Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 327–334 | Cite as

Studying the development of agency and political consciousness in science education

  • Shirin VossoughiEmail author
  • Molly SheaEmail author
Forum

Abstract

In this commentary, we wrestle with key ideas presented in Schenkel, Calabrese Barton, Tan, Nazar, and Flores’ Framing Equity through a Closer Examination of Critical Science Agency and offer a series of theoretical and methodological attunements we view as germane to the visions of educational justice discussed therein. We begin by discussing the promising theoretical framework presented in the article, particularly the authors’ call for the field to engage more directly with issues of power and political consciousness in science education. We then turn to their empirical analysis of critical science agency, highlighting interactional moments and student reflections on learning that offer important insights into this concept. We then trace a series of theoretical and methodological tensions that raise questions about the ways researchers conceptualize and study the development of agency and political consciousness among youth, particularly those from minoritized and non-dominant communities, as well as the ways terms like community, consequentiality, and scales of justice/injustice are defined analytically. This discussion is interwoven with our efforts to name dispositions and lines of inquiry we view as imperative for research on the learning experiences of others that moves from a place of criticality and humility. We write as scholars and educators who share many of the authors’ concerns and are invested in research on science education that supports expansive learning and transformative praxis across researchers, educators, young people, and communities (Engeström in Theory Psychol 21(5):598–628, 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252).

Keywords

Science education Agency Political consciousness Learning 

Notes

References

  1. Bang, M., Faber, L., Gurneau, J., Marin, A., & Soto, C. (2016). Community-based design research: Learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations toward axiological innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(1), 28–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1087572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161).Google Scholar
  4. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by expanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139814744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erickson, F., Rishi, B., Cook-Sather, A., Espinoza, M. L., Jurow, S., Shultz, J. J., et al. (2007). Students’ experience of school curriculum: The everyday circumstances of granting and withholding assent to learn. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 198–218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Esmonde, I., Takeuchi, M., & Radakovic, N. (2011). Getting unstuck: Learning and histories of engagement in classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(3), 237–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749031003790128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Arzubiaga, A. E. (2012). An ecological and activity theoretic approach to studying diasporic and non-dominant communities. In W. F. Tate (Ed.), Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities: Toward civic responsibility (pp. 203–216). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 100–117.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jurow, A. S., & Shea, M. (2015). Learning in equity-oriented scale-making projects. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 286–307.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2015.1004677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mahmood, S. (2011). Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and the feminist subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Matusov, E. (1998). When solo activity is not privileged: Participation and internalization models of development. Human Development, 41(5–6), 326–349.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000022595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morales-Doyle, D. (2017). Justice-centered science pedagogy: A catalyst for academic achievement and social transformation. Science Education, 101(6), 1034–1060.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Packer, M. J. (2017). The science of qualitative research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Philip, T. M., & Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain. Science Education, 101(4), 526–532.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Philip, T. M., Bang, M., & Jackson, K. (2018). Engagement: Articulating the “how,” the “for what,” the “for whom,” and the “with whom” in concert: A call to broaden the benchmarks of our scholarship. Cognition & Instruction, 36(2), 83–88.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1413530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Guest Editorial: What is (should be) the researcher’s role in terms of agency? A question for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 963–965.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199811)35:9<963::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). Managing institutional and sociocultural challenges through sociotransformative constructivism: A longitudinal case study of a high school science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 448–460.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.491752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schenkel, K., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., Nazar, C. R., & Flores M. D. G. D. (2019). Framing equity through a closer examination of critical science agency. Cultural Studies in Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09914-1.Google Scholar
  21. Shea, M. V., & Sandoval, J. (2018). How do informal science educators build for equity through making? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  22. Vakil, S., McKinney de Royston, M., Suad Nasir, N. I., & Kirshner, B. (2016). Rethinking race and power in design-based research: Reflections from the field. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 194–209.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1169817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Social PolicyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.San Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations