Read on Twitter
If you've heard me speak about teaching in the past few years I usually start by talking about pervasive narratives related to race and gender (and other things) that shape our definitions of what it means to be 'smart' and who is seen as 'smart' in our classrooms.
Smartness or brilliance is treated as a limited resource that only a few people have and through magic many of the people/ students that are labeled "brilliant" have VERY SIMILAR backgrounds(*whispers* it's not magic, it's oppression).
There are also issues with the way that we often teach science. "School science" is about memorization, getting the right answer, always communicating using very formal academic language (read: white, wealthy/middle class).
Which is VERY different than actual scientific practice. Well... there still a LOT of privilege given to the aforementioned language practices, but many of our major scientific breakthroughs happened by accident (see: penicillin).
Also, students are often positioned as people without agency and without the ability to do powerful thinking (which is a rant for a different day).
All of this works together to limit students' (especially those that belong to groups that are traditionally excluded from STEM)ability to see themselves as capable science thinkers and doers. It (likely)also limits instructors abilities to see students as such.
A few years ago I was a member of a team with @erinspalmer and Angy Stacy that redesigned a section of a chemistry course that serves as a weeder. We wanted a learning environment that actively pushed back against the aforementioned narratives, and reframed chemistry/science.
In the 2nd iteration of the redesign, we focused on providing students an explicit and expansive list of what it means to be "good" at science/chemistry, paired with plenty of opportunities to engage in these practices. We did a bunch of other things which you can read about...
in our paper about this work which is out and freely available (through a college library or via a free membership to NSTA) https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-septemberoctober-2020/designing
Quick and important shoutout: The paper includes work done by the BRILLIANT and WONDERFUL @kellycwong and Vishnu Murthy. Both future Dr.'s (PhD and MD, respectively)
Some of our findings came from my favorite part of the interview:
We asked students what it means to them to "good at chemistry". Our data suggest that most students came to a practice-centered definition as opposed to more normative definitions (e.g. memorization).
We asked students what it means to them to "good at chemistry". Our data suggest that most students came to a practice-centered definition as opposed to more normative definitions (e.g. memorization).
After they answered we asked "Given your definition, are you good at chemistry?"
Friends, followers, foes and everyone in between, we got to watch so many faces light up when they came to realize that they were good at chemistry.
Me on the other side of the table
Friends, followers, foes and everyone in between, we got to watch so many faces light up when they came to realize that they were good at chemistry.
Me on the other side of the table
We found that students with a practice-only definition of what it means to be "good at chemistry" identified themselves as such.
Students who included grades-even if they also include practices- did not see themselves as being "good at chemistry"
Students who included grades-even if they also include practices- did not see themselves as being "good at chemistry"
Also, we didn't find a relationship between student grades seeing themselves as "good at chemistry".
