Culturally Responsive Teacher Leadership for Science Instruction

• In Event: Teacher-Leaders as Critical Researchers: Exploring Critical Teacher Leadership in Practice

Abstract

The first presenter is a teacher-leader and department chair for the high school science department where the study takes place. The objective of this presentation is to use CTL to explore the use (or lack thereof) of culturally responsive pedagogies (Gay, 2018) in secondary science education classrooms. The study is framed by the understanding that culturally responsive pedagogy - as a form of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970) - is an appropriate approach in the pursuit of socially just curriculum and instruction by creating cultural continuity between students’ and science content. As a qualitative case study, the teacher-researcher will discuss findings from a needs assessment completed by teachers, digital surveys completed by teachers and students, interviews with teachers and students, and classroom teaching observations. Notably, the research design also includes students’ perspectives of culturally responsive instruction in their science classroom through narrative inquiry and storytelling.

Preliminary findings indicate that the science teachers participating in the study lack the knowledge and training required to create and sustain a classroom that is culturally responsive in its environment, instruction, and student interaction. These findings also show these teachers’ deep desire to voice their learning needs in the area of culturally responsive teaching, providing the teacher-researcher the opportunity to identify resources and training materials to support their ability to create a culturally responsive presence.

In terms of CTL, the study confirms that critical teacher-leaders are committed to “utilizing place-based and culturally-relevant instructional approaches to empower their students” (Bradley-Levine, 2018, p. 49). Because context matters, the teacher-researcher is a Black woman teaching mostly Black students in a Title I school; so, the problem of practice guiding the project is equally and critically informed by her students’ lack of achievement in and engagement with science content. In this way, the first presentation also confirms that critical teacher-leaders, especially those who share their students’ cultural backgrounds, feel deeply connected to their students’ learning needs in ways that inspire pathways for advocacy in the form of professional development for colleagues.

Notably, CTL is tightly woven with advocacy and teacher activism. However, much like the teachers elevated in Bradley-Levine’s study (2018) did not self-identify as teacher-leaders, the teacher-researcher does not label her science teaching or teacher-leadership practices as advocacy or activism related. Here exists an opportunity for teacher leadership research to more intentionally explore and tease out what teacher leadership looks like so that more teachers see themselves as teacher-leaders and student advocates.

Lastly, the study challenges CTL’s conclusions regarding informal versus formal teacher leadership positionality. For example, the teachers discussed on the way to building out CTL “were not positioned in formal teacher leadership roles, but were teachers whose colleagues looked to them for advice and guidance” (p. 48). In contrast, the teacher-researcher holds one of the most typical positions in formal teacher leadership as department chair. This study, then, has the potential to examine CTL in formal teacher leadership contexts.

Author

• Micah Ducre, Cobb County School District
  Presenting Author