NISE Forum
Panel: Content and Instructional Practices

Equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Science Education:
Recommendations for a Research Agenda

Okhee Lee
School of Education
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida 33124

Abstract

As the student population in the nation’s schools becomes more culturally and linguistically diverse, it is essential to establish a knowledge base to promote academic achievement and equity for all students.  This paper addresses equity issues about science content, learning, and teaching for students from diverse languages and cultures.  It provides a synthesis of major issues and research findings for effective classroom practices.  First, the paper discusses a conceptual framework of equity.  Among different theoretical perspectives of equity in science education, this paper conceives of equity from the cultural anthropology perspective.  Then, it reviews equity issues in science content, learning, and teaching for diverse students in the multicultural science education literature.  Finally, it offers recommendations for a research agenda to achieve the goal of “science for all,” including students from diverse languages and cultures.

Equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Science Education:
Recommendations for a Research Agenda

As the student population in the nation’s schools becomes more culturally and linguistically diverse (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1999; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993), it is essential to establish a knowledge base to promote academic achievement and equity for all students.  Such a knowledge base requires simultaneous consideration of students’ language and cultural experiences in combination with expectations for high academic standards (Darling-Hammond, 1996; McLaughlin, Shepard, & O’Day, 1995).

A pressing problem with diverse students in science education involves the disconnection between (a) their languages and cultures and the nature of science and (b) primary discourse at home and in the community and secondary discourse in school (Atwater, 1994; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Lee, 1999a).  The disconnection can be traced to all aspects of science education, including science curriculum, learning, teaching, research, and policy.  It presents challenges for students from backgrounds where science does not play an important role.  Facing such tension, some students may avoid or resist learning science, whereas others may abandon or marginalize ways of knowing from their own backgrounds.  These challenges may lead to negative outcomes – low academic achievement to maintain cultural identities, high achievement at the sacrifice of cultural identities, or low academic achievement and loss of cultural identities.

The problem of disconnection with students from diverse languages and cultures is further exacerbated by other factors.  Many of the students have limited educational resources due to low socioeconomic status at home and in school.  Because many of the students are also acquiring English as a new language, they face additional challenges of developing English language proficiency while learning the language of science (August & Hakuta, 1997; García, 1993).

In addressing the learning needs of diverse students, the debate on equity in science education has focused on epistemological issues concerning the nature of science, views of science, and ways of knowing in science (Brickhouse, 1998; Brickhouse & Stanley, 1995; Cobern & Loving, in press; Good, 1993, 1995; Loving, 1995, 1998; Matthews, 1998; Nicholls et al., 1998; Siegel, 1997; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994, in press; Taylor, 1998).  Indeed, “what counts as science” is of crucial importance because this definition determines what should be included in or excluded from science curricula.  The debate also underscores potential conflicts between the nature and practice of science as traditionally defined and students’ language and cultural experiences (Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Lee, 1999a; Lee & Fradd, 1998).  As the role of teachers becomes critical, the debate focuses on pedagogical issues, such as what constitutes effective teaching for diverse students and whether effective teaching is generic across student groups or specific to certain groups.  Thus, the debate highlights the need to examine epistemological and pedagogical issues in science content, learning, and teaching with diverse students.

The terms “students from diverse languages and cultures” and “diverse students” refer to students in the process of acquiring the culture, language, and discourse of the mainstream (Bartolomé, 1998).  In the context of science learning, this discussion also applies to girls, students from low socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, and others who have not achieved in science.  Inherent within this large, diverse group are students with a wide range of ability levels, proficiency in English and other languages, and acculturation into the mainstream.

This paper addresses equity issues about science content, learning, and teaching for students from diverse languages and cultures.  Highlighting the pressing problem of disconnection and tension as the key theme, it provides a synthesis of major issues and research findings for effective classroom practices (i.e., what we know) and recommendations for a research agenda (i.e., what we need to know).  First, the paper discusses a conceptual framework of equity.  Among different theoretical perspectives of equity, this paper conceives of equity from the cultural anthropology perspective.  Next, it reviews equity issues in science content, learning, and teaching for diverse students in the multicultural science education literature.  Finally, it offers recommendations for a research agenda to achieve the goal of “science for all,” including students from diverse languages and cultures.

Conceptions of Equity

Equity is defined in many ways.  Various definitions are often inconsistent and even contradictory (Lynch, 2000; Secada, 1994b).  Equity is distinguished from equality.  Then, three theoretical perspectives on equity with diverse students are discussed: (a) assimilation, (b) cultural anthropology, and (c) critical theory, postmodernism, and radical feminism (e.g., Loving, 1998; Rennie, 1998; Willis, 1996).

Equity Versus Equality

Equity is defined as “the quality of being fair or impartial . . .  that which is fair and just” (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989).  Equity involves unwritten and evolving notions of justice, as social and political climates change in a society.  According to Rawls (1971), a just institution is one that equitably distributes social goods, such as rights, liberties, and access to power, among its participants.  Based on the notion of equity as social justice, Secada (1994a) writes that “equity in education refers to the scrutiny of social arrangements that undergird schooling to judge whether or not those arrangements are consistent with standards of justice” (p. 22).

Equality is defined as “the state of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, ability, etc.” (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989).  Secada (1994a) writes that “equality of educational opportunity usually refers to efforts to ensure that diverse groups of learners, in the aggregate, are treated the same (i.e., equally) at one of three junctures in the educational system -- its input, processes, or outcomes” (p. 23).

Equity is associated with justice or fairness, whereas equality is associated with sameness or absence of differences (Gallard et al., 1998; Secada, 1989, 1994a).  The distinction between equity and equality, although related, is important with diverse students.  In educational practices, equality in terms of the same opportunities and outcomes often dominates.  All students learn the same science content, as it has traditionally been defined in the Western science tradition, and are expected to achieve the same outcomes given the same learning opportunities (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996).  This practice may not be equitable for diverse students.  When a group in power determines what knowledge should count as science and should be taught in school science, without recognition of students’ experiences in home and community cultures, it represents a rejection of the students and their cultures.  In the absence of justice or fairness for the students, equal opportunities to learn Western science may lead to unjust outcomes for these students.  Only after justice is assured, does access to equal opportunities become meaningful.  Unfortunately, educational systems often focus on equal opportunities without adequate consideration of social justice for diverse students.

Theoretical Perspectives of Equity in Science Education

A key issue about equity in science education involves the tension between the nature and practice of science, as defined in the Western science tradition, and alternative views of science and ways of knowing in diverse languages and cultures.  So, what is justice or fairness in addressing the tension between the Western view and alternative views of science with diverse students?  Three theoretical perspectives offer explanations: (a) assimilation, (b) cultural anthropology, and (c) critical theory, postmodernism, and radical feminism (e.g., Loving, 1998; Rennie, 1998; Willis, 1996).  Each perspective provides different instructional approaches as well as different implications for equity.

The assimilationist perspective indicates when individuals from diverse backgrounds adopt the mainstream culture and ignore or reject their cultural backgrounds (Portes & Hao, 1998).  According to this perspective, science learning occurs when students acquire the scientific way of knowing, sometimes to the exclusion of alternative views or ways of knowing from their own backgrounds (Good, 1993, 1995; Matthews, 1994; Williams, 1994).  This conservative orientation does not consider diversity of students’ language, culture, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds as important because science is represented as universal knowledge.

Educational efforts focus on providing students with equal access and opportunities for positive science experiences already available to mainstream students, particularly males.  The goal is to enable students to become members of the science community without changing existing science systems.  When disparities abound between Western science and alternative views, however, it would be unjust or unfair if Western science is imposed on students who do not share its values, meanings, or practices.  Facing such conflicts, some students may avoid or resist learning science, whereas others may abandon or marginalize their cultural ways of knowing.  This concern becomes more serious as the demographics of student populations in the nation become more diverse (Hodgkinson, 1985; U.S.  Department of Commerce, 1993).

According to critical theory, postmodernism, and radical feminism, science learning and achievement is a political process that must be addressed to promote equity.  As students at the margins gain access to science, they learn to appropriate the language and discourse of science and use it for their own intentions.  They transform the nature of science and establish more equitable power structures than the existing systems of hegemony, domination, and oppression (Barton, 1997, 1998a, 1998b; Eisenhart, Finkel, & Marion, 1996; Howes, 1998; Mayberry, 1998; Rodríguez, 1997).  This radical orientation shifts the focus from a traditional view where science lies at the center to be reached by students at the margins to an inclusive view where students’ identities remain in the center (Barton, 1998a, 1998b).

Although it is important to recognize and value the lived experiences of diverse students, it would be unjust or unfair if the students do not gain access or opportunities to learn Western science which holds “high status knowledge” in the mainstream culture and the science community.  This high status knowledge is important for all students, as society becomes more scientifically and technologically oriented and individuals need to have such knowledge to participate meaningfully in the economy and the workforce (“socially enlightened self-interest” in Secada, 1991/92, 1994a).

This paper considers equity from the cultural anthropology perspective.  According to this perspective, science learning and achievement occurs when students successfully participate in Western science, while they are also engaged in alternative views and ways of knowing in their everyday worlds (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Gallard et al., 1998; Maddock, 1981; Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991; Pomeroy, 1994).  This balanced orientation considers the contributions and strengths of both Western science and alternative views (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Loving, 1997; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994).  Students have access and opportunities to learn the high status knowledge of Western science as it is practiced in the science community and taught in school science.  At the same time, alternative views of science and ways of knowing in diverse backgrounds are recognized and valued.

This balanced orientation emphasizes both academic achievement and cultural identity.  By using the language and discourse at home and in the community, diverse students construct the formal language and discourse of science.  This orientation is in line with the notions of “biliteracy” and “biculturalism.”  It promotes students to understand the culture of science and the cultures of their backgrounds, to use the language of science and their home languages, and to behave competently in a variety of contexts (Fradd et al., 1997; Lee & Fradd, 1998; McKinley, Waiti, & Bell, 1992).

Equity in Science Content, Learning, and Teaching for Diverse Students

The epistemology or the nature of knowledge in school curriculum is a key issue in considering equity (Banks, 1993a, 1993b, 1995; Secada, 1989).  Mathematics and science are often regarded as “culture free” (Peterson & Barnes, 1996).  Because mathematics and science tend to be presented as a set of objective and universal facts and rules, they are not viewed as socially and culturally constructed disciplines.  As a result, mathematics and science have been slow to address equity issues with diverse students (Banks, 1993a; Lee, 1999a; Parker & Rennie, 1998; Peterson & Barnes, 1996; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994; Taylor, 1998).

Science has traditionally been defined in the Western science tradition.  Major reform initiatives in science education, including the National Science Education Standards [NSES] (NRC, 1996) and Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989, 1993), present the assimilationist perspective based on the notion of equality.  Epistemologically, in terms of what counts as science and what should be taught in school science, both initiatives define Western science as the proper domain of science.  There is little consideration of justice or fairness in recognizing historical contributions or alternative views of science from diverse language, culture, and gender backgrounds.  Pedagogically, both initiatives assume that all students learn the same science content when provided with the same opportunities. The initiatives fail to offer guidelines for providing equitable opportunities for all students.  Gallard et al. (1998) state, “[T]he reform documents do not address the fundamental problem of including and valuing the experiences, languages, and cultures of all minority students who must learn science” (p. 951).

Alternative views of science, science learning, and science teaching have been emerging in multiculturalism, ranging from moderate approaches of the cultural anthropology perspective to more radical approaches of the critical theory and postmodernism perspective.  Scholars in these areas have raised concerns about power relations and the alienation and marginalization of female and non-Western students.  The scholars also challenge the traditional view of science and science learning and argue for more inclusive notions.  Secada (1989) highlights equity versus equality issues in school curriculum for diverse students: “[I]f we fail to ask whether or not the curriculum is just in what it legitimates as knowledge, we may well achieve equality of education, but it seems highly unlikely that that equality will represent a just distribution of knowledge” (p. 75).

Three epistemological and pedagogical issues about equity in science content, learning, and teaching are addressed.  First, what counts as science and what should be taught in school science?  Is Western science the only or the proper domain of science, or are alternative views of science also recognized?  Second, is there a way of knowing in science?  Is the scientific way of knowing the only valid way, or are alternative ways of knowing also recognized?  Finally, is there a way of teaching science?  Is effective teaching generic across student groups or specific to certain groups?

Equity in Science Content: What Counts as Science?

Epistemological issues concerning the nature of science or views of science have become an important topic of debate (Brickhouse, 1998; Brickhouse & Stanley, 1995; Corbern & Loving, in press; Good, 1993, 1995; Loving, 1995; Matthews, 1998; Nicholls et al., 1998; Siegel, 1997; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994, in press; Taylor, 1998).  Stanley and Brickhouse (1994) claim that “the definition of what counts as science is at the heart of the curriculum reform debates,” especially as it pertains to equity (p. 389).

Views on the nature of science. The epistemology or the nature of science is clearly presented in the debate between universalism and multiculturalism (Brickhouse, 1994; Brickhouse & Stanley, 1995; Good, 1993, 1995; Hodson, 1993; Loving, 1995, 1998; Matthews, 1994, 1998; Ogawa, 1995; Siegel, 1997; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994; Williams, 1994).  Universalism considers Western modern science as a universally appealing endeavor with a set of universal tenets that transcend cultural identity.  Science aspires to establish laws about the natural world that are universal and invariant across time and place.  In its rejection of cultural variations in understanding the natural world, universalism may lead to assimilation as it expects students to identify with science as universal knowledge and to leave their cultural beliefs behind.

Multiculturalism challenges the epistemology of universalism, or the nature of science as traditionally defined in Western modern science (Atwater, 1996; Eisenhart, Finkel, & Marion, 1996; Lee, 1999a; Rodríguez, 1997).  Stanley and Brickhouse (1994) argue that “science education has remained immune to the multiculturalist critique by appealing to a universalist epistemology; that the culture, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of the knower is irrelevant to scientific knowledge” (p. 388).  The multicultural science literature questions the dominance of Western science and, instead, advocates for inclusion of female and non-Western oriented sciences.

Multiculturalism redefines the history of science by considering the contributions made in non-Western cultures.  For example, Needham (1981) claims that Chinese inventions, including paper making, gunpowder, and the navigational compass, are more than mere technologies.  He provides evidence that these inventions were “theoretically driven (although its philosophical basis was radically different from that of western science) and involved observation and careful experimentation” (cited in Hodson, 1993, p. 699).  From a pedagogical stance, recognizing the contributions of other cultures in science and technology not only motivates diverse students to participate in these areas (Rodríguez, 1997), but it also provides a broader view of what science is and represents.

Multiculturalism also redefines the nature of science as traditionally conceived in the Western science.  Based on Cobern’s (1991) comprehensive framework on world views, scholars have identified alternative views of the world in diverse language, culture, and gender groups that are sometimes incompatible with the scientific world view.  Western science focuses on explaining, predicting, and controlling nature, whereas diverse cultures tend to value close and harmonious relationships between humans and nature (Hampton, 1991; Hewson, 1988; Pomeroy, 1992; Robbins, 1983).  In addition, diverse cultures tend to believe in supernatural forces and spirits more strongly than Western culture.  These alternative world views are in conflict with the scientific way of knowing or scientific world view.  Research results involving world views are documented across cultures within the U.S. and around the world (Allen & Crawley, 1998; Jegede & Okebukola, 1992; Kawagley, Norris-Tull, & Norris-Tull, 1998; Lawrenz & Gray, 1995).

According to multicultural science, narrow definitions of science based on the Western science tradition are misleading and myopic.  Scholars argue that alternative views need to be incorporated in science on the basis of both epistemological validity (Hodson, 1993; Ogawa, 1995; Smolicz & Nunan, 1975) and a moral imperative for a just society (Hodson, 1993; Siegel, 1997).  They also claim that recognizing the contributions of non-Western science fosters the advancement of Western science.

Although multicultural science considers both Western science and alternative views of science, relative emphasis differs along the spectrum of radical to moderate approaches.  Radical approaches from the perspective of critical theory and postmodernism argue that the nature and practice of science, as it is traditionally defined by middle-class white males, be transformed to include multiple voices and ways of knowing by female and non-Western participants (Barton, 1998a, 1998b; Rodríguez, 1997).  On the other hand, moderate approaches from the cultural anthropology perspective recognize and integrate cultural beliefs and alternative world views of diverse languages and cultures, while emphasizing Western science and way of knowing as shared values and understandings (Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Lee, 1999a; Loving, 1997, 1998).

Multicultural science curriculum. Compared to the heated debate on the epistemology or the nature of science in the literature, efforts to develop and evaluate multicultural science curriculum materials are limited.  One example is the cross-cultural science and technology curriculum designed for Aboriginal students in grades 6 through 11 science classrooms in Canada (Aikenhead, 1997, 2000).  Each curriculum unit deals with a theme significant to the community and reflects the unique language and culture of the community.  Then, the unit integrates Western science and Aboriginal science in ways that explicitly specify both scientific values (e.g., power and domination over nature) and Aboriginal values (e.g., harmony with nature and spirituality).  Based on the cultural anthropology perspective, the curriculum is designed to facilitate integration of the culture of science and the culture of the community.

Some science educators warn against taking an extreme view of multiculturalism – ethnocentrism (Loving, 1998; Loving & Ortiz de Montellano, in press).  Ethnocentric curriculum, as its primary goal, emphasizes the promotion and valorization of a particular ethnic culture, such as African science, to enhance the self-esteem of its members.  Substituting the universalism of science with the “politics of identity” and the “avoidance of the privileging of white values,” ethnocentric science curriculum often has the problem of the paucity of science and even the falsification of science (Loving, 1998, p. 538).  The historical development of science by diverse cultures is distorted in service of a particular ethnic culture, and the nature of science in terms of theories or judgements based on evidence is misrepresented.  By rejecting Western modern science and capitalizing on the politicization of science, ethnocentrism may lead students to learn little science or bad science.

Equity in Science Learning: Ways of Knowing with Diverse Students

All students have developed ways of looking at the world based on personal experiences and environments (Driver et al., 1994).  In considering equity in science learning, it is important to integrate the resources that diverse students bring to the science classroom, although not easily recognized by the mainstream.  It is also important to examine the extent to which the prior knowledge and experiences of diverse students is compatible or incompatible with the nature of science.  Recognition of diverse students’ strengths and limitations in learning science enables them to learn high status knowledge while valuing cultural knowledge and beliefs.  Based on a theory of social justice for multicultural education, Rodríguez (1997) states, “all learners at any grade level must be provided with equitable opportunities for success” (p. 591).  Atwater (1996) also emphasizes the importance of “providing equitable opportunities for all students to learn quality science” (p. 822, original emphases).

Alternative ways of knowing. An emerging body of literature indicates that students from diverse backgrounds display ways of knowing that are sometimes incompatible with the nature of science or the way science is taught in school (Atwater, 1994; Baker, 1998; Baker & Leary, 1995; Barba, 1993; Barba & Reynolds, 1998; Brickhouse, 1998; Howes, 1998; Lee & Fradd, 1998; Matthews & Smith, 1994; Rakow & Bermúdez, 1993; Rennie, 1998; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992).  The research clearly indicates differences between the nature of science, as defined in the Western science tradition, and cultural knowledge and beliefs of diverse students.  Several examples below illustrate such differences in terms of scientific understanding, inquiry, discourse, and habits of mind.

Understanding involves integration of new knowledge with prior knowledge and experiences (Driver et al., 1994).  Although prior knowledge and experiences are important for all learners, they are particularly relevant for diverse students.  The use of culturally familiar examples, analogies, and contexts relates science to students’ backgrounds in ways that do not occur in traditional textbooks or standardized curricula (Barbar, 1993; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995).  Because these students often come from environments in which science does not play a major role, their ways of knowing may be incompatible with the nature of science.  Yet, they bring cultural knowledge and experience that can be valuable in learning science.

The emphasis on “scientific inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences” (NRC, 1996, p. 31) may pose challenges to students from cultures that respect teachers’ authority of telling and directing students, rather than promote students’ exploration or alternative solutions (Atwater, 1994; Fradd & Lee, 1999; Hodson, 1993; Lee, Fradd, & Sutman, 1995; McKinley et al., 1992; Prophet & Rowell, 1993).  For these students, the practice of science inquiry through asking questions and finding answers may conflict with cultural expectations (Fradd & Lee, 1999; McKinley, Waiti, & Bell, 1992).

Discourse patterns among diverse groups often differ from the scientific modes of discourse.  Rather than developing arguments based on evidence and logic, some groups freely incorporate emotion and personal beliefs to frame an argument (Estrin, 1993; Kochman, 1989).  The separation of affect and emotion from cognition is also incongruent with females (Brickhouse, 1994) and cultural groups (Anderson, 1988; Atwater, 1994).  Thus, for some groups, shared social and emotional networks play an equally important role as empirical validation and reasoning.

Cultivation of scientific habits of mind may pose difficulties to diverse students.  Although some scientific values and attitudes are found in most cultures, others are more characteristic of Western science which.  For example, Western science promotes a “critical and questioning stance” (Williams, 1994, p. 517) that calls for being skeptical, making arguments, criticizing viewpoints, and thinking independently (AAAS, 1989).  These values and attitudes may be incongruent with the norms of diverse cultures that favor cooperation, social and emotional support, consensus building, and respect for authority (Atwater, 1994; Hodson, 1993; Lee & Fradd, 1996; McKinley, Waiti, & Bell, 1992).  The students may have difficulty developing scientific values and attitudes, while retaining their cultural norms (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; O’Loughlin, 1992; Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991).

Although the distinction between the scientific world view and alternative views may be relatively straightforward to educated adults, children’s world views involve a complex interaction of personal and supernatural beliefs with scientific understanding (Cobern, 1991; Hewson, 1988; Ross & Shuell, 1993).  In addition, students from diverse backgrounds express alternative world views more strongly than their mainstream counterparts (Allen & Crawley, 1998; Jegede & Okebukola, 1992; Kawagley, Norris-Tull, & Norris-Tull, 1998; Lawrenz & Gray, 1995).  For example, after personally experiencing a major natural disaster (i.e., hurricane), African American and Hispanic elementary students attributed the cause of the hurricane to societal problems (e.g., race, crime, violence) and spiritual and supernatural forces (e.g., god, devil, or evil spirits) more strongly than their Anglo counterparts who tended to give explanations related to natural phenomena (Lee, 1999b).

Science learning with diverse students. As the examples above illustrate, ways of knowing in science and alternative ways of knowing in diverse cultures may sometimes be incompatible.  From the cultural anthropology perspective, learning science involves acculturating to Western science while simultaneously integrating unique views of students’ home and community.  Cultural transitions are critically important, and the notion of border crossing is used to describe this process (Giroux, 1992).  In learning science, students cross borders from their cultural environments into the cultures of science and school science (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Costa, 1995; Maddock, 1981; Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991; Pomeroy, 1994).

School success depends largely on how well students learn to negotiate the boundaries separating multiple cultural worlds.  Although border crossings in science classrooms are demanding for all students (Driver et al., 1994; O’Loughlin, 1992), they may be particularly difficult for students from diverse languages and cultures.  At times, students may find themselves caught in conflicts between what is expected in science and school science and what they experience at home and in community.  By appearing too eager or willing to engage in school, students may find themselves alienated from home and community.  If they appear reluctant to participate, they risk rejection from school and subsequent loss of access to learning opportunities.  Although some students may successfully bridge the conflicts between home and school, others may become alienated and even actively resist learning science.

Phelan et al. (1991) developed a model of students’ multiple worlds to explore how students move from one world to another.  They identified four patterns of cultural border crossings: (a) congruent worlds support smooth transitions; (b) different worlds require transitions to be managed; (c) diverse worlds lead to hazardous transitions; and (d) highly discordant worlds cause students to resist transitions, which become virtually impossible.  Costa (1995) applied the Phelan et al. (1991) model to 43 high school students enrolled in chemistry or earth science in two schools with diverse student groups.  Costa described five patterns in the relationships between students’ worlds of family and friends and their success in school and science:

•     Potential Scientists: Worlds of family and friends are congruent with worlds of both school and science.

•     “Other Smart Kids”: Worlds of family and friends are congruent with world of school but inconsistent with world of science.

•     “I Don’t Know” Students: Worlds of family and friends are inconsistent with worlds of both school and science.

•     Outsiders: Worlds of family and friends are discordant with worlds of both school and science.

•     Inside Outsiders: Worlds of family and friends are irreconcilable with world of school, but are potentially compatible with world of science. (p. 316)

Based on Costa’s five patterns, Aikenhead (1996) describes students’ experiences in crossing cultural borders in science classrooms.  As there are different levels of border crossing, instructional approaches vary accordingly.  Aikenhead (1996) and Cobern and Aikenhead (1998) offer suggestions about what teachers and curriculum materials can do to enable students to resolve conflicts at each level of cultural border crossing.

Equity in Science Teaching: Instructional Scaffolding for Diverse Students

For students from diverse languages and cultures, science is generally not prominent in their home and community environments.  Thus, teachers play critically important roles in helping students learn science.  From the cultural anthropology perspective, science teaching involves enabling students to make smooth transitions between their everyday cultures and the culture of science.  The multicultural education literature and the emerging literature in science education together offer important insights about effective instruction with diverse students.  These bodies of literature also suggest tension in competing pedagogical approaches.  Two issues emerge as central: (a) integration of the nature of science with students’ languages and cultures (i.e., instructional congruence) and (b) teacher explicit to student exploratory continuum.  Research studies by Lee and Fradd are highlighted, along with other relevant research including the Cheche Konnen project by Rosebery and Warren.

Integration of students' languages and cultures with the nature of science. Extensive literature indicates distinct differences in communication and interactional patterns between the culture of mainstream teachers and the diverse cultures of their students (Au & Jordan, 1981; Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Heath, 1983; Philips, 1972).  The literature emphasizes the importance of cultural congruence.  This literature indicates that when the teacher and students share the same language and culture, they interact in ways to promote students’ participation and engagement (Au & Kawakimi, 1994; Trueba & Wright, 1992).

While earlier research focused on cultural congruence with teachers who share the same language and culture as their students, recent research indicates that teachers who come from backgrounds different from their students can also provide effective instruction when they have an understanding of students’ language and cultural experiences.  Ladson-Billings (1994, 1995) highlights exemplary teaching practices by white teachers as well as African-American teachers for African-American students.  She identifies three key components of culturally relevant pedagogy: (a) enhance students’ academic achievement, (b) accept and affirm their cultural identity, and (c) develop critical perspectives that challenge inequities that schools and other institutions perpetuate.

Extending the literature on cultural congruence and culturally relevant pedagogy, Lee and Fradd (1996, 1998, in press) propose instructional congruence where teachers mediate the nature of academic disciplines (e.g., science) with students’ language and cultural experiences.  Instructional congruence involves the integration of subject-specific and diversity-oriented pedagogies from the perspectives of academic disciplines and cultural anthropology.  While culturally relevant pedagogies focus primarily on language and cultural aspects of teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1995), instructional congruence emphasizes the need for congruence in both academic content and students’ languages and cultures.

Lee and Fradd (1996, 1998, in press) have implemented the framework of instructional congruence in science and literacy with English language learners (ELLs).  To provide effective science and literacy instruction, teachers integrate knowledge of: (a) students’ language and cultural experiences, (b) the nature of science, and (c) literacy development.  In making science and literacy meaningful and relevant, teachers need to understand culturally-based patterns of interaction and communication with their students (Au & Kawakimi, 1994; Trueba & Wright, 1992). Cultural congruence indicates when teachers use cultural knowledge (e.g., students’ home experiences) and culturally-based interaction patterns, such as large group or individual exchanges, collaborative or individual interactions, and respect for authority or independence.  Linguistic congruence indicates when teachers use students’ home language as appropriate, recognize students’ language proficiency levels, and structure tasks to reduce the language load required for students’ participation.

Lee and Fradd (1996, 1998, in press) have been working with three ethnolinguistic groups of 4^th grade elementary students and their teachers, including bilingual Hispanic and Haitian as well as monolingual English-speaking groups.  On project-developed science tests, students from all three groups performed significantly better in understanding science concepts and inquiry after instruction over the one-year period (Fradd & Lee, in press).  In addition to its emphasis on academic achievement, instructional congruence enhances students’ cultural identities.

The following example illustrates how a Hispanic teacher used his shared language and cultural experiences to extend students’ understandings of science and literacy.  During an interview, the teacher said, “When we measure the temperatures in Celsius and Fahrenheit, my ESOL [English to Speakers of Other Languages] students are more oriented to Celsius in their home countries.  But they need to learn Fahrenheit, even though they weren’t exposed to it before.” In introducing the thermometer to his class, the teacher asked the students, “When you have a fever, what temperature does your mother expect to see on the thermometer?”  Some students said 38º, 39º or 40º, while others said 98º, 100º or 102º. The teacher wrote down the two sets of numbers on the board.  While students looked puzzled by the wide range of numbers, the teacher placed the transparency of a thermometer graphic on an overhead projector.  The teacher asked the class to compare the two sets of numbers with the two sides of the thermometer. Students observed that the first set of numbers 38º – 40º on the Celsius scale corresponded with the second set of numbers 100º – 104º on the Fahrenheit scale.  The teacher and students recognized the thermometer was “bilingual, just like us” and named it “the bilingual thermometer.”  In this example, the teacher considered students’ cultural experience with the Celsius scale as resources in learning to read the thermometer.  The teacher also related science (e.g., two measurement systems) with literacy (e.g., two language systems).

Other research studies also emphasize the importance of integrating students’ languages and cultures as part of science instruction.  Tobin (in press) describes the disconnection between a white male teacher and academically at-risk African-American high school students in an inner-city school.  While the teacher emphasized science knowledge, students demanded respect for themselves and their community.  While the teacher focused on open-ended inquiry and community-based activities, students required structure to be able to make meaning of academic tasks.  While the teacher expected proper language in communication, students used language of youth and obscenities.  Given such disparities, students resisted the teacher and science instruction.  Through community-based ethnography, the teacher gradually acquired an understanding of the culture of the community and gained the respect of students.  This understanding made it possible for science teaching and learning to occur.

While establishing instructional congruence is a challenge to most teachers, it presents additional challenges when the nature of science is incompatible with students’ cultural experiences (see the “Equity in Student Learning” section).  For example, questioning and figuring out explanations on their own through science inquiry are incompatible with the cultural norms and values of respecting the authority of teachers and textbooks (Atwater, 1994; Lee & Fradd, 1996; McKinley, Waiti, & Bell, 1992).  In the Lee and Fradd research (Fradd & Lee, 1999; Lee & Fradd, under review), bilingual Hispanic teachers initially provided instruction in culturally congruent ways.  Major patterns included teacher explicit instruction, whole group instruction, and teacher authority and control.  For students with limited science experience, teachers orchestrated the whole class on the same tasks step-by-step.  This seemed effective initially in ensuring that all students were engaged in the tasks.  Over time, teachers became aware that this instructional practice limited students’ opportunities to take initiative and to perform independently.  The teachers gradually made the transition from cultural congruence to instructional congruence.  While maintaining control and explicitness, they encouraged students to take initiative, exercise a degree of autonomy, and perform individually and independently as well as within groups.

Teacher explicit or student exploratory approaches. There is a core tension between pedagogical approaches in the mainstream and alternative approaches in multicultural education.  The mainstream literature suggests a Deweyan or progressive approach to teaching in which students are encouraged to ask questions and find answers on their own.  The premise is that students accept canonical scientific models because these models provide the best explanations for observed patterns with natural phenomena, not because someone in authority said they are right.

The Cheche Konnen project emphasizes scientific sense-making with linguistically and culturally diverse students, including bilingual Haitian-Creole and Spanish speaking, in elementary and secondary classrooms (Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992; Warren & Rosebery, 1995, 1996).  Based on the model of the way science is practiced by scientists, the research encourages students to learn to use language, to think, and to act as members of a scientific community.  Particularly, it highlights scientific inquiry and discourse through collaborative efforts.  The results indicate that ELLs come to school with effective modes of inquiry and discourse that may not be recognized by the mainstream.  When they are given opportunities, those students with limited science experience and even kindergartners are capable of conducting scientific inquiry and appropriating scientific discourse as members of a scientific community in the classroom.

Literature in multicultural education claims that the progressive approach favors white and middle-class students.  For example, Heath (1983) indicates that this approach may mirror parenting practices in middle-class homes, thus favoring the students whose home environments are culturally congruent with the pedagogy they encounter in school.  Gee (in press) points out that the rules of discourse students are supposed to follow are largely implicit, thus favoring the students who have already learned them at home.

According to Banks (1993a, 1993b), Delpit (1988, 1995), Reyes (1992), and other multicultural educators (Cochran-Smith, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995), school knowledge represents the “culture of power” of dominant society.  For students who are not from the culture of power, teachers need to provide explicit instruction about the rules to participate, rather than expecting the students to figure out the rules on their own.  Without explicit instruction, these students lack opportunities to acquire the rules.  Yet, they are ultimately held accountable for knowing the rules, whether they have been taught or not.

The cultural anthropology literature suggests a transition from teacher explicit to student-centered exploratory approaches with students who come from backgrounds in which questioning and inquiry are not encouraged, and sometimes prohibited (Atwater, 1994; Lee & Fradd, 1996; McKinley et al., 1992).  For these students, effective instructional scaffolding considers language and cultural backgrounds as well as science experiences (Fradd & Lee, 1999).  They need to learn to question and inquire, while valuing the norms and practices of their homes and communities.  Through the teacher explicit to student exploratory continuum, teachers gradually relinquish authority and encourage students to take initiative and assume responsibility (Delpit, 1988; Fradd & Lee, 1999; Gee, in press; Reyes, 1992).

Explicit instruction here differs from the traditional notion of direct instruction, in which teachers dictate students what to do or engage students in drill and practice in decontextualized tasks.  Explicit instruction indicates instructional scaffolding designed to meet students’ needs based on cognitive and cultural backgrounds and to foster their initiative and responsibility in learning and inquiry.  When necessary, explicit instruction may involve teachers directly telling students.  Throughout the explicit to exploratory continuum, instruction occurs in the context of authentic and meaningful tasks that enhance critical and creative thinking.  Teacher explicit instruction within the context of meaningful and relevant activities has been advocated in literacy instruction (Delpit, 1988; Reyes, 1992), classroom discourse (Gee, in press), and science instruction (Fradd & Lee, 1999).

The notion of explicit instruction is inconsistent with student-centered approaches in science standards documents.  Particularly, NSES (1996) emphasizes that “scientific inquiry is at the heart of science and science learning” and “inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science” (p. 31).  Decisions as to whether science instruction should be teacher explicit or student-centered exploratory are critically important.  Student-centered exploration, in which students ask questions and find answers on their own, may be the instructional goal.  The issue is where to start and what to do to reach the goal for students from diverse backgrounds with limited science experience.

Lee and Fradd (Fradd & Lee, 1999; Lee & Fradd, in press) indicate that bilingual Hispanic teachers working with bilingual Hispanic 4^th grade elementary students insisted on teacher explicit instruction initially and gradual transition to student exploration.  Based on shared language and culture with students, the teachers claimed that the students came from environments where questioning and inquiry were not promoted.  The teachers also stated that for many of the 4^th grade students, it was the first time to receive formal science instruction in school.  Thus, based on both cultural and academic grounds, the teachers emphasized that the students be taught explicitly how to engage in science inquiry as they gradually learn to conduct inquiry on their own.

In their current work, Lee and Fradd (in preparation) have been implementing an instructional intervention to promote science inquiry with 4^th grade ELLs along the teacher explicit to student exploratory continuum.  Explicit instruction is especially important at the initial phases of inquiry as students need a great deal of assistance.  As students learn to engage in inquiry, guided instruction is provided.  Gradually, students become more independent and take more initiative in conducting inquiry.  The extent of instructional scaffolding depends on at least three factors. First, thoughtful and substantive aspects of inquiry (e.g., posing questions and applying findings) seem more difficult than procedural aspects (e.g., implementing activities and reporting results) (Krajcik et al., 1998; Lee & Fradd, in preparation; Marx et al., 1997).  Second, the less experience students have with science inquiry, the more instructional scaffolding they require.  Finally, some science tasks are cognitively demanding and require extensive instructional scaffolding with most students.

Although science inquiry presented challenges to elementary teachers, some effectively moved from explicit to exploratory inquiry (Fradd & Lee, 1999; Lee & Fradd, under review).  With 4^th grade bilingual Hispanic and Haitian as well as monolingual English speaking students, the transition to student exploration required extensive scaffolding and experience over time.  Despite difficulties, the students significantly improved their abilities to conduct science inquiry over a year of instruction.  For example, in measuring temperature differences at different levels in the classroom, students recognized a pattern that the temperature was the highest at the ceiling level, then at the desk level, and the lowest at the floor level.  Based on the data, they developed a theory that hot air rises and cool air falls.  They also noticed exceptions depending on the sources of heating or cooling (e.g., a lower temperature close to a frozen water bottle at the desk level).  In some classes, students discussed why they lie on the floor during fire drills and where to place a heater or an air conditioner in a room.  As the unit progressed, students discussed why it is warmer around the equator compared to other parts of the world.  Some shared experiences from their home countries that some places around the equator (e.g., Ecuador) are actually cool because of high elevation.  Others pointed out that this was contradictory to their thinking that higher elevation would be warmer because it is closer to the sun compared to lower ground.

Research Agenda

A pressing problem with diverse students in science education involves the disconnection and tension between their languages and cultures and the nature of science (Atwater, 1994; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Lee, 1999a).  Current research and literature on equity has focused on epistemological and pedagogical issues about science content, learning, and teaching with diverse students.  Much of the literature is recent, mostly during the 1990s after the release of Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989).  Research efforts generally involve identifying educational problems or describing instructional practices, rather than implementing intervention strategies to promote teacher effectiveness or student achievement.  Research is still at the stage of conceptualizing issues that need empirical testing.  Some innovative research provides important insights to enhance instructional practices and student outcomes.  Recommendations for a research agenda are offered next.

Science Content

What counts as science or what should be taught in school science is critically important because this definition determines school science curriculum.  Western science, as traditionally practiced in the science community and taught in school science, presents high status knowledge to which every student should have access.  At the same time, students from diverse backgrounds bring alternative views of science and ways of knowing to the science classroom.  This presents a challenge.  On the one hand, an emphasis on the high status knowledge without consideration of alternative views make science less accessible, relevant, or meaningful for diverse students who have generally been bypassed in science education.  On the other hand, an emphasis on alternative views, which are culturally and socially significant but may be unimportant topics in the science community and in school science, does not promote equitable outcomes.  Research may address ways to incorporate alternative views in defining what counts as science and what should be taught in school science.  This topic is not only an empirical question but also a political issue requiring reconsideration of the nature of science in major reform documents (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996).

Although the epistemology or the nature of science is hotly debated, there have been few efforts to develop multicultural science curricula.  Research is needed to identify and incorporate topics from non-Western sciences, design and implement curriculum materials integrating cultural knowledge and beliefs with Western science, and test effectiveness in promoting student achievement and cultural identities (Aikenhead, 1997, 2000; Loving, 1998).  Empirical evidence can inform the often philosophically and politically oriented debate on the epistemology of science.

Science Learning

Students from diverse languages and cultures bring to the science classroom ways of knowing, talking, and interacting that are different from those in the mainstream.  Efforts need to be made to bridge the gap between students’ home cultures and the culture of science.  The wider the gap, the more difficult it is to bridge.  When disparities abound, there is no equity if Western science is imposed on students who do not share its system of meaning, symbols, and practices.  Similarly, there is no equity if students are not provided with opportunities to learn Western science.

Research may examine how diverse students learn (or fail to learn) to connect cultural norms (e.g., respect of authority) with mainstream expectations (e.g., questioning and argument).  Research may also examine how diverse students achieve (or fail to achieve) academic outcomes as well as language and cultural identities.  In addition, research may examine similarities and differences among diverse student groups or among sub-groups.  Information about student variations would help reduce stereotypes often associated with diverse students.  The information also would offer insights into meeting learning needs based on group or individual characteristics.

Science Teaching

Effective instructional scaffolding for diverse students involves consideration of many factors.  Two major issues emerge in the literature, including (a) integration of science with students’ languages and cultures (i.e., instructional congruence) and (b) teacher explicit or student exploratory approaches.  Equitable science instruction meets the learning needs of diverse students, while preparing them to function competently in the mainstream.

Teachers often do not have both knowledge of science and understanding of students’ languages and cultures.  Instead, some have adequate science knowledge but limited understanding of students, others have understanding of students but limited science knowledge, and still others have limited knowledge in both areas.  While establishing instructional congruence is a demanding endeavor, it is particularly challenging when cultural norms for students’ classroom participation (e.g., respect for teacher authority) and mainstream expectations (e.g., independence and individuality) are incompatible (Lee & Fradd, 1996, 1998).

Challenges also occur when culturally based instruction (e.g., teacher explicit instruction) and mainstream expectations (e.g., student-centered exploratory instruction) are incompatible (Fradd & Lee, 1999; Lee & Fradd, in press).  For diverse students, the discourse at home is inconsistent with the discourse in school.  The multicultural education literature suggests that teachers provide explicit instruction about the rules of discourse in school, rather than expect the students to figure out the rules on their own.  A danger is that teachers may misinterpret explicit instruction as drill and practice through didactic instruction and fail to promote critical and creative thinking with diverse students.  This may become yet another stereotype that can potentially limit opportunities for diverse students to learn to function competently in the mainstream.  The tension in competing pedagogical approaches deserves special attention.  Considerations need to be given to students’ language and cultural expectations, science experiences, and demands of academic tasks.

Teacher professional development is critically important because teachers play a central role in providing effective instruction.  Although the literature indicates that teacher change is a demanding process (Fennema et al., 1996; Richardson & Anders, 1994), the process may be more arduous when involving diverse students.  Understanding of diverse languages and cultures requires that teachers assess their own identities and recognize how these may interact with student learning (Banks, 1993a, 1993b).  Such analysis can lead teachers to make fundamental transformations in their beliefs and practices (Cochran-Smith, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Valli, 1995).  Although some teachers benefit from self-analysis and reflection as they become more aware and understanding of diversity, others become less tolerant.  Because of its potentially contentious nature, some educators may simply consider the issue of language and culture “too hot to handle” (Peterson & Barnes, 1996, p. 489).  Research needs to examine the process of change in teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices as they participate in professional development.  Research may also examine the kinds of support required for initiating and sustaining teacher change.  This information is essential in designing effective instructional interventions with diverse groups of teachers and students.

In providing effective instruction, variations among student groups should be considered in terms of diverse languages, cultures, SES, gender, proficiency in English and other languages, and acculturation into the mainstream.  Culturally relevant pedagogy may differ among diverse groups and sub-groups.  Yet, there may be common elements of effective instruction that apply across groups.  A knowledge base for culture-specific or culture-generic practices for good teaching deserves careful attention in further research.

Research is also needed to relate teacher change with student outcomes.  It is important to examine how teacher change influences students’ academic achievement as well as language and cultural identities.  It is equally important to examine how student outcomes, in turn, influence teachers’ beliefs and practices.  In addition, it is important to examine how different kinds of teacher knowledge are associated with different student outcomes (Carpenter, Fennema, & Franke, 1996; Kennedy, 1999).  The interplay of teacher change and student outcomes may provide valuable insights into effective instruction and student learning.

Instructional practices need be extended to include not only teachers but also other support systems, including technology and community members.  Technology-supported programs can offer multiple forms of representation and communication for students who have not been successful in traditional classroom settings or for students who are in the process of developing literacy and English language proficiency (Shear, 1999).  Technology-rich environments can also offer multiple ways of engaging in academic tasks and interacting with the teacher and peers (Krajcik et al., 1998; Marx et al., 1997).  In addition, participation of parents and community members is extremely valuable in incorporating students’ language and cultural experiences into science instruction and, in turn, making science relevant and meaningful for everyday lives (Hammond, 2000).  Youth science programs in the community can enhance students’ science learning and foster connections with the community (Barton, 1998a, 1998b).

Overall Considerations

Recommendations for a research agenda that apply across science content, learning, and teaching are offered next.  First, research needs to examine ways to integrate academic disciplines with students’ languages and cultures.  Research generally focuses on one area while keeping the other as the context.  Instead, the two areas need to be addressed simultaneously to develop pedagogy that is both subject-specific and diversity-oriented.

Second, it is important to link curriculum, instruction, and assessment to understand a more complete scope of classroom practices.  Because these three components are closely interrelated, intervention research focusing on one often faces the need to incorporate the others.  Research needs to consider the “alignment” of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in meeting diverse students’ needs in classroom practices.

Third, research needs to consider multiple theoretical perspectives, which are typically associated with particular methodological approaches.  For example, elementary students’ ability to engage in science inquiry is a topic of debate.  Seemingly contradictory findings emerge from three theoretical perspectives (for extensive literature review, see Lee & Fradd, in preparation).  The cognitive development literature indicates that elementary students are not capable of planning experiments, carrying out systemic investigations, and providing evidence in support of theories (Carey & Smith, 1993; Kuhn, 1997).  Recently, the emerging research on design experiments indicates that when elementary students are provided with effective instructional scaffolding, they are capable of conducting science inquiry as they think and act like scientists (Brown, 1992, 1994; Lehrer & Schauble, in press; Metz, 1995, 1997; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). The debate between these two perspectives focuses on children’s abilities (or inabilities) in metacognition, inquiry strategies, and domain-specific or domain-general knowledge. The cultural anthropology literature, on the other hand, emphasizes the need to consider language and cultural experiences of diverse students (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Lee, 1999a, 1999b).  Further, in providing effective instructional scaffolding, the design experiments literature suggests progressive education, whereas the cultural anthropology literature suggests a teacher explicit to student exploratory continuum (Delpit, 1988; Fradd & Lee, 1999; Gee, in press; Reyes, 1992).  These conflicting theoretical perspectives need to be better understood.

Finally, to improve educational practices, it is necessary to involve teachers in the development of a knowledge base.  The practical knowledge of individual teachers from diverse languages and cultures can be incorporated into the development of the theoretical knowledge of teaching (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995).  This knowledge base can be shared with teachers from a variety of backgrounds in providing effective instruction for students who have traditionally had limited opportunities in science.  Ultimately, what benefits students from diverse languages and cultures can also benefit mainstream students, making it possible to attain the vision of standards-based reform — high academic achievement for all students.

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (1996).  Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science.  Studies in Science Education, 26, 1-52.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a First Nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217-238.

Aikenhead, G. S. (2000). Integrating Western and Aboriginal science: Toward a bi-cultural pedagogy. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Allen, N. J., & Crawley, F. E. (1998).  Voices from the bridge: Worldview conflicts of Kickapoo students of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 111-132.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 2-9.

Atwater, M. M. (1994). Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 558-576). New York: Macmillan.

Atwater, M. M. (1996).  Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821-837.

Au, K., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appropriate solution.  In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture in the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 139-152). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Au, K. H., & Kawakimi, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 5-24). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Baker, D. (1998). Equity issues in science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 869-896). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3-27.

Banks, J. (1993a). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions and practice.  In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19 (pp. 3-49). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Banks, J. (1993b). Canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4-14.

Banks, J. (1995). The historical reconstruction of knowledge about race: Implications for transformative teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(2), 15-25.

Barba, R. H. (1993).  A study of culturally syntonic variables in the bilingual/bicultural science classroom.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1053-1071.

Barba, R. H., & Reynolds, K. E. (1998). Towards an equitable learning environment in science for Hispanic students. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 925-940). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bartolomé, L. I. (1998). The misteaching of academic discourses: The politics of language in the classroom. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Barton, A. C. (1997). Liberatory science education: Weaving connections between feminist theory and science education. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 141-163.

Barton, A. C. (1998a). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379-394.

Barton, A. C. (1998b). Reframing “science for all” through the politics of poverty. Educational Policy, 12, 525-541.

Brickhouse, N. (1994).  Bringing in the outsiders: Reshaping the sciences of the future. Curriculum Studies, 26, 401-416.

Brickhouse, N. (1998). Feminism(s) in science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 1067-1082). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brickhouse, N., & Stanley, W. B. (1995). Response to Good. Science Education, 79(3), 337-339.

Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.

Brown, A. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23, 4-12.

Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235-251.

Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3-20.

Cobern, W. W. (1991). World view theory and science education research (NARST Monograph, Number 3). Kansas State University, KS: The National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Cobern, W. W., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part one (pp. 39-52). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (in press). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 493-522.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teaching learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education. Vol. 24 (pp. 249-305). Washington, DC: Author.

Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is ‘another world’: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79, 313-333.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5-17.

Delpit, L. (1988).  The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: W. W. Norton.

Driver,, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994).  Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12.

Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Association, 33, 261-295.

Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Participant structures in two communities.  In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Estrin, E. T. (1993). Alternative assessment: Issues in language, culture, and equity. Far West Laboratory, 11, 1-8.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.

Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 4-20, 42.

Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (in press). Needed: A framework for integrating standardized and informal assessment for students developing academic language proficiency in English. In J. V. Tenajero & S. Hurley (Eds.), Literacy assessment of bilingual learners. Boston. MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Cabrera, P., del Rio, V., Leth, A., Morin, R., Ceballos, M., Santalla, M., Cross, L., & Mathieu, T. (1997).  School-university partnership to promote science with students learning English. TESOL Journal, 7, 35-40.

Gallard, A., Viggiano, E., Graham, S., Stewart, G., & Vigliano, M. (1998). The learning of voluntary and involuntary minorities in science classrooms.  In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 941-954). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

García, E. E. (1993). Language, culture, and education. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19 (pp. 51-98). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Gee, J. P. (in press). Progressivism, critique, and socially situated minds. In C. Edelsky & C. Dudley-Marling (Eds.), Progressive education: History and critique. Urbana, IL: National Council for the Teaching of English.

Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

Good, R. (1993).  Editorial: The slippery slopes of postmodernism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 427.

Good, R. G. (1995). Comments on multicultural science education. Science Education, 79(3), 335-336.

Hampton, E. (1991).  Toward a redefinition of American Indian/Alaska Native education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 20, 261-309.

Hammond, L. (2000). From good intentions to transformative action: Making science accessible to language minority populations through collaboration between teachers, researchers, student teachers, and parents. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hewson, M. G. (1988). The ecological context of knowledge: Implications for learning science in developing countries. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 317-326.

Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77, 685-711.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1985). All one system: Demographics of education, kindergarten through graduate school. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Howes, E. V. (1998). Connecting girls and science: A feminist teacher research study of a high school prenatal testing unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(8), 877-896.

Jegede, O. J., & Okebukola, P. A. (1992). Differences in sociocultural environment perceptions associated with gender in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 637-647.

Kawagley, A. O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998).  The indigenous worldview of Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice and teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 133-144.

Kennedy, M. M. (1999, November). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development (NISE Brief Vol. 3, No. 2). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

Kochman, T. (1989). Black and white cultural styles in pluralistic perspective. In B. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language, and culture. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313-350.

Kuhn, D. (1997).  Constraints or guideposts? Developmental psychology and science education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 141-150.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreammakers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

Lawrenz, F., & Gray, B. (1995).  Investigation of worldview theory in a South African context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 555-568.

Lee, O. (1997).  Science literacy for all: What is it, and how can we achieve it? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 219-222.

Lee, O. (1999a).  Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 83-115.

Lee, O. (1999b).  Science knowledge, world views, and information sources in social and cultural contexts: Making sense after a natural disaster. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 187-219.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1996).  Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers: Insights for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 8, 269-297.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12-21.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (in press). Instructional congruence to promote science learning and literacy development for linguistically diverse students. In D. R. Lavoie (Ed.), Models for science teacher preparation: Bridging the gap between research and practice. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (under review). Instructional congruence in science and literacy for ethnolinguistically diverse students.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (in preparation). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 26 (expected in 2001). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Lee, O., Fradd, S. H., & Sutman, F. X. (1995). Science knowledge and cognitive strategy use among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 797-816.

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (in press). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 5 (pp. 101-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Loving, C. C. (1995). Comment on “multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 79(3), 341-348.

Loving, C. C. (1997).  From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science education’s journey through positivist-postmodern territory. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 421-452.

Loving, C. C. (1998). Cortes’ multicultural empowerment model and generative teaching and learning in science. Science and Education, 7, 533-552.

Loving, C. C., & Ortiz de Montellano, B. R. (in press). Good versus bad culturally relevant science: Avoiding the pitfalls.  In S. M. Hines (Ed.), Multicultural science education. Peter Lang Publishers.

Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbuam Publishers.

Maddock, M. N. (1981). Science education: An anthropological viewpoint. Studies in Science Education, 8, 1-26.

Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.

Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

Matthews, M. R. (1998). The nature of science and science teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 981-1000). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Matthews, C. E., & Smith, W. S. (1994).  Native American related materials in elementary science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 363-380.

Mayberry, M. (1998).  Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 443-460.

McKinley, E., Waiti, P. M., & Bell, B. (1992). Language, culture and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 579-595.

McLaughlin, M. W., Shepard, L. A., & O’Day, J. A. (1995).  Improving education through standards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-based Education Reform. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, National Academy of Education.

Metz, K. E. (1995).  Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-127.

Metz, K. E. (1997).  On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 151-163.

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Needham, J. (1981). Science of traditional China: A comparative perspective. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Nicholls, S. E., Gilmer, P. J., Thompson, A. D., & Davis, N. (1998). Women in science: Expanding the vision. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 967-980). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ogawa, M. (1995).  Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education, 79(5), 583-593.

O’Loughlin, M. (1992).  Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791-820.

Parker, L. H., & Rennie, L. J. (1998). Equitable assessment strategies. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 897-910). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Peterson, P. L., & Barnes, C. (1996). Learning together: The challenge of mathematics, equity, and leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 485-491.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Cao, H. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 224-250.

Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, D. Hymes, & V. John (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press.

Pomeroy, D. (1992).  Science across cultures: Building bridges between traditional western and Alaskan Native sciences.  In S. Hills (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science in science education. Vol. 2. Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University.

Pomeroy, D. (1994). Science education and cultural diversity: Mapping the field. Studies in Science Education, 24, 49-73.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E Pluribus Unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second generation. Sociology of Education, 71, 269-294.

Prophet, R. B., & Rowell, P. M. (1993). Coping and control: Science teaching strategies in Botswana. Qualitative Studies in Education, 6, 197-209.

Rakow, S. J., & Bermudez, A. B. (1993).  Science is “Cicencia”: Meeting the needs of Hispanic American students. Science Education, 77, 547-560.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Rennie, L. J. (1998). Gender equity: Toward clarification and a research direction for science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(8), 951-961.

Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for linguistically diverse students. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 427-446.

Richardson, V., & Anders, P. (1994). A theory of change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 199-216). New York: Teachers College Press.

Robbins, R. (1983).  John Dewey’s philosophy and American Indian: A brief discussion of how it could work. Journal of American Indian Education, 22, 1-9.

Rodríguez, A. J. (1997).  The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the National Research Council’s National Science Education Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 19-37.

Rodríguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistence: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 589-622.

Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 61-94.

Ross, K. E. K., & Shuell, T. J. (1993).  Children’s beliefs about earthquakes. Science Education, 77, 191-205.

Secada, W. G. (1989). Educational equity versus equality of education: An alternative conception. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Equity in education (pp. 68-88). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.

Secada, W. G. (1991/92).  Agenda setting, enlightened self-interest, and equity in mathematics education.  Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 22-56.

Secada, W. G. (1994a). Equity and the teaching of mathematics. In M. M. Atwater, K. Radzik-Marsh, & M. Strutchens (Eds.), Multicultural education: Inclusion of all (pp. 19-38). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.

Secada , W. G. (1994b). Equity in restructured schools. NCRMSE Research Review: The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, 3(3).  Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education.

Shear, L. (1999). Science, language, and deformed frogs: A design framework for linguistically aware science instruction. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Siegel, H. (1997). Science education: Multicultural and universal. Interchange, 28(2), 97-108.

Smolicz, J. J., & Nunan, E. E. (1975). The philosophical and sociological foundations of science education: The demythologizing of school science. Studies in Science Education, 2, 101-143.

Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 28, 387-398.

Stanley, W., & Brickhouse, N. (in press). Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revised. Science Education.

Taylor, P. C. (1998). Constructivism: Value added. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part two (pp. 1111-1126). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tobin, K. (in press). Becoming an urban science educator. Research in Science Education.

Trueba, H. T., & Wright, P. G. (1992). On ethnographic studies and multicultural education. In M.

Saravia-Shore, S. Arvizu (Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnographies of communication in multiethnic classrooms (pp. 299-338). New York: Garland.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1993). 1990 profiles of the foreign-born population, selected characteristics by place of birth (CPH-L-148). Washington, DC: Author.

Valli, L. (1995). The dilemma of race: Learning to be color blind and color conscious. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 120-129.

Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1995). Equity in the future tense: Redefining relationships among teachers, students, and science in linguistic minority classroom. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1996). “This question is just too, too easy!” Students’ perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning new environments for education. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. (1989). New York: Gramercy Books.

Williams, H. (1994).  A critique of Hodson’s “In search of a rationale for multicultural science education.”  Science Education, 78(5), 515-519.

Willis, S. (1996).  Gender justice and the mathematics curriculum: Four perspectives. In L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Gender, mathematics, and science: Shortening the shadow (pp. 41-51). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.