Looking at Novice Teacher Practice Following a Justice-Centered Ambitious Science Preparation Program (Poster 8)

• In Event: Justice-Centered Pedagogy: Context-Specific Adjustments and Cross-Cutting Constants

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore novice teachers’ practices, the disciplinary and broader practices of first and second-year practitioners, after completing a teacher preparation program aimed at nurturing justice-centered ambitious science teaching.
This study uses a justice-centered ambitious science teaching framework (JuST; Authors, In Press b) that integrates both Windschitl et al.’s (2018) Ambitious Science Teaching (AST) framework of four core sets of high leverage practices, and Philip and Azevedo’s (2016) equity discourses (EQD), which describe four ways to approach equity in science teaching, to understand what it looks like to teach in justice-centered ambitious ways. Challenging Windschitl et al.’s (2012) claim that AST aims to provide access to all students, Philip and Azevedo (2016) argue that EQD 3 (challenging the discipline) and EQD 4 (using science education as a vehicle for social change) are necessary to change the inequitable status quo.
Seven recent graduates participated in two individual interviews and a teaching observation in this qualitative embedded case study (Yin, 2014). Preservice artifacts were used as stimulated recall to understand how novice teachers made sense of their current and aspirational practice. Data were coded for the four sets of AST practices and the four EQD. Novice’s practices were identified as reflecting justice-centered ambitious teaching practices when data were coded with both AST and EQD 3 or 4.
To some extent, three of the novices demonstrated AST and two others demonstrated JuST. One of the novices who demonstrated AST intentionally flattened the student/teacher hierarchy but this appeared to be in service of promoting inquiry rather than challenging the discipline of science. Two novices did not demonstrate either ambitious or justice-centered practices, and one of these has since left their position. Upon reflection, six of the seven participants discussed how they intended to continue working in the same direction (towards AST, JuST, or neither) in their practice.
Of the two novices who enacted JuST, both prioritized student well-being over covering content or preparing for state tests. For example, Hazel told students, “I can't expect you to grow academically, if there is something else that is prohibiting that, and I want you to take care of yourself first.” Both novices participated in subsequent professional development activities that reinforced what they learned in their preservice program. These novices, as well as a third, who flattened the student/teacher hierarchy, showed a comfort with a range of student behaviors. For example, Rose said,
…keeping him in that mindset was more important to me than, like, strictly adhering to the rules type of thing. Because I made them [the rules] up, who cares? They’re not real.
In contrast to Rose’s flexibility with “the rules,” the novices who demonstrated neither AST nor JuST expressed frustration with students’ behavior.
This study highlights the importance of not purely disciplinary aspects of teaching practice, especially supporting student well-being. Also, it adds to the literature on interpretive power (Rosebery, et al., 2016) suggesting that teacher comfort with a wide range of behavior may be a precursor to developing interpretive power.

Authors

• Gena Merliss, Nazareth University

• April L. Luehmann, University of Rochester

• Elizabeth Wilson, University of Rochester

• Emma Yatteau, University of Rochester