Geary Don Crofford- University of Oklahoma
Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education- ILAC/Science Education
EDSC 5523 The Science of Learning Theories-Dr. Ed Marek
Journal Article Summary&Critique-Spring 2009
Cohen, L.M. (1994). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students.
Teaching Exceptional Children. 27, 70-79.
It is possible that minority students, particularly those that speak a language other than English at home, may be unfairly omitted from gifted and talented (G &T) programs. The author of this article specifically addresses the definition of giftedness, the assessment of gifted students, and the development and implementation of gifted programs. I know from personal experience this is true for Cherokees from more “traditional” families. In this article Cohen discusses why this is so, and what may be done about it. Piaget is specifically referenced by the author in the following passage, “an alternative to using English language standardized tests is the assessment of LEP students in their native language. These tests measure a variety of skills: creative thinking skills such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration; intellectual development based on Piaget's theory of development (Piaget, 1954; Piaget & Inhelder, 1973); language proficiency; and nonverbal perceptual skills of cognitive development.” The author does not focus on any one particular minority group, and I was pleasantly surprised to find several references to American Indian education, including statements such as, “different learning styles may also contribute to the underrepresentation of gifted and talented minority language students. Native Americans are often caught between the schools' value of independence and the home and community value of interdependence. In school, students generally sit in rows and face the teacher, whereas in Native American culture, everyone would be seated in a circle and decisions would be made collectively.” There is tremendous pressure on American Indian young people to stay close to home and family, even at the expense of foregoing higher education. Cohen discusses reasons minority students are underrepresented in G & T programs, and proceeds to discuss several techniques for the identification and inclusion of students from these groups. The author then gives several examples of programs that are available and could be adapted for these students, including resource rooms, cultural enrichment programs, acceleration or honors programs, and mentoring. Cohen proposes broadening the concept of giftedness, expanding research on giftedness and minority language students, exploring various program models, increasing staff awareness, and implementation of new programs. I included this article because it not only fit the parameters of the assignment but it also enhanced my knowledge of issues relating to some of the areas I am interested in for my own research. I felt it was a well-structured and comprehensive overview of the issue, and included Piagetian theory in the idea that we all think and develop mentally in a similar manner, notwithstanding cultural differences. As educators we need to have a broader and far-reaching definition of what constitutes giftedness and be able to challenge all of our students appropriately to help them reach their potential. This is particularly true for those of us in science education given the lack of American Indian students in particular, and minority students in general, in science, technology, mathematics, medicine, and engineering majors and careers. There are many facets of the growing issues associated with multiculturalism that we as science educators must recognize and address, as this and the other articles I selected for this assignment do. This article was clear, concise, and supported with many and appropriate references.
Ensign, J., Hargrave, E. V., & Lasso, R. (Eds.). (2008). Indigenous Knowledge in the Modern
Science Curriculum Using a Critical Pedagogy of Place Approach. Conference Proceedings, Masters in Teaching Program 2006-2008: Teaching the Child in Front of You in a Changing World. Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College.
To accomplish this assignment I sought to acquire a variety of papers from differing sources, including research articles, book chapters, and this entry from the proceedings of a conference. I attempted to find sources that not only explored the connections between Piagetian theories and multiculturalism, but that also expanded my awareness and understanding of issues relevant to my own research interests, and in particular my dissertation. This presentation on global sustainability and Indigenous Knowledge (IK) versus Western Modern Science (WMS) in science curricula was especially enlightening, especially in terms of critical pedagogy and place-based education, two topics I was somewhat deficient in. According to the author, critical pedagogy provides the methods and goals necessary for students to recognize institutional and ideological oppression and to act against them for social justice. Place-based education is connected to a series of other educational approaches, including outdoor education, experiential learning, environmental education, bioregional education, environment-integrating concept (EIC), service learning, issue based learning, constructivism, community-oriented learning, and even multicultural education. The constructivist aspect of place-based education means that exposition is de-emphasized and students are encouraged to interact with their environment and develop and organize the appropriate concepts, as in Piagetian theory. The author argues that utilization of these approaches necessitates recognition of the potential conflict for American Indian students between Western Modern Science (WMS) and Indigenous Knowledge (IK) or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). The notion of employing an approach that incorporates the Piagetian model of mental functioning supports the idea that learning cycles may be particularly effective for educating American Indian students. However, the author’s thesis is that science and ecological sustainability cannot be taught effectively without recognizing and incorporating all worldviews, and subjecting American Indian and other students to only WMS is tantamount to a continuation of repression of Native peoples and colonialism. Environmental sustainability and cultural oppression must be addressed collectively, for everyone’s benefit. I found it interesting how this presentation referenced many other sources and articles from this assignment as well as my prospectus, and Aikenhead’s concept of border crossings in science instruction were especially emphasized. Politically, this may be the most potentially controversial of all the references I utilized in this assignment. I felt it was an ambitious, far-reaching and thoughtful article, and it prompted much deeper consideration on my part of the inter-connectedness of the topics of multiculturalism, science education, and environmental issues. These are the kinds of issues that we as science educators must consider as we struggle with sustainability of the earth and changes in our student populations. Also emphasized in the presentation was the idea of community, as exemplified by indigenous peoples. I feel this links with the idea of social constructivism, as well as the concept of “community of practice” I am presenting on at the upcoming Holmes Scholars Conference in Florida. Holistic instruction as represented in IK, incorporation of multiple world views, and environmental education should be integral components of science education as we progress through the 21st century and our earth becomes smaller and smaller. Hargrave provided one of the rare and special articles that ties together seemingly disparate elements into a crucial juncture that truly informs, inspires, and forces one to think.
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.
In this article, Aikenhead and Jegede are concerned with how all students, but in particular First Nations (American Indians in Canada) move between the culture of their everyday lives and the “foreign” culture of their science instruction in school. Aikenhead has coined the phrase cultural border crossings to describe these junctures. Jegede then describes and explains the cognitive conflicts that result from these transitions in terms of what he calls collateral learning. The authors proceed to link the two ideas expressed above, and then call for a new discussion of how results from science education studies done in a multicultural context should be re-evaluated. Studies such as this are particularly important in light of the idea of teaching science for all students in the most effective and culturally sensitive approaches possible. Like the other writings I have chosen to summarize and critique, this is an article that satisfies the requirements of this assignment and at the same time further enriches my perspectives concerning my own research interests. I am interested in how American Indian students perceive science and scientists, and what conflicts arise from the indigenous contexts from which they, and especially those from the more “traditional” families and clans, view science education. American Indians are grievously underrepresented in science, technology, medical, mathematics, and engineering majors and careers. The article addresses three types of collateral learning; parallel, dependent, and secured. Parallel collateral learning is typified by two or more schema that do not conflict with each other. Dependent collateral learning results in a well-mixed amalgam of differing schema, and is similar to the Piagetian accommodation-assimilation model of information processing. According to the authors, “Dependent collateral learning occurs when a student’s preconception or indigenous belief is (a) contrasted with a different conception encountered in the science classroom, (b) given a tentative status, and then either (c) altered by reconstructing the original schema under the influence of the newly encountered schema, or (d) rejected and replaced by a newly constructed schema. In other words, students modify or reject their original schema because it makes sense to do so.” The article also refers to the process as acculturation. It should be noted that acculturation and cognitive assimilation are not the same, but both should be considered when education has a multicultural basis. Secured collateral learning is at the opposite end of the cognitive spectrum, when students hold on to two apparently conflicting schema, because enough reason is found to retain both. Interestingly, the article also discusses “Fatima’s Rules” which were described as ways students have found to pass their science courses without truly understanding the concepts being covered, such as memorizing the headings and vocabulary terms in their texts. I find this interesting because it supports the idea that learning cycles grounded in Piagetian theories, social constructivism, and meaningful learning may be particularly effective for American Indian students because they avoid rote learning through exposition and bring about true assimilation and organization of new schema. In my opinion Aikenhead and Jegede go a long way in this article in addressing the ideas of concept development and teaching science effectively to all students. This is an important paper with far-reaching implications for science education in general, and cross-cultural science education in particular. Like my other choices for this assignment, it effectively and clearly expresses its ideas and has numerous and appropriate references. Dr. Aikenhead and his work have been crucial to the progress of my own research, including his development of the non-culturally biased Views on Science and Technology Instrument (VOSTS) which has been employed in numerous science education studies. I also felt I should include at least one article from the prominent Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and this choice of article was relevant on several levels.
Ogbu, J. (1988). Cultural diversity and human development. In D. Slaughter (Ed.),
New directions in child development: Vol 42. Black children and poverty: A developmental perspective (pp. 11–28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
I chose a book chapter on cultural diversity and human development that in part attempts to make a distinction between psychobiological or maturational outcomes of development that apply to all people and the cultural variations that may impact the expression of that development. The author states that while all humans may be physically capable of formal operational thinking, some cultures value it more than others. This distinction between psychobiological outcomes and cultural outcomes also extends to language, motivational, and social-emotional development, according to the author. This book chapter therefore provides another perspective on Piaget’s stages of development and mental functioning model and their relationship to multiculturalism. This reading stresses that the cognitive capabilities of an individual must be viewed through the prism of the culture of which they are part of. For instance, middle-class white Americans value upward mobility in terms of the individual and independence, whereas some lowland tribes in the Philippines only value the well-being of the group and interdependence, not unlike the Cherokee community-driven concept of gadugi. Some African groups such as the Kanuri, on the other hand, view success or “getting ahead” solely in terms of paired mentors and aspirants. These three societal and cultural variations by definition constitute unique outcomes, and all three cultural paradigms require a different set of skills and social interactions in different environments for what is perceived as “success” to be achieved. It is critical for any researcher attempting to determine the cognitive development of an individual to have a clear understanding of the cultural forces and mores that helped to shape and drive the person in question to their current state. These differences flow over into all aspects of life, including family, work, and schooling. An educational researcher must start from a thorough knowledge of the minority culture in order to ascertain what type of cultural diversity is involved; primary or secondary, availability and use of technology, languages, and so on. In human development studies, cultural outcomes need to be distinguished from psychobiological or maturational outcomes. Non-white minorities cannot be held to the same standards that white middle-class students are, but the situation is more complex than that. The author states “a further complication arises from a comparative analysis of the school adjustment and academic performance of minority groups whose cultural backgrounds are different from those of the White middle class. This analysis shows that the differences found are not due to mere differences in culture or in outcomes of development. The relationship between culture, development, and school performance seems to be more complex in that it involves historical, structural, and psychological or expressive factors not ordinarily considered by students of human development. Yet probing and understanding this complex relationship will lead to better interpretation of research findings, which, in turn, can form the basis for a better social policy.” This book chapter is important for me, as it reinforces the idea that it is essential to understand the population of students one is dealing with in science education research, if one’s results are to be meaningful, viable and applicable. This chapter was comprehensively referenced, thorough, and particularly appropriate for me in terms of my research and status as a Holmes Scholar. The main goal of the Holmes Program is to promote diversity in education, in particular at the level of students of color seeking doctoral degrees. I do not feel it is impossible for a non-Cherokee, for instance, to conduct research concerning a population of Cherokee students, but as Ogbu states, it requires much extra effort for the non-indigenous researcher to be able to attain results that take cultural diversity into consideration. Programs such as the Holmes Scholarships help to alleviate the lack of minority scholars and address the problem Ogbu illuminates here
Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553–573.
This article was pertinent and timely for several reasons to me. Cultural validity of science assessments is an issue that directly relates to and is an important consideration in my own research. Also, the article has an interesting reference to the Piagetian conservation tasks that we have used in this course, and help provide the underpinnings of the theory base in our department. Specifically, it discusses how the tests of quantity conservation were administered to Wolof children in Senegal. When the children were asked “Why do you think the water was equal, or more or less?” during testing of the concrete operations stage, the children were silent. Responses were only elicited when the question was rephrased as “Why is the water equal, or more or less?” because to the children, the idea of explaining a statement was meaningless. Only the external event itself could be meaningfully explained. The point being that if cultural differences were not taken into account the children would have been perceived as being unable to explain the reasoning behind their quantitative judgments. This article addresses how culture and society shape the ways in which individuals construct knowledge and create meaning and what this means for science assessment. It proposes the concept of cultural validity as a form of validity that should be incorporated into assessment practices. The authors define cultural validity as the effectiveness with which science assessment addresses the sociocultural influences that shape student thinking and the ways in which students make sense of science items and respond to them. I have mixed feelings about implementing this concept in science education studies. I believe it is important to consider students’ cultural origins when it is relevant to the question being considered, or when it is impossible to obtain meaningful results without modification of the process, as in the example above. Some studies may require this consideration while others may not. Also, it is possible to evaluate student responses both in terms of their own culture as well as from a more general perspective. For instance, in my prospectus and proposed study I am interested in American Indian students’ attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions of science and scientists amongst themselves both now and in future. It also allows me to compare their responses to other groups that have been tested using the same instruments. Cultural validity becomes a more relevant concern for my study in the context of the results, not as much in the modification of existing instruments, because I am ultimately interested in why so few American Indians undertake and complete schooling in science and math programs as they are currently structured. The authors present a strong case in this article for researchers assuming responsibility for utilizing instruments that reflect cultural validity. The importance of recognizing and addressing this issue increases everyday as our society’s minority and migrant populations continue to increase, reflecting the diversity teachers face in their classrooms on a daily basis. The authors argue for more in-depth and comprehensive consideration of cultural diversity from a science education perspective, and not simply translation, providing assessment accommodations, or estimating cultural bias when conducting research. As some of my other articles discuss, the importance of how sociocultural factors influence how we construct knowledge and obtain meaning should never be underestimated or ignored. This was a lengthy and well-written article with extensive references. It has prompted me to reconsider some aspects of my own research and reevaluate the perspective from which I will view the results I obtain.
No comments:
Post a Comment