A Justice-Centered Ambitious Teaching Framework as a Sacrificial Model for Collaborative Conversations (Poster 11)

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

Abstract

Objectives/Goals
This poster offers the Justice-Centered Ambitious Science Teaching (JuST) Framework as a sacrificial model (Bell et al., 2023) for collaborative conversations about what it might mean to “Teach for Equity.” Conference participants will be invited to respond to the same questions which animated the conversations we had with project teachers about the role the framework played in their learning and teaching.
Theoretical Grounding
JuST, as defined by Authors, builds on the advantages of the practice-based teacher education framework, Ambitious Science Teaching (AST; Windschitl, et al., 2013), as a way to support teacher development by identifying core sets of practices that can be named, rehearsed, and shared. As a justice-centered science pedagogy, JuST is committed to curriculum organized around social justice science issues connected to the canons of science, as well as pedagogy that positions students as critically conscious producers of generative knowledge and culture (Morales-Doyle, 2017). We define JuST as science teaching that is grounded in critical consciousness, responsive to students' cultures and communities, dependent on teachers' interpretive power to recognize and build upon expansive forms of student meaning-making, and committed to naming and disrupting oppression and injustice in society (Authors, under review).
Data Sources & Analysis
Data for this analysis come from the final Year Two meetings where thirty-four participants were asked to reflect on their use of the JuST Framework by adding digital post-its on top of the diagram to describe specific aspects of the Framework that they appreciated, wanted to challenge, offered examples of successful implementation, or suggested additions. Coding and themes were developed to explore the research question, “How did teachers respond to JuST Framework as a sacrificial model?”
Findings & Scholarly Significance
The fifteen post-its articulating things educators appreciated about the Framework included critical elements (n=2; e.g., “challenging the idea that science is objective”), prioritizing affective elements (n=3; e.g.,“Love focusing on joy as an anti-racist teaching practice!!”), centering students (n=5) and supporting transformative teaching centered on justice (n=6; e.g.,“teaching science in a different way than I was taught or ever experienced”). Educators focused “challenge” posts on the difficulties of implementing JuST practice (n=16). Time was a shared challenge that came up across PLCs and quadrants. Another core challenge was nurturing buy-in from colleagues, students, and the community (n=6).
Educators contributed 13 particular examples (e.g., perspective taking storytelling) and nine general examples (e.g., using a pitching protocol to elicit student ideas) of JuST Framework aspects done well. They suggested six possible additions to strengthen the JuST Framework including choosing a grounding word for each quadrant to support more efficient referencing, support for working at different levels of the educational system, and compiling and linking strategies and/or anchoring phenomenon as examples.
Frameworks like the one shared in this paper are one approach to focusing on the theory|practice dialectic by orienting educators to historicity, asset-based frames, and relational epistemologies towards more just educational futures.

Authors

• Déana A Scipio, IslandWood

• April L. Luehmann, University of Rochester

• Priya Pugh, IslandWood

• Todd Campbell, University of Connecticut

• Yang Zhang, Northwestern University

• Hannah Cooke, University of Connecticut