What do core practices offer in preparing novice science teachers for equitable instruction?

Abstract

This study explores the affordances and constraints of using the four core practices of ambitious science teaching (AST) as the main curriculum of science methods courses in preparing novice teachers for equitable instruction.Employing a longitudinal qualitative case study approach, this study follows three novice secondary science teachers' trajectories over 3 years, from their preparation to their second year of teaching. Participants were three White women who taught primarily Latinx, English learners, exceptional learners, and/or those who live in poverty. The contemporary vision of science learning promoted by the Next Generation Science Standards and critical race theory guide our analysis of novice teachers' instruction. Findings suggest that using AST practices as the main curriculum of science methods courses can help prepare novice teachers for equity if the approximation of these practices facilitates novices in problematizing their normalized views, expectations, and practices of disciplinary teaching and learning. The core practices are limited, however, in their ability to develop novice teachers' critical consciousness about racism and systemic inequity, which profoundly affects interactions with marginalized youth in classrooms.

Intergroup dialogue: A justice‐centered pedagogy to address gender inequity in STEM

“…Counter to typical norms in STEM curriculum and practice (Bianchini et al, 2002; Donavan et al, 2019; Johnson, 2007; Kang & Zinger, 2019; Moss‐Racusin et al, 2012), IGD helped participants develop new knowledge (i.e., critical consciousness about systemic oppression in STEM and individuals' experiences with it) and skills for communicating across groups (e.g., gender) about difficult topics like systemic sexism and male privilege. This learning was reflected in participants describing the impact of learning about and accepting the experiences and perspectives of others for the sake of understanding, rather than debating with the purpose of arriving at the “right” conclusion, which is consistent with dialogic communication (Bohm, 1996; Flick, 1998).…”

“…| 233 ethnocentric views of science and learners (Kang & Zinger, 2019). These biases may be transmitted to students implicitly through an uncritical pedagogy, with negative consequences for women students and those from other marginalized groups (e.g., people of color).…”

“…In addition to these barriers to perspective-taking, participants identified processes that facilitated it. For example, pedagogical features of the IGD also facilitated perspective-taking and were intentionally designed to offer an alternative to the typical STEM curriculum (Kang & Zinger, 2019). For example, four participants commented on how the creation of ground rules in the first session helped them to feel more comfortable and to have the expectation that there would be respect within the group.…”

“…Gender bias is pervasive in both the content and process of science education, highlighting the need for critical STEM education that aims to illuminate and challenge gender (and intersecting forms of) inequity. For example, instructors bring with them to the classroom their own beliefs and biases, which may include patriarchal and ethnocentric views of science and learners (Kang & Zinger, 2019). These biases may be transmitted to students implicitly through an uncritical pedagogy, with negative consequences for women students and those from other marginalized groups (e.g., people of color).…”

“…At the same time, given the impacts of gender socialization and stereotype threat, women in these classroom settings may not feel as comfortable to take up space asking questions as a student who is a White man. Research also suggests institutionalized best practices for preparing science teachers for equitable teaching do not build a critical awareness of social issues like systemic sexism and racism (Kang & Zinger, 2004).…”