“…That controlling for these kinds of activities and learning opportunities does not reduce the gap‐in‐gaps for these groups, suggests that the gap‐in‐gaps may not be driven by differences in access to such early science learning opportunities but perhaps differences in the ways in which these venues engage with early learners from different linguistic or cultural backgrounds. For example, while disparities in access to science museums have been documented (Dawson, , ; Feinstein, ), prior work has drawn attention to the fact that even when access to such resources is available, cultural discontinuities as well as explicit and implicit bias and racism may impact the degree to which students benefit from such access (Dawson, , ; Feinstein, ). Feinstein () notes, “neither museum science nor school science is equally welcoming to everyone.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typical science learning experiences, in school and out, are culturally specific: they are based on the experiences and norms of particular groups of people…” (p. 535). Dawson () conceptualizes these culturally influenced differences in the impact of informal science learning opportunities as being on a spectrum from “weak inclusion” to “strong inclusion.” Our finding that controlling for informal and formal science learning opportunities does not reduce the gap‐in‐gaps but that accounting for proxies for cultural discontinuity (such as parental immigration) does fits with a conception of weak inclusion on the part of these early learning experiences and a cultural explanation for the gap‐in‐gaps. Consequently, Janzen () recommends that “teachers must not only be familiar with science content and how that content is constructed linguistically but also familiar with the cultural practices and ways of knowing espoused by different groups” (p. 1029).…”
Recent work examining science test performance in the earliest grades of school has demonstrated that science test score gaps by race/ethnicity are apparent as early as kindergarten and that, in a number of cases, the racial/ethnic test score gaps in science are significantly larger than the corresponding gaps in reading or mathematics. This study explores the factors that explain the differences in the magnitudes of racial/ethnic disparities in performance on science standardized tests as compared to those in reading/mathematics. Drawing on nationally representative data from over 10,000 kindergartners in the 2010–2011 school year, this study employs regression models that examine the explanatory power of nine conceptual domains for explaining the “gap‐in‐gaps” or test score gap differences in science relative to mathematics or reading. Results indicate that the gap‐in‐gaps is relatively unchanged by the inclusion of many conceptual domains but that students' language and immigration contexts do explain substantial portions of the gap‐in‐gaps for Hispanic and Asian students. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
“…That controlling for these kinds of activities and learning opportunities does not reduce the gap‐in‐gaps for these groups, suggests that the gap‐in‐gaps may not be driven by differences in access to such early science learning opportunities but perhaps differences in the ways in which these venues engage with early learners from different linguistic or cultural backgrounds. For example, while disparities in access to science museums have been documented (Dawson, , ; Feinstein, ), prior work has drawn attention to the fact that even when access to such resources is available, cultural discontinuities as well as explicit and implicit bias and racism may impact the degree to which students benefit from such access (Dawson, , ; Feinstein, ). Feinstein () notes, “neither museum science nor school science is equally welcoming to everyone.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typical science learning experiences, in school and out, are culturally specific: they are based on the experiences and norms of particular groups of people…” (p. 535). Dawson () conceptualizes these culturally influenced differences in the impact of informal science learning opportunities as being on a spectrum from “weak inclusion” to “strong inclusion.” Our finding that controlling for informal and formal science learning opportunities does not reduce the gap‐in‐gaps but that accounting for proxies for cultural discontinuity (such as parental immigration) does fits with a conception of weak inclusion on the part of these early learning experiences and a cultural explanation for the gap‐in‐gaps. Consequently, Janzen () recommends that “teachers must not only be familiar with science content and how that content is constructed linguistically but also familiar with the cultural practices and ways of knowing espoused by different groups” (p. 1029).…”
Recent work examining science test performance in the earliest grades of school has demonstrated that science test score gaps by race/ethnicity are apparent as early as kindergarten and that, in a number of cases, the racial/ethnic test score gaps in science are significantly larger than the corresponding gaps in reading or mathematics. This study explores the factors that explain the differences in the magnitudes of racial/ethnic disparities in performance on science standardized tests as compared to those in reading/mathematics. Drawing on nationally representative data from over 10,000 kindergartners in the 2010–2011 school year, this study employs regression models that examine the explanatory power of nine conceptual domains for explaining the “gap‐in‐gaps” or test score gap differences in science relative to mathematics or reading. Results indicate that the gap‐in‐gaps is relatively unchanged by the inclusion of many conceptual domains but that students' language and immigration contexts do explain substantial portions of the gap‐in‐gaps for Hispanic and Asian students. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
“…Much of this research is still focused exclusively on children, but there is growing awareness that also investigating adult learning is critical to comprehensively understanding lifelong science learning. Several recent U.S.-funded national studies provide a strong foundation for this research (cf., National Research Council, 2009, 2011, 2015, 2017, with data coming from studies of physics, chemistry, life science, geosciences and the social sciences, as well as across disciplines.…”
Profound changes are occurring in society, disrupting current systems and institutions; these disruptions also are affecting science education practice and research. Science learning is becoming a lifelong, self-directed process, dominated by out-of-school, free-choice learning experiences. By necessity these disruptions in the science learning narrative necessitate that societies rethink what constitutes public science education in the twenty-first century. Rather than focusing only on schooling and university/post-secondary training, public science education should include meeting the lifelong science learning needs of all people, at all stages of life, wherever a person is, whenever she faces a learning need. In this context, public science education must be learner-centered and equitable, serving the real lifelong needs, realities and motivations of all people, not just those of children and youth or the most privileged. Such a comprehensive approach to public science education does not currently exist. The key to enacting such a comprehensive approach requires thinking outside of the current educational box, moving beyond Industrial-Age top-down, one-size-fits-all command and control approaches that center on schooling and higher education. A reimagined approach to public science education would embrace more distributed, synergistic, personalized, just-in-time approaches that emphasize and reward lifelong learning, including learning beyond school. This article discusses the scope and scale of free-choice public science learning across a range of informal contextsmuseums, zoos and aquariums; broadcast media such as television and radio; hobby groups; electronic media such as social networks, educational games, podcasts and the Internet. In addition, the paper considers the challenges faced by both practitioners and researchers attempting to promote and reform science education in more systemic and comprehensive ways. As the what, where, when, how and with whom of science learning continues to evolve, new educational practices and research approaches will be required; approaches that place the individual and her lifelong, free-choice learning at the center, rather than the periphery of the public's lifelong science education.
“…… the reproduction of social disadvantage in [informal science education (ISE)] has less to do with purposefully exclusive practices on the parts of ISE institutions and their representatives, than with the ingrained values, systems and behaviours of ISE practitioners, their visitors and their “non‐visitors”, as well as society more broadly . (Dawson, , p. 221) Those who attempt to study and advance knowledge of multicultural and culturally competent evaluation inevitably find that the central issue is to move beyond narrow culture‐bound assumptions toward diverse sociocultural perspectives and experiences . (Hopson, , p. 1)…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…… the reproduction of social disadvantage in [informal science education (ISE)] has less to do with purposefully exclusive practices on the parts of ISE institutions and their representatives, than with the ingrained values, systems and behaviours of ISE practitioners, their visitors and their “non‐visitors”, as well as society more broadly . (Dawson, , p. 221)…”
Informal STEM education institutions seek to engage broader cross sections of their communities to address inequities in STEM participation and remain relevant in a multicultural society. In this chapter, we advance the role that evaluation can play in helping the field adopt more inclusive practices and achieve greater equity than at present through evaluation that addresses sociopolitical contexts and reflects the perspectives and values of non‐dominant communities. To do this for specific projects, we argue that evaluation should privilege the voices and lived experiences of non‐dominant communities, engage communities in identifying desired outcomes, and ensure multicultural validity of instruments, measures, and inferences. At the field‐wide level, we urge evaluators to examine conceptualizations of “broadening participation in STEM,” evaluate community‐based partnerships, and address replication and scaling. Ultimately, these actions can lead to greater equity in evaluation and in informal STEM education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
