The Smart Culture: Society, Intelligence, and Law.

Berry, Mary Frances; Hayman, Robert L.

doi:10.2307/2567272

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, this discourse obscures how smartness is socially and politically constructed (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011). As Hayman (1998) points out: "we make some people smarter than others, by rewarding the smartness of some people and ignoring the smartness of others. We make some people smart, in short, just by choosing to call them that" (p. 26).…”

Section: Discourse Of Ability Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining interactions between dominant discourses and engineering educational concepts in teachers' pedagogical reasoning

De Lucca,

Watkins,

Swanson

et al. 2023

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEngineering's introduction into K–12 classrooms has been purported to support meaningful and inclusive learning environments. However, teachers must contend with dominant discourses embedded in US schooling that justify inequitable distributions of resources.PurposeDrawing on Gee's notion of discourses, we examine how teachers incorporate language legitimizing socially and culturally constructed values and beliefs. In particular, we focus on the discourse of ability hierarchy—reflecting dominant values of sorting and ranking students based on perceived academic abilities—and the discourse of individual blame—reflecting dominant framings of educational problems as solely the responsibility of individual students or families. We aim to understand how these discourses surface in teachers' reasoning about teaching engineering.MethodWe interviewed 15 teachers enrolled in an online graduate program in engineering education. Utilizing critical discourse analysis, we analyzed how teachers drew on discourses of blame and ability hierarchy when reasoning about problems of practice in engineering.ResultsTeachers drew on engineering education concepts to reinforce dominant discourses (echoing specific language and preserving given roles) as well as to disrupt (utilizing different language or roles that [implicitly] challenge) dominant discourses. Importantly, teachers could also retool discourses of ability hierarchy (arguing for a more equitable distribution of resources but problematically preserving the values of ranking and sorting students).ConclusionsK–12 schooling's sociohistorical context can shape how teachers make sense of engineering in ways that implicate race, gender, disability, and language, suggesting a need to grapple with how discourses from schooling—and engineering culture—maintain marginalizing environments for students.

show abstract

Section: Discourse Of Ability Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%