A critical issue in academic assessment is the effect of children's language and culture on their measured performance. Research on this topic has rarely focused on science education, because science is commonly (though erroneously) assumed to be “culture free.”
Students’ scientific understandings are influenced by the cultural values, experiences, and epistemologies of their home communities. Efforts to minimize cultural bias include designing tests to be “culturally neutral” and, conversely, tailoring assessments to specific cultural groups; both approaches are theoretically and practically problematic. Several studies have focused on testing accommodations for English language learners (ELLs), but accommodations raise validity and feasibility issues and are limited by “English-only” policies.
This article stresses the linkages between language and culture, drawing on contemporary literacy theory and research on scientific communities as well as groups traditionally marginalized from science.
Objective
To examine how children's prior linguistic and cultural knowledge mediates their engagement with school science, as reflected in their responses on science assessments.
Participants
Over 1,500 students from six elementary schools serving diverse populations.
Research Design
Project-developed assessments included items requiring students to explain scientific phenomena. Scoring revealed that students misinterpreted some items, and scorers had difficulty understanding some students’ responses. Project personnel then undertook qualitative discourse analysis of responses on all tests.
Findings
Analysis revealed phonological/orthographic and semantic interference from students’ home languages; responses reflecting students’ cultural beliefs and practices; and “languacultural” features related to genre, authorial voice, pragmatic framing, and textual organization.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Science tests inevitably contain tacit cultural and linguistic knowledge that is not equally accessible to all students. Using “real-life scenarios” in assessment items may confuse students whose lives do not reflect mainstream norms. Furthermore, English-medium assessments are unlikely to accurately measure ELLs’ science knowledge.
Teachers can learn to recognize factors that impede ELLs from grasping or expressing science concepts clearly. They should also ensure that all students understand the discursive and textual conventions inherent in assessment instruments.
Linguistic and cultural factors shape science knowledge not only of students but of teachers, scientists, and test developers. Uncovering the factors shaping students’ academic performance requires fine-grained qualitative analysis and collaboration across disciplinary boundaries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4—14.
2.
AbediJ., HofstetterC. H., and LordC. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1—28.
3.
AgarM. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow.
4.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
AikenheadG. S. (2001). Integrating Western and aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Education, 31, 337—355.
6.
AikenheadG. S., and JegedeO. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching36, 269—287.
7.
AtwaterM. M. (1993). Multicultural science education: Perspectives, definitions, and research agenda. Science Education, 77, 661—668.
8.
AtwaterM. M. (1994). Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In and and GabelD.L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 558—576). New York: Macmillan.
9.
AtwaterM. M. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 821—837.
10.
BoyarinJ. (1992). The ethnography of reading. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
BrennerM. E. (1998). Adding cognition to the formula for culturally relevant instruction in mathematics. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29, 213—244.
12.
BrickhouseN. (1994). Bringing in the outsiders: Reshaping the sciences of the future. Curriculum Studies, 26, 401—416.
13.
Calabrese BartonA. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching38, 899—917.
14.
CazdenC. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
15.
CobernW. W. (Ed.). (1998). Socio-cultural perspectives on science education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
16.
CobernW. W., and AikenheadG. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In FraserB., and TobinK. (Eds.), International handbook of science education: Part one (pp. 39—52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
17.
CobernW. W., and LovingC. C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50—67.
18.
CorsonD. (2001). Language diversity and education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
DreyfusH., and RabinowP. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
DuranB. J., DuganT., and WefferR. (1998). Language minority students in high school: The role of language in learning biology concepts. Science Education, 82(3), 311—341.
21.
EderD. (2000). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A microanalysis of teacher-student interaction. In and and Levinson et alB. (Eds.), Schooling the symbolic animal: Social and cultural dimensions of education (pp. 248—259). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. (Original work published 1982).
22.
EisenhartM. (1996). The production of biologists at school and work: Making scientists, conservationists, or flowery bone-heads? In LevinsonB.A., FoleyD.E., and HollandD.C. (Eds.), The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice (pp. 169—185). Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
EisenhartM., FinkelE., and MarionS. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261—295.
24.
FraddS. H., and LeeO. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 4—20, 42.
25.
GarcíaG. E., and PearsonP. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In and and Darling-HammondL. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 337—383). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
26.
GutiérrezK. D., AsatoJ., PachecoM., MollL. C., OlsonK., and HorngE. L.. (2002). “Sounding American”: The consequences of new reforms on English language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 328—343.
27.
HamiltonL. S. (1998). Gender differences on high school science achievement tests: Do format and content matter?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 179—195.
28.
HarawayD. (1990) Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.
29.
HarawayD. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
30.
HartJ., and LeeO. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 475—501.
31.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HelmsJ. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing?American Psychologist, 47, 1083—1101.
33.
HodsonD. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77, 685—711.
34.
IvanicR. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
35.
KellerE. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7, 589—602.
36.
KirschnerM., Spector-CohenE., and WexlerC. (1992). Avoiding obstacles to student comprehension of test questions. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 537—556.
37.
KozolJ. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown.
38.
LeeO. (1999). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69, 83—115.
39.
LeeO. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In and and SecadaW.G. (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 26, pp. 23—69). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
40.
LeeO. (2003). Equity for culturally and linguistically diverse students in science education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105, 465—489.
41.
LeeO., DeaktorR. A., HartJ. E., CuevasP., and EndersC. (2005). An instructional intervention's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching42(8), 857—887.
42.
LeeO., and FraddS. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12—21.
43.
LeeO., HartJ., CuevasP., and EndersC. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1021—1043.
44.
LemkeJ. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296—316.
45.
LuykxA., CuevasP., LambertJ., and LeeO. (2004). Unpacking teachers’ “resistance” to integrating students’ language and culture into elementary science instruction. In RodríguezA., and KitchenR.S. (Eds.), Preparing prospective mathematics and science teachers to teach for diversity: Promising strategies for transformative action (pp. 119—141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46.
MatthewsM. R. (1998). The nature of science and science teaching. In FraserB., and TobinK. (Eds.), International handbook of science education: Part two (pp. 981—1000). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
47.
MerinoB., and HammondL. (2001). How do teachers facilitate writing for bilingual learners in “sheltered constructivist” science?Electronic Journal in Science and Literacy, 1(1).
48.
MichaelsS. (1981). Sharing time: Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 432—442.
49.
MojeE., CollazoT., CarilloR., and MarxR. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is quality?”: Examining competing discourses in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469—495.
50.
MollL. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20—24.
51.
NogueraP. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
52.
NormanO. (1998). Marginalized discourses and scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 365—374.
53.
OakesJ. (1988). Tracking in mathematics and science education: A structural contribution to unequal schooling. In and and WeisL. (Ed.), Class, race and gender in American education (pp. 106—125). Albany: State University of New York Press.
54.
OgawaM. (1995). Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education, 79, 583—593.
55.
OgbuJ. U. (1999). Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a Black-American speech community. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 147—184.
56.
O'LoughlinM. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791—820.
57.
O'MalleyJ. M., and Valdez PierceL. (1994). State assessment policies, practices, and language minority students. Educational Assessment, 2, 213—255.
58.
O'SullivanC. Y., LaukoM. A., GriggW. S., QianJ., and ZhangJ. (2003). The nation's report card: Science 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
59.
PerryT., and DelpitL. (1998). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of African-American children. Boston: Beacon Press.
60.
PhilipsS. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.
61.
RodríguezA. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the NRC's National Science Education Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 19—37.
62.
RogoffB. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
RogoffB., and LaveJ. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
RouseJ. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
65.
Ruiz-PrimoM. A., and ShavelsonR. J. (1996). Rhetoric and reality in science performance assessments: An update. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1045—1063.
66.
SchmittA. P., and DoransN. J. (1990). Differential item functioning for minority examinees on the SAT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 67—81.
67.
ScollonR., and ScollonS. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
68.
ShavelsonR. J., BaxterG. P., and PineJ. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 22—27.
69.
ShawJ. M. (1997). Threats to the validity of science performance assessments for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching34(7), 721—743.
70.
ShepardL., TaylorG., and BetebennerD. (1998). Inclusion of limited-English-proficient students in Rhode Island's grade 4 mathematics performance assessment (CSE Technical Report No. 486). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
71.
ShortD. J. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 627—656.
72.
SiegelH. (2002). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education: In search of common ground. Science Education, 86, 803—820.
73.
SnivelyG., and CorsigliaJ. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 6—34.
74.
Solano-FloresG., LaraJ., SextonU., and NavarreteC. (2001). Testing English language learners: A sampler of student responses to science and mathematics test items. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
75.
Solano-FloresG., and Nelson-BarberS. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553—573.
76.
Solano-FloresG., and TrumbullE. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3—13.
77.
SongerN. B., LeeH-S., and McDonaldS. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87(4), 490—516.
78.
SpivakG. C. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine. New York: Routledge.
79.
StanleyW. B., and BrickhouseN. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 78, 387—398.
80.
StanleyW., and BrickhouseN. (2001). Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85, 35—49.
81.
StreetB. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In and and StreetB. (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1—21). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
82.
TateW. (2001). Science education as civil right: Urban schools and opportunity-to-learn considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1015—1028.
83.
TobinK., SeilerG., and SmithM. W. (1999). Educating science teachers for the sociocultural diversity of urban schools. Research in Science Education, 29, 69—88.
84.
TraweekS. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
85.
Vélez-IbáñezC. G., and GreenbergJ. B. (1988). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23, 313—335.
86.
WarrenB., BallengerC., OgonowskiM., RoseberyA., and Hudicourt-BarnesJ. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529—552.
87.
WileyT. G., and WrightW. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability.” Educational Policy, 18(1), 142—168.
