“Getting along” and “using evidence”: Elementary engineering as contentious practice

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research in Science Teaching Pub Date : 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1002/tea.21976
Heidi B. Carlone, Megan Lancaster
{"title":"“Getting along” and “using evidence”: Elementary engineering as contentious practice","authors":"Heidi B. Carlone, Megan Lancaster","doi":"10.1002/tea.21976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Elementary engineering, as an emergent or “contentious” practice, is fertile ground for cultural analysis. Contentious practice (Holland, D., &amp; Lave, J. (2001). <jats:italic>History in person</jats:italic>: <jats:italic>Enduring struggles</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>contentious practice</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>intimate identities</jats:italic>. School of American Research Press) highlights how historically enduring narratives of science, engineering, schooling, and minoritized youth get taken up, figured, and refigured in local practice. The study's research questions were: What classroom cultural narratives of “good engineers” were important for fifth‐grade, minoritized children's engineering design work? How did local and macro‐level cultural narratives about science and engineering, elementary schooling, and minoritized students intersect? How were multi‐leveled cultural narratives consequential for children's engineering work? Using ethnographic methods, researchers analyzed videos, field notes, and interviews with 20 students and their teacher, focusing on engineering design discussion and activities. The authors identified two key narratives: good engineers (1) get along well with others and (2) use evidence to make design decisions. The banality of these narratives makes them ripe for deconstruction. By beginning with children's meanings of engineering competence and framing engineering as contentious practice, the authors: (1) identify the tensions in these seemingly innocuous narratives and practices; (2) illustrate children's creativity and labor in navigating tensions; (3) demonstrate the workings of macro‐level racialized, technocratic, and Western scientistic narratives and their reconfigurations in local practice; and (4) reject deficit‐based perspectives that would frame classroom struggles by assigning blame to the teacher or students. Recommendations for practice include normalizing disagreement, providing tools for joint decision‐making, broadening meanings of evidence, and co‐constructing meanings of kindness. A contentious practice lens highlights the ever‐presence of historicized narratives in local productions of practice and renders elementary engineering as an ongoing accomplishment, opening spaces of possibility less readily available to established practices of elementary schooling. However, without explicit attention to countering racialized narratives applied to minoritized youth in such settings, these spaces tighten up, limiting the potential for social change.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21976","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Elementary engineering, as an emergent or “contentious” practice, is fertile ground for cultural analysis. Contentious practice (Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001). History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious practice, intimate identities. School of American Research Press) highlights how historically enduring narratives of science, engineering, schooling, and minoritized youth get taken up, figured, and refigured in local practice. The study's research questions were: What classroom cultural narratives of “good engineers” were important for fifth‐grade, minoritized children's engineering design work? How did local and macro‐level cultural narratives about science and engineering, elementary schooling, and minoritized students intersect? How were multi‐leveled cultural narratives consequential for children's engineering work? Using ethnographic methods, researchers analyzed videos, field notes, and interviews with 20 students and their teacher, focusing on engineering design discussion and activities. The authors identified two key narratives: good engineers (1) get along well with others and (2) use evidence to make design decisions. The banality of these narratives makes them ripe for deconstruction. By beginning with children's meanings of engineering competence and framing engineering as contentious practice, the authors: (1) identify the tensions in these seemingly innocuous narratives and practices; (2) illustrate children's creativity and labor in navigating tensions; (3) demonstrate the workings of macro‐level racialized, technocratic, and Western scientistic narratives and their reconfigurations in local practice; and (4) reject deficit‐based perspectives that would frame classroom struggles by assigning blame to the teacher or students. Recommendations for practice include normalizing disagreement, providing tools for joint decision‐making, broadening meanings of evidence, and co‐constructing meanings of kindness. A contentious practice lens highlights the ever‐presence of historicized narratives in local productions of practice and renders elementary engineering as an ongoing accomplishment, opening spaces of possibility less readily available to established practices of elementary schooling. However, without explicit attention to countering racialized narratives applied to minoritized youth in such settings, these spaces tighten up, limiting the potential for social change.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"相处 "与 "使用证据":有争议的初级工程实践
基础工程作为一种新兴或 "有争议 "的实践,是进行文化分析的沃土。有争议的实践(Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001).亲历历史:持久的斗争、有争议的实践、亲密的身份。美国研究学院出版社)强调了历史上关于科学、工程学、学校教育和少数民族青年的持久叙事是如何在地方实践中被接受、演绎和重塑的。这项研究的问题是哪些关于 "优秀工程师 "的课堂文化叙事对五年级少数民族儿童的工程设计工作很重要?关于科学与工程、小学教育和少数民族学生的地方和宏观层面的文化叙事是如何交织在一起的?多层次的文化叙事对儿童的工程设计工作有何影响?研究人员采用人种学方法,分析了 20 名学生及其教师的视频、现场记录和访谈,重点关注工程设计讨论和活动。作者发现了两个关键叙事:优秀的工程师(1)与他人相处融洽;(2)使用证据做出设计决策。这些叙述的平庸性使其解构的时机已经成熟。作者从儿童对工程能力的理解入手,将工程作为一种有争议的实践:(1)确定这些看似无害的叙述和实践中的紧张关系;(2)说明儿童在驾驭紧张关系时的创造力和劳动;(3)展示宏观层面的种族化、技术官僚主义和西方科学主义叙述的运作及其在地方实践中的重新配置;(4)拒绝基于赤字的观点,因为这种观点会通过将责任归咎于教师或学生来构建课堂斗争。对实践的建议包括将分歧正常化、提供共同决策的工具、拓宽证据的含义以及共同构建仁慈的含义。有争议的实践视角凸显了历史化叙事在当地实践生产中的持续存在,并将小学工程学描述为一项持续的成就,为小学教育的既定实践开辟了不那么容易获得的可能性空间。然而,如果不明确注意反驳在这些环境中适用于少数民族青年的种族化叙事,这些空间就会紧缩,限制了社会变革的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Artificial intelligence: Tool or teammate? “Powered by emotions”: Exploring emotion induction in out‐of‐school authentic science learning Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1