Nancy W. Brickhouse

Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revisited

We contend that science education should be multicultural. We do not believe a universalist view of science is either compatible with a multicultural approach or fully coherent as a foundation for the science curriculum. We begin by summarizing the case for a universalist approach to science education. We then show weaknesses of universalism in accounting for the following: 1. the limits of human cognitive capabilities in constraining what we can understand about nature; 2. a description of reality as a flux; 3. the disunity of science and the role of culturally different forms and social organization of research in shaping the cognitive content of the sciences. We argue that it would be valuable for students to understand the nature of the debates regarding multicultural and universalist perspectives on science. For example, what questions is contemporary molecular biology good at answering? What kinds of problems do other sciences solve? What historical conditions may explain why western sciences arose primarily out of Western European culture rather than elsewhere in the world? How do other belief systems (e.g., religion) interact with indigenous sciences, Chinese science, and Western science?

The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: case studies of teachers’ personal theories

This study examines teachers’ philosophies of science and describes how these philosophies influence their classroom instruction. Three science teachers with very diverse views of science were interviewed and observed in their classrooms for several months. These teachers’ philosophies were found to influence laboratory instruction, the manner in which demonstrations were used, the teaching of evolution, science‐technology‐society (STS) instruction, word usage, and instructional goals. The findings are relevant to issues in teacher education as well as the institutional environment of teaching.

Practical Reasoning and Science Education: Implications for Theory and Practice.

Practical reasoning is a fundamental competence required for everyday decision-making as well as for the production of scientific knowledge. However, very little attention is given to developing this competence in school science classrooms or in educational research programs. In this paper we explain the tradition of practical reasoning and its relevance to science and science education. We then suggest ways in which practical reasoning may be developed in students such that they are enabled to better understand how scientific knowledge is produced and how they may be better able to contribute to improving scientific practices.

More Questions Than Answers.

In this commentary on ‘Time to Change Drivers for Science Literacy’ by Peter Fensham I address two issues raised by Fensham. First, Why is reforming the science curriculum so hard? I suggest that the reason that science curriculum reform is difficult to achieve is that the practice of science teaching has been shaped by the culture in which it is embedded. Second, What are the potential possibilities of and problems with Fensham’s reform proposal? The content of the curriculum that Fensham proposes would be largely dependent on how the societal experts are chosen and on what media sources are examined. Finally, we need to recognize that whatever we agree upon today as the most appropriate content for the science curriculum must be continually negotiated and revised.RésuméDans le présent commentaire sur l’article de Peter Fensham (2002) intitulé «Time to change drivers for scientific literacy», l’auteur se penche sur deux questions: les raisons qui rendent si difficile une réforme du curriculum scientifique et les possibilités et les problèmes que suscite la réforme proposée par Fensham.La raison pour laquelle une réforme du curriculum scientifique s’avère si difficile est que l’enseignement des sciences est une pratique modelée par la culture dans laquelle elle s’insère. Les idées culturelles sur la nature même de la science, la façon dont l’apprentissage a lieu, la définition de ce qui constitue un curriculum scientifique rigoureux, l’aspect que doit avoir une salle de classe, les critères qui définissent une juste évaluation et les contenus que les étudiants et les étudiantes de sciences doivent apprendre sont autant d’idées qui proviennent non seulement des classes et des écoles, mais aussi de la société en général. En effet, non seulement les idées sur ce qu’est un bon enseignant ou une bonne enseignante de sciences sont-elles ancrées sur le plan culturel, mais tous les aspects du système renforcent le scénario culturel établi. Une modification substantielle du scénario en didactique des sciences comme celle que propose Fensham requiert donc des changements culturels et politiques profonds.La forme que prendra le curriculum proposé par Fensham dépendra largement d’une part de la façon dont les spécialistes issus de la société seront choisis et d’autre part des sources qu’on décidera d’analyser. Qui seront ces spécialistes? Seront-ils choisis en fonction de leurs compétences particulières dans l’utilisation qu’ils font des sciences? Seront-ils choisis parce qu’ils sont suffisamment compétents? Qui les choisira? En outre, si l’interprétation des reportages scientifiques doit devenir une part significative de la formation des étudiants et des étudiantes, il est important de connaître avec plus de précision les sources auxquelles on donnera la priorité. Quelles sont les sources que nous voulons que les étudiants soient en mesure de comprendre? Nous attendons-nous à ce que tous les étudiants et toutes les étudiantes puissent lire les pages scientifiques du New York Times? Ou nous estimerons-nous satisfaits s’ils sont en mesure d’interpréter les cartes météorologiques? Combien de sources seront consultées?Enfin, il nous faut reconnaître que, quelle que soit la solution à laquelle nous arrivons aujourd’hui, il faut l’entendre comme un accord qu’il faudra continuellement revoir et renégocier.

Book ReviewsAthena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. By Henry Etzkowitz, Carol Kemelgor, and Brian Uzzi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Women, Science, and Society: The Crucial Union. By Sue V. Rosser. New York: Teacher’s College Press, 2000.Women Becoming Mathematicians: Creating a Professional Identity in Post–World War II America. By Margaret A. M. Murray. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.

B ecoming a scientist or mathematician can be thought of as a process of identity construction. Identity refers to the practices in which one participates and how others interpret and respond to these forms of participation. An individual negotiates her identity by, first, making a claim on her identity, and second, judging the viability of that identity against the reaction of others. Taking on the identity of a scientist or mathematician is thus both cognitive and social because it requires the acquisition of new competencies that are then performed and evaluated

Conceptions of Inequality in the Era of Bush/Obama

In this chapter, I analyze current policies that are being advocated and/or enacted in order provide greater access to science for all students. Implicit in these policy-driven reforms are differing views of the sources of inequality. Standards-based reform assumes that inequality results from too much variability in the quality of the educational system, leading to a predictable abundance of opportunity in privileged communities and a lack of opportunity for underserved populations. Market-based reforms assume that inequality is due to a lack of competition that is needed to drive innovation and efficient utilization of resources. Finally, culturally-based notions of science learning assume that there are epistemological barriers to science learning and that effective reforms require leveraging community-based resources for learning science.

Meanings of Success in Science

In this discussion of the five chapters in Part 1: K-12 Science Learners In and Out of Schools of this book, I will take the cue from Carlone’s chapter and ask a set of questions about the research projects that provide a somewhat different lens for viewing the cases than taken by the authors themselves.Carlone argues that our research often describes the ways in which students are authoring their own identity in ways that do not account for how student identities are constrained by social structures that are both historical and temporal.