4.4 Article

The Structure-Agency Dialectic in Contested Science Spaces: Do Earthworms Eat Apples?

Journal

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages 461-473

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21206

Keywords

equity; diversity; dialogic teaching; learning communities

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [REC-0411593]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Focusing on a group of African American third graders who attend a high-poverty urban school, I explore the structure-agency dialectic within contested spaces situated in a dialogically oriented science classroom. Contested spaces entail the moments in which the students challenge each other's and their teacher's science ideas and, in the process, construct agentic science selves. Drawing on sociocultural frameworks, I demonstrate the complexities of agency within contested spaces and the ways in which contested spaces shape and are shaped by agentic moves. Using an interpretive qualitative analysis, I found that contested spaces bubble up are maintained by dialogue, and simmer down over time. In this study, children exercised both individual and collective agency in negotiating science ideas with their teacher to shape the science classroom space in favor of their own meaning making. Using dialogicality as a resource and building on their own cultural resources, the children acted as a community of learners to challenge their teacher's science ideas and, in doing so, transformed the dialogic space within the classroom. This study highlights the tensions teachers face in choosing authentic meaning making within the limits of the school day and their own science knowledge. In addition, it demonstrates the importance of providing equitable learning spaces for African American children that offer them opportunities to agentically use their own ways of being as resources for learning and becoming in science. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 461-473, 2015

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available