Meaning making in a community of learners: Struggles and possibilities in an urban science class

Abstract

In this study, we embark on an exploration and analysis of a community of learners of science in a classroom of one of the authors (Barbara Lustcr)--a group of Year 8 African American girls and boys in an urban, inner-city school. This study is a coUaborative action research project that examines closely the practice of roaching and learning science within a socio-culmral perspective that Barbara has espoused and brought to her classroom. We study the two dimensions of a community of Icamcrs--social-organisafional, and intellectual-thematic---and how each evolved and influcnceA the other. As we explore thcs~ dimensions we pay particular attention to the gender of the students, looking for similarities and differences bcrwccn boys and girls in the patterns that emerge. Our findings indicat_e that in Barbara's class the relative success of the learning community in terms of the social-organisational dimension was not accompanied by a relative success in the intellectual-thematic dimension. Barbara and her students, for the most part, succeeded in developing a community of people coming together to ask questions, offer their thinking, and respectfully sometimes build on each other's con~bufions and sometimes disagree with each 0ther. However, Barbara and her students did not quite succe~ in developing sharod undt,~andings, and we discuss the reasons for thi~ Increased attention to socio-cultural approaches to teaching and learning has led to a growing literature regarding how classrooms with diverse students can become communities of learners. As Simonson (1995) writes, a community of learners is a supportive, caring environment that provides time, struaure, and space for individuals who, in the case of a classroom, are the students and the teacher. It is a socio=cultural system mutually and actively created by teacher and students. In a community of learners all participants are active; no one has all the responsibility and none is passive. Children and teacher together are active in structuring what is explored and how, though with asymmetry of roles. This is a very different model fzom both an "adult-run" or a "children-run" classroom. As Rogoff, Matusov & White (1996) writes, "it is not a compromise or a balance of the adult=run and children-run models. Its underlying theoretical notion is that learning is a process of transformation of participation in which both adults and children conm'bute support and direction in shared endeavors" (p. 389). This model is consistent with the vision that the National Science Education Standards promote, according to which in a community of learners all members "support and respect a diversity of experience, ideas, thought, and expression" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 46).

Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention

“…The growing literature in science education indicates that intermediate grade elementary students, especially those from non-mainstream backgrounds or those with limited science experience, require teachers' explicit instruction and scaffolding in order to develop studentcentered inquiry abilities (Hogan, Natasi, & Pressley, 2000;Valeras, Luster, & Wenzel, 1999;Valeras & Pineda, 1999). More broadly, studies have advocated the value of explicit instruction of both academic content and processes in the context of authentic and meaningful tasks and activities for non-mainstream students across subject areas (see Lee [2002] for literature review).…”

Beginning teachers immersed into science: Scientist and science teacher identities

“…These include how scientists use division of labor, communication, support systems, networks, and collaboration (Cunningham & Helms, 1998); deal with ambiguity, uncertainty, and complexity (Roth, 1995); appreciate the theory -data dialectic (Varelas, 1996); appropriate actions of others in the course of ongoing negotiations (Ritchie & Rigano, 1996); juggle the intellectual-thematic and the socio-organizational dimensions of a community of practice (Varelas, Luster, & Wenzel, 1999); and construct arguments that are convincing and compelling (Bowen, 2004). Such issues are, we believe, important parts of a set of standard practices, of speech acts, and of tools and equipment (Denning & Dargan, 1996) that characterize scientific practice.…”

Community of Learners: Ontological and non-ontological projects

“…Many authors complain that the notion of "community of learners" that emerged in the educational literature in the late 1980s, is somewhat fuzzy (Varelas et al, 1999). We argue that this fuzziness reflects the diversity of the many CoL projects in education.…”

“…the "curriculum as conversation" notion by Applebee, 1996). The teaching goal in an ontological CoL is not to "produce knowledge" (McAuley, 2001), to "achieve a collective consensus" (Coleman, Rivkin, & Brown, 1997), or to build up "a shared understanding" (Varelas et al, 1999), but rather to help the students to develop their own voices -challenges for and replies to each other and to the historically developed and developing important positions in the studied practices and discourses (Matusov, 2009). Through the students' contributions assisted by the teacher, by the other students, by experts in the practice, by extended communities, and by other sources, the students become legitimate participants in these practices and discourse with their own distinguished voices and, in a sense their participation creates its own discourse community.…”