Dimensions of communication in urban science education: Interactions and transactions

Abstract

This paper is birthed from my lifelong experiences as student, teacher, administrator, and researcher in urban science classrooms. This includes my years as a minority student in biology, chemistry, and physics classrooms, 10 tears as science teacher and high school science department chair, 5‐years conducting research on youth experiences in urban science classrooms, and current work in preparing science teachers for teaching in urban schools. These experiences afford me both emic and etic lenses through which to view urban science classrooms and urban youth communities. This paper, both experiential and research based, forms an ethnography of urban youth communication and introduces the science education community to an aspect of science teaching that has been overlooked in traditional science education research. In documenting urban youth communication across social fields, this paper contributes to the research in science education that addresses science talk with urban youth in science classrooms (C. Ballenger, 1997; P. Gee, 1997). More specifically, I utilize the lenses I bring to urban science education research to interrogate the larger research questions of whether urban students' modes of communication are supported in the urban science classroom and the effects of this support or lack thereof on true participation/engagement of urban youth in science. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95: 1–20, 2011

What Is Construed as Relevant Knowledge in Physics Teaching? Similarities and Differences in How Knowledge and Power Are Staged in Three Lower Secondary Classrooms

“…Learning in science lessons has been found to often privilege the memorisation of facts, rather than developing students' own capabilities to engage in meaningful scientific discourse (Crawford 2000;Jiménez-Aleixandre et al 2000;Lemke 1990). Emdin (2011) points to the importance of support, especially for disadvantaged students' modes of communication, in order for them to truly participate in science talk in the classroom. Scott et al (2006) show how both the dialogic and the authoritative pattern of interaction are necessary in order for students to engage in meaningful understanding of scientific conceptual knowledge and that the tension between the approaches is an inevitable characteristic of meaning-making in science.…”

Conducting Talk in Secondary Science Classrooms: Investigating Instructional Moves and Teachers’ Beliefs

“…Students who are more able to decipher the complete meaning from the piecemeal question–answer interactions between teacher and students are more likely to succeed. This can be especially problematic for urban students who are not accustomed to this type of verbal interaction outside of school (Edmin, ).…”

“…Given the distinct nature of scientific language that utilizes generalizations, abstractions, and metaphors to establish arguments (Halliday, 1998/), opportunities to engage in science talk for some students may only occur in the classroom. In an authoritative form, however, science discussions can be alienating and discouraging, especially for students in the urban science classroom (Edmin, ) and girls (Juuti, Lavonen, Uitto, Byman, & Meisalo, ).…”

Filling positions or forging new pathways? Scholarship incentives, commitment, and retention of STEM teachers in high‐need schools

“…While she understandably does not want to the students to be off‐task, too much restraint might prevent the informal talk that might establish stronger connections (Ketch, ). Given the importance of White teachers emphasizing communication and participation (e.g., Emdin, ) and building community and demonstrating culturally responsive caring (Parsons, ) when teaching students from nondominant groups, a sense of a need to avoid informal talk could impede the development of connections.…”