184.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660110303Wayne W. Welch Review of the research and evaluation program of harvard project physics, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 10, no.44 (Dec 1973): 365–378.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660100411Wayne W. Welch, Arlen R. Gullickson A Strategy for Evaluating the NSF Comprehensive Program for Teacher Education, School Science and Mathematics 73, no.99 (Dec 1973): 759–767.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1973.tb09166.xBikkar S. Randhawa, Lewis L. W. Fu Assessment and Effect of Some Classroom Environment Variables, Review of Educational Research 43, no.33 (Jun 2016): 303–321.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543043003303Wayne W. Welch, Herbert J. Walberg A National Experiment in Curriculum Evaluation, American Educational Research Journal 9, no.33 (Jun 2016): 373–383.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312009003373Gary J. Anderson Effects of Course Content and Teacher Sex on the Social Climate of Learning, American Educational Research Journal 8, no.44 (Jun 2016): 649–663.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312008004649Wayne W. Welch, Herbert J Walberg Pretest and Sensitization Effects in Curriculum Evaluation, American Educational Research Journal 7, no.44 (Jun 2016): 605–614.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312007004605Gary J. Anderson Effects of Classroom Social Climate on Individual Learning, American Educational Research Journal 7, no.22 (Jun 2016): 135–152.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312007002135Herbert J. Walberg, Andrew Ahlgren Predictors of the Social Environment of Learning, American Educational Research Journal 7, no.22 (Jun 2016): 153–167.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312007002153Herbert J. Walberg Predicting Class Learning An Approach to the Class as a Social System, American Educational Research Journal 6, no.44 (Jun 2016): 529–542.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006004529Herbert J. Walberg Class Size and the Social Environment of Learning, Human Relations 22, no.55 (Oct 1969): 465–475.https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676902200507Wayne W. Welch 4: Curriculum Evaluation, Review of Educational Research 39, no.44 (Jun 2016): 429–443.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543039004429Herbert J. Walberg, Wayne W. Welch, Arthur I. Rothman Teacher heterosexuality and student learning, Psychology in the Schools 6, no.33 (Jul 1969): 258–266.https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(196907)6:3<258::AID-PITS2310060307>3.0.CO;2-KRobert L. Baker 4: Curriculum Evaluation, Review of Educational Research 39, no.33 (Jun 2016): 339–358.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543039003339Gary J. Anderson, Herbert J. Walberg, Wayne W. Welch Curriculum Effects on the Social Climate of Learning: A New Representation of Discriminant Functions, American Educational Research Journal 6, no.33 (Jun 2016): 315–328.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006003315Wayne W. Welch Correlates of courses satisfaction in high school physics, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 6, no.11 (Mar 1969): 54–58.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660060112Wayne W. Welch, Herbert J. Walberg, Andrew Ahlgren The Selection of a National Random Sample of Teachers for Experimental Curriculum Evaluation, School Science and Mathematics 69, no.33 (Mar 2010): 210–216.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1969.tb08443.xHERBERT J. WALBERG, GARY J. ANDERSON The Achievement-Creativity Dimension and Classroom Climate*, The Journal of Creative Behavior 2, no.44 (Dec 2011): 281–291.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1968.tb00118.xWayne W. Welch, Robert G. Bridgham Physics Achievement Gains as a Function of Teaching Duration*, School Science and Mathematics 68, no.55 (Mar 2010): 449–454.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1968.tb15413.x

This chapter emerged from dialogues at the 2008 Springer forum held at Graduate Center of the City University of New York. The forum considered paradigms for research in science education. The conversations began by examining a prominent paradigm in science education, conceptual change theory, which was the subject of a recent special issue of Cultural Studies of Science Education (Roth and Tobin 2008). Conceptual change theory, and its relatives, cognitive constructivism and studies of student’s alternative frameworks, thus are a starting point for a thorough reconsideration of research on science learning. We have been asked to consider paradigms for research in science education and propose some future directions. In this chapter our contribution will be to try to take a long view of science education research based in conceptual change and constructivist perspectives and identify some alternatives for future directions. Since these theories have generally focused on student learning, and the various cognitive, social, and pedagogical contexts around learning, we limit the discussion to these areas. Through this consideration of learning in science, we identify a number of challenges and unresolved questions for the field. We do not presume to assess the entire field or offer a research agenda for science education. Rather, we note only some of the many promising areas, acknowledging that there are many others. We begin our reconsideration of the conceptual change paradigm by identifying its contribution to the field. We then consider a number of theoretical developments since the inception of conceptual change views. These developments bring into light some basic assumptions of the conceptual change view of learning, including its reliance on an individual learner as the central epistemic subject. In the second part of the chapter we examine consequences of considering a thoroughly social view of the epistemic subject and its consequences for research in science education. Behind much of the past research in science education (e.g., conceptual change, constructivism, nature of science) is the individual as the epistemic subject. These research paradigms generally start with the knowing subject as the individual, and from there examine issues of learning and knowledge. Alternatively, the emerging research in science education tends to re-conceptualize the epistemic subject as a relevant social group.

Research in science education with multilingual learners (MLs) has expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion can be situated within a larger dialogue about what it means to provide minoritized students with an equitable education. Whereas some conceptions of equity focus on ensuring all students have access to the knowledge, practices, and language normatively valued in K‐12 schools (equity as access), increasingly prominent conceptions focus on transforming those knowledge, practices, and language in ways that center minoritized students and their communities (equity as transformation). In this article, we argue that conceptions of equity provide a useful lens for understanding emerging research in science education with MLs and for charting a research agenda. We begin by tracing how conceptions of equity have evolved in parallel across STEM and multilingual education. Then, we provide an overview of recent developments from demographic, theoretical, and policy perspectives. In the context of these developments, we provide a conceptual synthesis of emerging research by our team of early‐career scholars in three areas: (a) learning, (b) assessment, and (c) teacher education. Within each area, we unpack the research efforts in terms of how they attend to equity as access while pushing toward equity as transformation. Finally, we propose a research agenda for science education with MLs that builds on and extends these efforts. We close by offering recommendations for making this research agenda coherent and impactful: (a) being explicit about our conceptions of equity, (b) paying attention to the interplay of structure and agency, and (c) promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

ABSTRACTThis paper examines a professional learning (PL) program for upper elementary teachers focused on developing instructional practices to support multilingual learners (MLLs) in science. The PL sought to support teachers' praxis, which we describe as their sense of agency to critically analyze and take action against barriers to MLLs’ opportunities to learn. We analyzed pre‐PL interviews with teachers to identify the ways that they framed MLLs from asset‐ and deficit‐based perspectives and the barriers that they identified that undermine MLLs' science learning. Then, we analyzed the extent to which the teachers' participation in the PL shifted their framing of MLLs and fostered their sense of agency to challenge the barriers faced by MLLs. We found that teachers shifted toward more asset‐based views of students' existing language resources and deepened their sense of agency to employ scaffolds that engage these resources in their own instructional practice. However, teachers continued to surface barriers in their organizational contexts, including the emphasis placed on standardized language assessments and the misalignment between English language instruction and science learning. Our analysis shows that the PL did not adequately support teachers in navigating these particular institutional barriers. Based on our analysis, we argue that teachers and science education researchers should expand their focus beyond teachers’ instructional practices and work together to remove barriers for MLLs in the larger organizational systems of schooling.

A vision for the next phase of JRST

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have spurred renewed interest in the epistemologies that students adopt as they engage in science practices. One framework for characterizing students' epistemologies is theepistemologies in practiceframework (Berland et al. (2016),Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112), which focuses on students' meaningful use of four epistemic considerations: Nature, Generality, Justification, and Audience. To date, research based on the framework has primarily examined students' use of the epistemic considerations in the context of diagrammatic modeling. However, with computational technologies becoming more prevalent in science classrooms, the framework could be applied to investigate students' engagement incomputationalmodeling. Moreover, computational modeling could be particularly beneficial to a fast‐growing population of multilingual learners (MLs) in the U.S. K‐12 context, who benefit from leveraging multiple meaning‐making resources (e.g., code, dynamic visualization). This study examined MLs' meaningful use of four epistemic considerations in the context of computational modeling in an elementary science classroom. Fifth‐grade MLs (N = 11) participated in two interviews about computational models they had developed as part of two NGSS‐designed instructional units that integrated computational modeling (in addition to other model types). Findings indicated that, while students used all four epistemic considerations across the interviews, some considerations (Nature and Generality) were used more frequently than others (Justification and Audience). Beyond diagrammatic modeling, computational modeling offered unique affordances for MLs to meaningfully use the considerations as well as to communicate this use, though not without some emergent challenges. Overall, this study highlights the promise of computational modeling for providing a rich sense‐making and meaning‐making context for MLs to use epistemic considerations. The study also highlights the importance of attending to both epistemic and linguistic aspects of MLs' science learning as well as the potential of interdisciplinary research for studying this learning.

Action research is suggested as a way to engage teachers in curriculum development and the betterment of teaching practices in schools based on educational research activities. As in other educational domains, action research in science education is employed with both aims to better understand and develop teaching practices and to contribute to teacher continuous professional development. A variety of methodological approaches using action research in science education exists, from more technical toward more emancipatory interpretations. The range of educational settings and goals for which action research is performed is also quite broad. The purpose of this analytical review of the international available literature is to provide an overview of the main aspects in applying action research in science education.

Over 10 years ago, a National Research Council committee led by Jim Pellegrino and Robert Glaser generated the fundamental text on educational assessment titled, Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment (NRC, 2001). In this document, the authors emphasize that assessment is a process of reasoning from evidence, ‘‘a process by which educators use students’ responses to specially created or naturally occurring stimuli to draw inferences about the students’ knowledge and skills’’ (National Research Council 2001, p. 20). Knowing What Students Know (NRC, 2001; KWSK) was fundamental to advancing the conversation on assessment in science and other disciplines for several reasons. First, KWSK provided a set of guiding principles for the development and evaluation of educational assessments. The assessment triangle, introduced as an assessment model, was particularly important as it brought recognition to the importance of using cognitive models to drive the design of the assessment and define the empirical evidence needed to support the interpretations derived from observed performance. Second, KWSK called for a ‘‘balanced assessment system’’ of classroom and large-scale assessments that are: comprehensive—using multiple sources of evidence about students’ learning; coherent—a shared learning model coordinating curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and continuous—longitudinal assessment of learning progress over time. This assessment system posed a model to follow in any educational system. Third, KWSK confirmed the idea that assessment should be designed with a specific purpose in mind and cannot serve multiple purposes. Fourth, KWSK emphasized the necessity for assessments to be sensitive to cultural and linguistic difference characteristics of the tested audience. Fifth, KWSK presented new advances in educational measurement, psychometrics, and technology. In all of these ways, KWSK set a high bar for quality assessments. At the

This chapter reviews the current research on conceptual change in science education. The review includes research located in the DoRise system (Database of Research in Science Education) in Taiwan and articles published in selected international science education journals (Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, Research in Science Education, and International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education) between 1982 and 2012. Three hundred and eighty-three articles in the international journals (including 26 English papers from researchers in Taiwan) and eighty-six articles from Taiwan were analyzed (60 and 26 articles from Taiwanese and international journals, respectively). There are five major findings. First, most of the research follows the empirical approach, regardless of it being an international or national article. Second, physics was the main discipline examined both in the international and national studies. Third, about two thirds of the studies from outside of Taiwan used epistemological perspective to frame and present their study. A similar percentage of articles investigated the instructional perspective whereas nearly two thirds of the Taiwanese articles investigated the instructional perspective and only 28 % followed the epistemological perspective. Fourth, as for the research method, we found that qualitative data analysis was ranked first among all the methods we investigated whereas Taiwan appeared to integrate both quantitative and qualitative methods. Fifth, as expected, high percentages of published researchers were from English-speaking countries (i.e., the USA, Australia, and the UK). Taiwan was ranked third out of 31 countries with respect to the number of publications in this study from 1982 to 2012 but was the first non-English-speaking country. Recommendations for researchers and educators are provided.