JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 38, NO. 5, PP. 622± 627 (2001)

CONCLUSION

`̀ Science for All'' Is Not Equal to `̀ One Size Fits All'':Linguistic and Cultural Diversity and Science Education Reform

Sharon Lynch

Department of Teacher Preparation and Special Education, 2134 G Street NW,

George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052

Received 5 January 2001; accepted 31 January 2001

In the introduction to this special issue, Okhee Lee discussed equity and social justice, their

signi®cance to science education reform, and relationships to linguistic and cultural diversity. In

this conclusion, I will focus on the policy and practice implications of the ®ve articles in this

issue of the Journal of Research on Science Teaching. Despite the best intentions to promote

equity and to close achievement gaps, the science education reform movement has failed to

respond adequately to the diversity of the student population. It has become increasingly obvious

that `̀ science for all'' does not necessarily mean that `̀ one size ®ts all''Ðcurriculum, instruction,

or assessment (e.g., Lee, 1999; Lynch, 2000; Lynch et al., 1996; Rodriguez, 1997). This special

issue of JRST on language and culture aims to explore the effects of the reform efforts on diverse

learners. More than 40% of U.S. students are culturally, linguistically, or ethnically diverse

(Darling-Hammond, 1997). Moreover, multilingual, multicultural student diversity is beginning

to characterize education in many nations, and international comparison studies like TIMSS are

already in¯uencing science and mathematics education policy and practice globally (e.g.,

Arellano et al., 2001).

Systemic science education reform is based upon an accountability system that includes the

setting of standards, followed by the development of curriculum frameworks and teaching

materials. Professional development and preservice efforts help science teachers to understand

the rationale behind the new materials, acquire appropriate content knowledge, and develop the

pedagogical skills required to enact curricula intended to result in better performance for all.

Assessments create the feedback loop that informs policy-makers and educators of the

effectiveness of reform efforts. The driving force behind all this was the idea that large-scale

improvements in student outcomes could be achieved by large-scale interventions and enormous

leverage applied through accountability systems.

Unfortunately, although this model of education reform has become nearly ubiquitous and

there has been variety in systemic science education interventions in various geographic

ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

locations (to say nothing of billions of dollars spent), overall achievement in science has more or

less remained ¯at. Recent evidence from TIMSS (U.S. National Research Center for TIMSS,

1996; TIMSS-R, 2000) showed that U.S. students are far from the goal to be ®rst in the world in

science and mathematics (National Commission of Science and Mathematics Teaching for the

21st Century, 2000). In the U.S., an equally important corollary goal of science education reform

has been to close achievement gaps among the underserved, including linguistically and

culturally diverse students. Unfortunately, the reform has not signi®cantly reduced achievement

gaps overall in the U.S. (although there has been progress in some speci®c locations). NAEP

data show that, although there have been modest increases in student achievement in science

over the last 5 to 10 years, achievement differences between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, and

between high- and low-SES students, remain a huge concern (National Center for Educational

Statistics, 1999, 2000). Moreover, evaluation data of U.S State Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) have

not been able to demonstrate robust increases in science achievement nor closing of gaps

(Laguarda, 1998), despite the fact that these two goals were `̀ drivers'' for the SSI reform efforts

and federal funding.

The ®ve articles in this special issue of JRST on language and culture suggest that a `̀ one

size ®ts all'' approach to systemic reform simply cannot work. In contrast, each article is the

product of a meticulous and thoughtful examination of students and schooling, and how their

language and culture are inseparable from experiences with science education. They suggest

that, contrary to the implied suppositions of conceptual change, constructivist, and more

traditional approaches to science education, language and culture cannot be separated from

`̀ learning content.'' One must reconceptualize `̀ learning science content'' in terms of language

and culture, showing how issues associated with cultural or linguistic diversity affect who learns

what, and how.

Solano-Flores and Nelson-Barber (2001) show the tension between a fundamental tenant of

systemic reformÐ`̀ universal'' accountability through assessmentÐand the in®nite possible

interpretations of assessment items due to the languages and cultures of the students who are

being assessed. Given these rich descriptions of how language and culture can in¯uence

students' responses on assessment items, what then are we to make of the statistics presented

above from TIMSS, NAEP, or SSI efforts? Some educators might respond by dismissing the

assessments altogether, and, with it, systemic reform. However, excusing students from

assessment (as in the past) seems tantamount to ignoring the fact that the system is failing to

educate far too many students, a situation unacceptable to any thoughtful person. Better, as

Solano-Flores and Nelson-Barber implicitly seem to say, to build assessment systems that at the

outset use their construct of `̀ cultural validity,'' so that accountability becomes increasingly

sensitive to the reality of the diversity that characterizes U.S. schools. At the same time, more

clearly than ever, this article shows educators that test scores alone should not ever become

`̀ destiny'' for the students being assessed.

The results of such thinking are documented in Gilbert and Yerrick's (2001) article on

ability grouping in a rural high school. The school, embedded in a strati®ed social system,

creates a micro culture in a low-track earth science classroom. In this class, White, Hispanic, and

African American students join together to become `̀ black'' in their resistance to a system

quietly hostile to them and their education. This micro culture, shaped in part by the students

themselves, may allow them to survive the immediate indignities of lower expectations, fewer

resources, restricted ambitions, and racial bias. But it is ultimately dysfunctional if the goal is

student learning, a sense of self-ef®cacy, or preparation to move con®dently into a world of

possibilities, rather than a world circumscribed by an archaic, but highly resistant, system of

social reproduction. The question that weighs heavily is whether North Carolina's systemic

CONCLUSION 623

reform efforts will ever be felt at this high school, and jar it into the realization that the

responsibility for these students' achievement rests at least as much with the school as with the

students. Without the extraordinary interventions encouraged by science reform in some states,

the current entrenched culture of low expectations will continue. Although this micro culture

is local, unfortunately, it is far from unique. Such tracking practices and similar effects are

nearly ubiquitous and not often enough challenged. Frankly, the `̀ chain saw approach'' to

accountability may be more effective in creating a climate for school change, particularly when

the onus of responsibility is local, than have more subtle measures to encourage equal opport-

unity to learn.

In stark contrast to Gilbert and Yerrick's documentation of a culture that works against

science learning or the goals of good schooling, Warren et al.'s article (2001) provides rich

accounts of the centrality of language and culture to successful science teaching. The authors

show how diversity can contribute to fuller understanding of science for students, teachers, and

even the researchers themselves. In Cheche Konnen classrooms, Haitian Creole students'

everyday sense-making strategies (storytelling and argumentation) and language are encouraged

and incorporated into practice. Moreover, Warren et al. challenge current thinking in equity

and reform circles. They reject a prominent view that in order to do science, culturally and

linguistically diverse students must cross borders between their home cultures and that of

Western science. Rather than seeing children with diverse linguistic, cultural, and low-SES

backgrounds as cut off from deep thought or complex argument due to differences in everyday

language, Warren et al. point out that these children use their language effectively to negotiate

complex dilemmas in their daily lives. Therefore, when science teachers tap into these assets,

their students `̀ . . . demonstrate robust understanding and achievement across a repertoire of

performances and assessments of disciplinary knowledge and practice'' (p. 548).

Science educators, world over, struggle with such issues. Arellano et al.'s (2001) manuscript

explores the `̀ authority of science'' versus local experiences with it. The authors show how a

collaborative group of Filipino and U.S. science educators created a case-based pedagogy to

study dilemmas in teaching and learning in Filipino elementary science classrooms. Certainly

the tensions between the authority of science (portrayed in science texts and represented by the

science teachers and university professors) and the local science experienced by children and

their families are familiar (cf., Allen, 1995; Moje, 2001; Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001).

This rich account of a productive collaboration raises many provocative issues, but one of the

most ubiquitous and important is the struggle between globalization (standards that lead all

children to learning `̀ Western science'') and indigenization (adapting the curriculum to meet the

local needs of the community). How are governments, local communities, or science education

institutions to manage the balance? Tipped too far in one direction, the science may seem

irrelevant to students whose communities need science to help solve real, but local, problems.

Tilted to the other, local science could cut some youngsters off from the opportunities to learn the

big ideas of science on a scale that promotes a level of science literacy and expertise that could

position local communities to participate in a global society and equalize the playing ®eld.

Arellano et al. also raise questions about the importance of understanding the nature of science.

For some of the young Filipino teachers, this refers to the authority of science as written in the

science text, even when the text seemed incorrect. They did not always view science as a sense-

making activity experienced in everyday life, so they were placed in con¯ict when portraying

science to elementary school students, parents, and communities.

Lewis and Collins (2001) explore the views of science from the standpoint of another group

of young peopleÐAfrican American undergraduates at a large U.S. university. This article

brings a breath of fresh air into the research on the participation of students of color in the

624 LYNCH

sciences. Through its case studies, the reader listens in on the thoughts of three young African

American students who have successfully passed through the K ± 12 science pipeline and seem

abundantly capable of negotiating college course work and moving into careers in science. But

two students ultimately rejected the science career path. Their negative views of the `̀ nature

of science'' and of a `̀ life of science'' have serious implications for science educators. Two

students did not see a career in science as supportive of their life goals. Their reasoning seems

alternately accurate and ¯awed. They were correct in their realization that personal success and

monetary rewards could come faster, easier, and at a lesser personal cost if they turned their

considerable talents toward other ®elds. However, their views were restricted by their

experiences in formal science coursework (unexciting) and a lack of familiarity with the lives of

scientists. A remarkably mature young man who chose to pursue a pharmacy career perhaps saw

science more honestly (the bad and the good) and more fully. He was able to integrate his views

of the nature of science and of a life in science with moral and spiritual goals, as well as more

instrumental needs. Lewis and Collins show the disjunction that can occur between the students'

culture and the culture of science. They suggest that science education should allow students to

explore and critique aspects of science that are seldom raised in K ± 16 science coursesÐi.e.,

science is not always practiced properly, science is a network of individuals that that can be open

or closed, and so on. It was somewhat encouraging that these three undergraduates did not see

race as a barrier to careers in science. Perhaps they had already leapt critical hurdles in high

school gateway courses. Yet, the authors conclude that science education needs more research to

explore how career factors (course-taking patterns, grading and assessment results, career

counseling) affect career decisions. These factors may be distributed differentially along lines

de®ned by language and culture.

The articles in this special issue of JRST on language and culture suggest that creating

effective science curricula, pedagogy, and assessment for culturally and linguistically diverse

students may be far more complex than anticipated. Unfortunately, according to 1996 NAEP

data, the least common topics for science teacher professional development activities were

methods for teaching limited-English-pro®cient, special needs, or culturally different students

(Wenglinsky & Educational Testing Service, 2000). Nor can many science teachers rely

intuitively on personal experiences to help sort out issues of language and culture because the

diversity of the science teacher population has in no way kept pace with the diversity of the U.S.

student population (Lynch, 2000).

None of this is news. What has changed is the urgency of the situation for policy-makers and

politicians, school administrators and science educators, students and their families, now that

accountability systems have upped the stakes and made more public chasms in both achievement

and opportunity to learn. Now there are consequences, be they fair or not. Equity is an increasing

concern (Lee, 2001). It is not the intent, here, to critique the assumptions and practices of

systemic science education reform. However, as the reform has created forces for change in

schools, so the goal is for linguistically and culturally diverse students to bene®t from these

pressures, rather than being ¯attened by them. In order for this to happen, the science education

research community might consider these needs:

* Research informed by classroom practice leading to daring but robust theory building

that can guide curriculum and instruction for linguistically and culturally diverse

learners. This special issue of JRST provides the NARST community with rich

examples of such research.* Credible, valid research on effective instructional programs in science for culturally

and linguistically diverse student populations. These approaches to research must more

CONCLUSION 625

often go beyond qualitative data (no matter how productive this form of inquiry has

been for description, understanding, and theory building). Quantitative research is also

needed in order to generalize to larger populations and foster systemic change. Policy-

makers will not back serious, large-scale reform interventions without such data

(National Science Foundation, 2000; Suter & Frechtling, 2000).* A better understanding of the nature of science and its interplay with teaching and

learning. The studies published in this issue contribute to understanding the tensions

that science education can create even under relatively positive circumstances. The

articles provide elaborate examples of how students and teachers of different cultures

experience science, and how it is embraced, rejected, or made problematic.* A willingness to confront the institutionalized inequities in opportunity to learn, mostly

still untouched by the reform and resulting in breathtaking indifference to students'

lives and futures. Elegant theory and painstaking ethnography sometime simply reveal

the plain-as-mud inequities that exist for culturally and linguistically diverse students

in many schools.

NARST has a large community of committed science education researchers who are

exploring education reform for linguistically and culturally diverse students. The next objective

should be to connect this insightful body of work to education policy and practice in order to, as

Warren et al. (2000) say, `̀ . . . understand diversity not as a problem to be overcome but as a

fundamental quality of all human interaction and, crucially, as a source of creativity, insight, and

learning for teachers, students and researchers alike (p. 45 of manuscript)''.

References

Allen, N.J. (1995, April). `̀ Voices from the bridge'' Kickapoo Indian students and science

education: A worldview comparison. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Arellano, E.L., Barcenal, T.L., Bilbao, P.P., Castellano, M.A., Nichols, S., & Tippins, D.

(2001). Case-based pedagogy as a context for collaborative inquiry in the Philippines. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38, 502±528.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gilbert, A., & Yerrick, R. (2001). Same school, separate worlds: A sociocultural study of

identity, resistance, and negotiation in a rural, lower track science classroom. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38, 574±598.

Laguarda, K.G. (1998). Assessing SSIs impact on student achievement: An imperfect

science. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Associates.

Lee, O. (1999). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in

major reform documents. Review of Education Research, 69(1), 83±115.

Lee, O. (2001). Culture and language in science education: What do we know and what do

we need to know? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 499±501.

Lewis, B.F., & Collins, A. (2001). An interpretive investigation of the science related

career decisions of three African-American college students. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 38, 599±621.

Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

and Associates.

Lynch, S., Atwater, M., Cawley, J., Eccles, J., Lee, O., Marrett, C., Rojas-Medlin, D.,

Secada, W., Stephanich, G., & Willetto, A. (1996). An equity blueprint for Project 2061 science

626 LYNCH

education reform (second draft). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement

of Science, Project 2061.

Moje, E.B. (2001). Maestro, what is quality? Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

National Center for Educational Statistics, (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the

preparation and quali®cations of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Of®ce.

National Center for Educational Statistics, (2000). Trends in academic progress: Three

decades of student performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of®ce.

National Commission of Science and Mathematics Teaching for the 21st Century (2000).

The Glenn Commission Report: Before it's too late. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation, (2000). Interagency education research initiative (IERI),

Program solicitation. Arlington, VA: Author.

Solano-Flores, G. & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assess-

ments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553±573.

Suter, L., & Frechtling, J. (2000). Guiding principles of mathematics and science education

research methods: A report of a workshop. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Rodriguez, A.J. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the National

Research Council's National Science Education Standards. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 34, 19±38.

TIMMS-R (2000). http://www.lessonlab.com/timss-r/.

U.S. National Research Center for TIMSS (1996). A splintered vision: An investigation of

U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A.S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2000).

Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday languages. Unpublished

manuscript.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A.S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001).

Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense making. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529±552.

Wenglinsky, H., & Educational Testing Service (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the

classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service

and the Milken Family Foundation.

CONCLUSION 627