The purpose of this study was to increase the science education community’s understanding of the experiences and needs of girls who cross the traditional categorical boundaries of gender, race and socioeconomic status in a manner that has left their needs and experience largely invisible. A first of several in a series, this study sought to explore how African American girls from low SES communities position themselves in science learning. We followed a mixed-methods sequential explanatory strategy, in which two data collection phases, qualitative following the quantitative, were employed to investigate 89 African-American girls’ personal orientations towards science learning. By using quantitative data from the Modified Attitudes toward Science Inventory to organize students into attitude profiles and then sequentially integrating the profile scores with year-long interview data, we found that the girls’ orientations towards science were best described in terms of definitions of science, importance of science, experiences with science, and success in science. Therefore, our mixed method analysis provided four personality orientations which linked success in school and experiences with science to confidence and importance of science and definitions of science to value/desire. In our efforts to decrease the achievement gap, we concluded there should be more emphasis on conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills, while still being cognizant of the danger of losing the connection between science and society which so often plagues achievement-focused efforts. Our continued efforts with this group of girls will center on these instructional techniques with the goal of addressing the needs of all science learners.
American Association of University Women. ( 2006). Annual report 2005-2006. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://www.aauw.org/publications/annualReport/
2.
Basu, S.J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 466-489.
3.
Bouillion, L.M., & Gomez, L.M. ( 2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextualized scaffolds . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 878-898.
4.
Brickhouse, N., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. ( 2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 441-458.
5.
Britner, S.L. ( 2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 955-970.
6.
Butler, J. ( 2004). Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In H. Bial (Ed.), The performance studies reader (pp. 154-166). New York: Routledge.
7.
Calabrese Barton, A. ( 2007). Science learning in urban settings. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 319-343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. ( 2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal , 45, 68-103.
9.
Carpenter, D., Ramirez, A., & Severn, L. ( 2006). ‘‘Gap’’ or ‘‘gaps’’: Challenging the singular definition of the achievement gap. Education and Urban Society, 39, 113-127.
10.
Catsambis, S. ( 1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243-257.
11.
Crawford, M., & Unger, R. ( 2000). Women and gender: A feminist psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Creswell, J.W. ( 2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
Donovan, J. ( 1996). Feminist theory. New York: Continuum.
15.
Fordham, S. ( 1993). Those Loud Black Girls: (Black) women, silence, and gender passing in the academy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 24, 3-32.
16.
Gogolin, L., & Swartz, F. ( 1992). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the attitudes toward science of nonscience college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 487-504.
17.
Greenberg, J.B. ( 1989). Funds of knowledge: Historical constitution, social distribution, and transmission. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM.
18.
Greene, J.C., & Caracelli, V.J. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. In New directions for evaluation (no. 74). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
19.
hooks, b. ( 1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End Press.
20.
Kahle, J., & Meece, J. ( 1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 542-576). Washington, DC : National Science Teachers Association.
21.
Kleinfeld, J. ( 1999). Student performance: Males versus females. Public Interest, 134, 3-20.
22.
Koballa, T.R., & Glynn, S.M. ( 2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning . In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Krockover, G.H., & Shepardson, D.P. (1995). The missing links in gender equity research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 223-224.
24.
Lather, P. ( 1986). Issues in validity in open ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17, 63-84.
25.
Lather, P. ( 2007). (Post)Critical feminist methodology: Getting lost. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association , Chicago, IL.
26.
Lederman, N.G. ( 2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Lee, O. ( 2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. ( 2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioecomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 171-198). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Levinson, B., Foley, D., & Holland, D. ( 1996). The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice. New York : State University of New York Press.
30.
Luttrell, W. ( 1989). Working-class women’s ways of knowing: Effects of gender, race, and class. Sociology of Education, 62, 33-46.
31.
Madriz, E. ( 2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 835-850). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
Marcon, R. ( 1999). Demographic and educational influences on academic motivation, competence, and achievement in minority urban students. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
33.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
34.
Moll, L.C., & Greenberg, J. ( 1992). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Qin, D. ( 2004). Toward a critical feminist perspective of culture and self. Feminism & Psychology, 14, 297-312.
36.
Reinharz, S. ( 1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
Rollock, N. ( 2007). Why Black girls don’t matter: Deconstructing gendered and racialised discourses of academic success in an inner city school. British Journal of Learning Support, 22, 197-202.
38.
Scantlebury, K., & Baker, D. ( 2007). Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 257-286). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Signer, B., Beasley, M., & Bauer, E. ( 1997). Interaction of ethnicity, mathematics achievement level, socioeconomic status, and gender among high school students’ mathematics self-concepts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2, 377-393.
40.
Stake, R.E. ( 1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
41.
Stewart, A.J., & Ostrove, J.M. ( 1993). Social class, social change, and gender: Working class women at Radcliffe and after. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 17, 475-497.
42.
Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2006, April). Melanie’s transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
43.
Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 43-71.
44.
Weinburgh, M.H. ( 2003). The effects of systemic reform on urban, African American fifth grade students’ attitudes toward science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9, 53-72.
45.
Weinburgh, M.H., & Engelhard, G. ( 1994). Gender, prior academic achievement, and belief as predictors of student attitudes toward biology laboratory instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 118-123.
46.
Weinburgh, M.H., & Steele, D. ( 2000). The modified attitudes toward science inventory: Developing an instrument to be used with fifth grade urban students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 6, 87-98.
47.
Wilkinson, S. ( 1999). How useful is focus group research? In R. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 64-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48.
Wilson, E.A. ( 1998). Neural geographies: feminism and the microstructure of cognition. New York: Routledge.
