Participatory Planning and Teaching Supporting Collective Critical Science Agency Enactments and Restructuring Classroom Norms

• In Event: Collaborative Science Teaching and Learning Toward Social Transformation and Justice

Abstract

Objectives: Classroom interactions often mirror the oppressive sociohistorical systems within which they are situated (Esmonde & Booker, 2017). Youth enacting critical science – using science and other forms of expertise to address issues of injustice – has led to at least temporary restructuring of power hierarchies within and beyond their classrooms (Author, 2010). However, there is a dearth of research highlighting mechanisms supporting class community’s collective enactments of critical science agency. 

Therefore, we share the experiences of Mrs. B, her students and us as we participatory planned and taught a family STEM night about engineering design, energy and electricity. The class disrupted power hierarchies traditionally operating within science classrooms and prepared an engaging learning opportunity connected to their families’ lives. Throughout this process, Mrs. B’s class community was enacting critical science agency.

We explored, How, if at all, does participatory planning and teaching support critical science agency?

Methods and Framework: Multiple data sources (interviews, field notes, participant observations, student work pictures, video) were generated using critical ethnographic methods (Thomas, 1993). We used social practice theory with a conceptual understanding of power and consequential learning (Holland & Lave, 2009; Jurow & Shea, 2015). We analyzed how interactions possibly restructured power hierarchies and supported the class community’s enactment of critical science agency- a form of consequential learning. 

Findings: Findings show the enactment of participatory planning and teaching practices supported collective critical science agency by: 
a. disrupting and amplifying class norms towards more just ends
b. expanded epistemic and positional authority
c. allowing for addressing and co-defining outcomes of learning. 

The class community’s co-developed participatory planning and teaching practices included:
1. Valuing and leveraging students’ different expertise and interests
2. Allowing flexibility in participatory planning and teaching of the curriculum
3. Consensus building between all classroom community members
4. Planning for more equity-oriented participation as well as science learning. 
5. Planning for community-oriented outcomes that matter.

We highlighted how these practices supported Mrs. B’s class community enactment of collective critical science agency across three phases: initial planning, preparing educative materials and enacting STEM night. 

We then zoomed into the experience of two students’, Cristina and Eric, two students’ making a how-to, GIF-style electric art video (see image 1) and using it to teach their families. Cristina, who was often positioned by her classmates and teacher with limited positional and epistemic authority, was recognized by herself, Eric, her teachers and family for her unique technical and social expertise. As Cristina and Eric created the video, they both had more opportunities to decide what and how they wanted their families to learn. After STEM night, Cristina shared that she was most proud about teaching her family how to make electric art by showing them her video.

Significance: This study provides insight into powerful pedagogical and methodological approaches teachers, students and researchers can use to support more justice-oriented science learning. This approach supports students in using multiple forms of expertise. This provides a nuanced understanding of how to design for enacting critical science agency by supporting participatory planning and teaching. 

Authors

• Kathleen Schenkel, San Diego State University

• Angela Calabrese Barton, University of Michigan