An official website of the United States government
Research in science education with multilingual learners (MLs) has expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion can be situated within a larger dialogue about what it means to provide minoritized students with an equitable education. Whereas some conceptions of equity focus on ensuring all students have access to the knowledge, practices, and language normatively valued in K‐12 schools (equity as access), increasingly prominent conceptions focus on transforming those knowledge, practices, and language in ways that center minoritized students and their communities (equity as transformation). In this article, we argue that conceptions of equity provide a useful lens for understanding emerging research in science education with MLs and for charting a research agenda. We begin by tracing how conceptions of equity have evolved in parallel across STEM and multilingual education. Then, we provide an overview of recent developments from demographic, theoretical, and policy perspectives. In the context of these developments, we provide a conceptual synthesis of emerging research by our team of early‐career scholars in three areas: (a) learning, (b) assessment, and (c) teacher education. Within each area, we unpack the research efforts in terms of how they attend to equity as access while pushing toward equity as transformation. Finally, we propose a research agenda for science education with MLs that builds on and extends these efforts. We close by offering recommendations for making this research agenda coherent and impactful: (a) being explicit about our conceptions of equity, (b) paying attention to the interplay of structure and agency, and (c) promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.
more »
« less
What Does Equitable Co‐Production Entail? Three Perspectives
Abstract Co‐production practices are increasingly being adopted in research conducted for the purpose of societal impact. However, the ways in which co‐production is conducted can perpetuate long‐standing inequity and inequality. This study investigates which principles of co‐production design are perceived to advance more equitable processes and outcomes based on the experiences of participants in three projects funded by U.S. federal programs that support decision‐relevant climate science, along with others engaged in co‐production efforts. We found three distinct perspectives: (a) Ways of Knowing and Power; (b) Participants and Interactions; and (c) Science as Capacity Building. Each viewpoint differentially weights the salience of statements associated with five dimensions of co‐production practices: (a) outcomes; (b) power; (c) place‐based, community rights and respect; (d) audiences and participation; and (e) interactions. In the final stage of the study, we hosted a workshop of participants representing various roles in co‐production efforts to vet and discuss each perspective. We found that the perspectives remained distinct after each of the groups selected core statements that reflect their views. The degree of variation across the three perspectives suggests that co‐production processes would benefit from an initial discussion of, and decisions about, rules of engagement to ensure that participants view the process as equitable.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2135538
- PAR ID:
- 10418923
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Community Science
- Volume:
- 2
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2692-9430
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Co‐production is becoming an increasingly important approach to facilitating integrated climate, environmental, social and earth systems research to achieve societal impact. Across the research and science‐policy ecosystem, there are multiple indicators of its growing prominence as means to engage the public and generate research that is more likely to address real‐world problems and community priorities. Power plays a key role in co‐production, as power imbalances can affect participation, decision‐making, and the distribution of benefits. Addressing power imbalances, through a focus on equity in co‐production, helps to ensure past harms are addressed and participants have the resources and opportunities to contribute effectively. This special issue includes articles that explore equity in co‐production. Articles describe the results of projects that used co‐production approaches, social scientific findings that can inform equitable co‐production, and some that do both. Across the submissions, inclusive decision‐making, strengthening capacity at multiple levels, and fostering trust and respect were key themes. The collection provides practical lessons and future directions to advance equity in co‐production processes, meeting the urgent demand for more inclusive and impactful environmental science practices.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Community and stakeholder engagement is increasingly recognized as essential to science at the nexus of food, energy, and water systems (FEWS) to address complex issues surrounding food and energy production and water provision for society. Yet no comprehensive framework exists for supporting best practices in community and stakeholder engagement for FEWS. A review and meta-synthesis were undertaken of a broad range of existing models, frameworks, and toolkits for community and stakeholder engagement. A framework is proposed that comprises situational awareness of the FEWS place or problem, creation of a suitable culture for engagement, focus on power-sharing in the engagement process, co-ownership, co-generation of knowledge and outcomes, the technical process of integration, the monitoring processes of reflective and reflexive experiences, and formative evaluation. The framework is discussed as a scaffolding for supporting the development and application of best practices in community and stakeholder engagement in ways that are arguably essential for sound FEWS science and sustainable management.more » « less
-
Background and Context: Most large-scale statewide initiatives of the Computer Science for All (CS for All) movement have focused on the classroom level. Critical questions remain about building school and district leadership capacity to support teachers while implementing equitable computer science education that is scalable and sustainable. Objective: This statewide research-practice partnership, involving university researchers and school leaders from 14 local education agencies (LEA) from district and county offices, addresses the following research question: What do administrators identify as most helpful for understanding issues related to equitable computer science implementation when engaging with a guide and workshop we collaboratively developed to help leadership in such efforts? Method: Participant surveys, interviews, and workshop observations were analyzed to understand best practices for professional development supporting educational leaders. Findings: Administrators value computer science professional development resources that: (a) have a clear focus on “equity;” (b) engage with data and examples that deepen understandings of equity; (c) provide networking opportunities; (d) have explicit workshop purpose and activities; and (e) support deeper discussions of computer science implementation challenges through pairing a workshop and a guide. Implications: Utilizing Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) framework for equitable leadership practices, this study offers an actionable construct for equitable implementation of computer science including (a) how to build equity leadership and vision; (b) how to enact that vision; and (c) how to scale and sustain that vision. While this construct applies to equitable leadership practices more broadly across all disciplines, we found its application particularly useful when explicitly focused on equity leadership practices in computer science.more » « less
-
This article provides a cross-case study of three studies that utilized anti-adultist approaches to collaborating with youth as co-researchers. Drawing on reflections from both adults and youth, we present an analysis of three case studies of adult and youth experiences in planning, implementing, and conducting research studies aimed at centering youth perspectives. Findings include what adults and youth learned about the co-researching process and highlight the need for careful consideration of how both adults and youth can disrupt adultist power dynamics. We argue that amplifying youth co-researcher perspectives in research can create a mutually meaningful and empowering research process for both adults and youth by promoting more equitable relationships and participatory practices.more » « less
