“But the science we do here matters”: Youth-authored cases of consequential learning

Abstract

In this paper, we use the concept of consequential learning to frame our exploration of what makes learning and doing science matter for youth from nondominant communities, as well as the barriers these youth must confront in working toward consequential ends. Data are derived from multimodal cases authored by four females from nondominant communities that present an account of "science that matters" from their work during their middle school years. We argue that consequential learning in science for these girls involves engaging science with a commitment to their community. This form of engagement required the girls to develop bridging practices that allowed them to transform existing relationships among science and community for themselves and others despite normative barriers experienced in science. Our study expands upon current understandings of consequential learning through highlighting the vital role of sociohistorically constructed understandings of community in determining when, how, and why science learning and doing matters for youth. This view opens up new ways to understand how youth can and do contribute to the changing contexts in which science takes place, and toward the ways in which youth contributions alter what gets counted as learning, as being expert, and as meaningful participation. K E Y W O R D S consequential learning, Community science, youth participatory action research, Equity, Hope Green Club 1 (informal science club) is different from school science because you don't sit in your seat and listen. You listen, then start letting your community hear you. Get your point across to the world. You are saving the world and it's power. Think about it. I am a 12-year-old sixth grade girl saving the world and its people. -Maya

Critically engaging engineering in place by localizing counternarratives in engineering design

“…In doing so, he critically engaged engineering in place with his community members and systematically took up community knowledge and practices. Hence, the “pancake” layers and the act of purposefully hybridizing these various community knowledge and practices not only allowed him to connect science and engineering to a meaningful problem in his learning, but it also provided a way to support agency in STEM—which could have been completely absent from his design work if his counternarratives, STEM knowledge/expertise in app making, and community data were not important resources for cultural learning in science (Birmingham et al, ).…”

Who produces knowledge? Transforming undergraduate students’ views of science through participatory action research

“…Alternatively, PAR has been used in educational contexts to educate about social justice and engage students in research with the aim to empower them to transform their own communities, schools, or the students themselves. To this end, researchers have engaged marginalized students in PAR to forefront their voices and enhance their educational engagement (Bland & Atweh, 2007) or attitudes (Buck, Cook, Quigley, Prince, & Lucas, 2014), while others aim to engage students in PAR to empower them to transform policies and practices in their schools (Birmingham et al, 2017;Cammarota & Romero, 2011).…”

“…Despite their shared utility in introducing students to research and enhancing science learning, PAR methods have rarely been used in URE programs (i.e., McEwen, 2013;Reardon, 1994;Vogelgesang & O'Byrne, 2003), and there is no evidence the URE students have played the role of primary research facilitator. When PAR occurs in educational contexts, evidence suggests students exclusively play the role of community members or participants, rather than facilitators in the PAR process (e.g., Birmingham et al, 2017;Buck et al, 2014;Cantor, DeLauer, Martin, & Rogan, 2015;Morales-Doyle, 2017).…”

“…Despite their shared utility in introducing students to research and enhancing science learning, PAR methods have rarely been used in URE programs (i.e., McEwen, ; Reardon, ; Vogelgesang & O'Byrne, ), and there is no evidence the URE students have played the role of primary research facilitator. When PAR occurs in educational contexts, evidence suggests students exclusively play the role of community members or participants, rather than facilitators in the PAR process (e.g., Birmingham et al., ; Buck et al., ; Cantor, DeLauer, Martin, & Rogan, ; Morales‐Doyle, ). The URE experience described in this manuscript is distinct from these prior applications of PAR in science education in that the undergraduate students are facilitators of the PAR, collaborating with communities to design and conduct PAR research; they are not members of the community.…”

Critical science agency and power hierarchies: Restructuring power within groups to address injustice beyond them

“…For example, “settled” expectations in school science act as “boundaries that control the borders of acceptable meanings and meaning‐making practices,” positioning students from nondominant communities in deficit‐oriented ways (Bang, Warren, Rosebery, & Medin, 2012, p. 303). Additionally, normative discourses about and enactments of disciplinary learning, for whom and why, can differentially position students with or without epistemic authority and/or agency (Birmingham et al, 2017).…”