Facilitating identity formation, group membership, and learning in science classrooms: What can be learned from out-of-field teaching in an urban school?†

This paper explores both the obstacles and the possibilities for students developing identities associated with science by engaging in solidarity-building classroom interactions. Data come from ethnographic research conducted in a diverse eighth-grade urban magnet school classroom in which the teacher taught out of field for part of the year. Contrary to expectations, more students participated and reported enjoying science when the teacher was out of field. Analysis of classroom interactions indicated that while in field, the teacher primarily engaged in “front stage” performances that hid her struggles with the material and accentuated students' views of science as an elite status group. The types of solidarity that developed among students often did not involve science language and sometimes involved students rejecting peers' claims to membership. However, when out of field, the teacher allowed students into her “backstage,” where her struggles and learning processes were more explicit. These practices lessened the social distance between teacher and students, and reduced the risks of using science language, thereby encouraging solidarity and group membership. This study provides insights into some of the ways that teachers, particularly those in urban settings characterized by diversity, might be more successful at facilitating identity formation and learning in science. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed91:201–221, 2007

[1]  P. Bourdieu.  Forms of Capital , 2002 .

[2]  Stanton Wortham,et al.  Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers' footing , 1996 .

[3]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory methodology: An overview. , 1994 .

[4]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[5]  A. Collins.  National Science Education Standards: A Political Document. , 1998 .

[6]  Alberto J. Rodriguez.  The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the National Research Council's national science education standards , 1997 .

[7]  B. Brown,et al.  Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students , 2004 .

[8]  Angela Calabrese Barton,et al.  Feminist Science Education , 1998 .

[9]  L. Shulman.  Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 1986 .

[10]  S. Fordham,et al.  Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity, and Success at Capital High , 1996 .

[11]  K. Tobin,et al.  Reproduction of social class in the teaching and learning of science in urban high schools , 1999 .

[12]  Jenifer V. Helms.  Science—and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teachers , 1998 .

[13]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[14]  R. Collins,et al.  Interaction Ritual Chains , 2004 .

[15]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[16]  E. Durkheim.  FROM THE ELEMENTARY FORMS OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE , 1996, The New Economic Sociology.

[17]  Kenneth Tobin,et al.  Re/Making Identities in the Praxis of Urban Schooling: A Cultural Historical Perspective , 2004 .

[18]  John M. Reveles,et al.  Science literacy and academic identity formulation , 2004 .

[19]  Angela Calabrese Barton,et al.  The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel , 2000 .

[20]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[21]  E. Guba,et al.  Fourth Generation Evaluation , 1989 .

[22]  Norbert Wiley.  The Semiotic Self , 1994 .

[23]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  Co-generative Dialoguing and Metaloguing: Reflexivity of Processes and Genres , 2004 .

[24]  Richard M. Ingersoll,et al.  The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in American Secondary Schools , 1999 .

[25]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems , 2000 .