Book Club

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 46, NO. 9, PP. 1041–1066 (2009)

Confronting Assumptions, Biases, and Stereotypes in Preservice Teachers’Conceptualizations of Science Teaching through the Use of Book Club

Felicia Moore Mensah{

Department of Mathematics, Science & Technology, Teachers College, Columbia University,

525 W 120th Street, Box 210, New York, New York 10027

Received 28 April 2006; Accepted 9 February 2009

Abstract: This study focuses on the structure and theoretical foundations of the book club for promoting

multicultural understandings in science teacher education. The book club was defined as an informal, peer-directed group

discussion that met regularly to discuss an ethnographic, multicultural text regarding issues pertinent to science teaching

and learning in urban classrooms. Twenty-three preservice teachers (PSTs) enrolled in a 16-week elementary science

methods course at a large urban university participated in the study. From the qualitative analyses of PSTs’ written

reflections and researcher journal notes, five themes which emphasize Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning

are presented. These findings highlight how the book club structure and theoretical foundation fostered critical, reflective

inquiry and served as a method for effecting ideological change which is needed in order to embrace issues of diversity in

urban science education. Implications for science teacher education concerning the relevancy of pedagogical strategies,

the use of multiple theoretical perspectives, and the book club as a strategy in teacher education and urban education are

discussed. � 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 1041–1066, 2009

Keywords: science teacher education; multicultural science; critical theory; college/university

The preparation of teachers for urban schools is not only critical to their professional development as

these environments are culturally, linguistically, economically, and educationally diverse but it is also vital

for student learning (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007; Fraser-Abder, Atwater, & Lee, 2006; Lee, Maerten-

Rivera, Penfield, LeRoy, & Secada, 2008). For instance, in New York City (NYC), more than 56% of the city’s

population is foreign-born or the children of foreign-born; Hispanics have replaced Blacks as the second

largest racial/ethnic group in the five boroughs (i.e., Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island);

and the numbers for Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians have risen greatly which pose an educational challenge for

schools (Moss, Townsend, & Tobier, 1997). Researchers project that students of color in elementary and

secondary schools in the United States will continue to increase, and that by 2020 students of color will

represent nearly half of the elementary and secondary school population nationally (Gollnick & Chinn,

2002).

Due to the increasing number of students of color in schools, many strategies and methods have been

proposed for preparing preservice teachers (PSTs) for the diverse classrooms they will serve (Barrett, 1994;

Garmon, 2004; Gomez, 1993; Houser & Chevalier, 1996; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Melnick &

Zeichner, 1998; Olmedo, 1997; Sleeter, 2001). However, many of these strategies have not explored the

crucial interplay between teachers’ beliefs and actions regarding diversity (Goodman, 1998), nor do these

studies address content specific beliefs and issues of diversity. One argument presented in this study is that in

order for PSTs to teach science to students of diverse backgrounds, they must not only confront ideological

beliefs—those deeply held, taken-for-granted notions that come from experience—but they must also reveal

assumptions they hold about teaching diverse students and teaching science in urban classrooms. Unless

{Assistant Professor of Science Education.

Correspondence to: F.M. Mensah; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20299

Published online 5 August 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PSTs address biases and assumptions they have about science teaching and diversity, then they will not teach

in ways that promote social justice education or tend to the needs of diverse students (Moore, 2008a; Nieto,

2000; Rodriguez, 1998). Therefore, Nieto asserts that schools of education should offer ‘‘teachers and

prospective teachers courses and other experiences that focus on questions of equity and diversity that will

challenge deficit notions about the capabilities of students of diverse backgrounds’’ (p. 186). Similarly,

having an advocacy orientation, or an appreciation of multiple frames of reference, and awareness of the

cultural knowledge and backgrounds of students from diverse cultures are regarded as high goals for teacher

education (Banks, 1991, 1994, 1995). In order to accomplish these goals, novel approaches in the preparation

of urban science teachers must be created and grounded in strong theoretical perspectives. The current study

addresses these concerns by discussing the theoretical framework and implementation of the Book Club1

in an elementary science methods course (Moore, 2006, 2008a). In the following section, relevant literature

on book clubs is given which provides a general foundation to support learning from book clubs. After that,

the theoretical foundation of the study is discussed.

Relevant LiteratureBook Clubs

Book clubs have been used predominantly in literature as a means to develop students’ literacy with

written text and oral communication (Kong & Fitch, 2002/2003; O’Flahavan, 1994; Raphael & McMahon,

1994), or to develop students’ collaborative learning using text (Wood, Roser, & Martinez, 2001). Book clubs

have also been used to allow students to interact socially with other cultures in a non-threatening way toward

developing reading, writing, critical thinking, and literacy discourse (Geraci, 2003). In Brevig’s (2006) study,

fifth-graders engaged in a form of ‘‘retrospective reflection’’ that documented the evolution of their journey

through text in order to gain an awareness of their own learning process. Additionally, Smith (2000) explored

questions of reading purposes and student engagement for racially and culturally diverse middle-class, sixth-

graders in an all-girl’s after-school book club that fostered female identity development. Thus, these studies

on book clubs offer children ways to engage in meaning-making, social interactions, language skills, agency,

and identity around literature.

Further, the use of book clubs transcends reading of shared text among children by incorporating virtual

book clubs with adults and reading groups with teachers (Carmichael, 2001; Chelton, 2001; Flood & Lapp,

1994; Flood, Lapp, Ranck-Buhr, & Moore, 1995; Raphael, 1999; Roach, 1998). Raphael (1999) discussed

how she and her inquiry group engaged each other in finding areas of common understanding to think

critically about their role, practices, beliefs and assumptions about literacy and education. As a group of

educators and researchers, their aim was to enhance practitioner-based research. They concluded that their

participation in book clubs, which focused on student learning, created a ‘‘new, alternative professional

discourse community whose inquiry [was] enriched by the presence of many voices’’ (p. 52).

Similarly, Flood et al. (1995) developed book clubs with groups of teachers. Making connections

between multicultural goals, student learning, and teacher roles, the authors reported three main patterns

within their groups: teachers grew in their understanding of multiculturalism; they gained new insights into

the lives of their students; and they changed their teaching practices to incorporate insights from their book

club experience. As teachers conducting book clubs with their students, the authors found that their roles

became more ‘‘complex, interactive, and ever changing’’ (p. 723). Because the groups focused on students

gaining literacy skills, developing a love for literature, and strategies for understanding literature, the

overall value of the book clubs for the teachers was the opportunity to enrich the lives of their students and

their own.

With the popularity of book clubs growing as a strategy for increasing student literacy, others have

offered methods in starting book clubs in schools for teacher professional development (Carmichael, 2001;

Ediger, 2000; Goldberg & Pesko, 2000; Kooy, 2006). Book clubs for professional development interweaves

pleasure and practicality, allowing teachers to talk socially and professionally (Goldberg & Pesko, 2000;

Kooy, 2006). This aspect of social learning was emphasized in ‘‘women only’’ book clubs of novice

secondary English/Language teachers who read fictional texts (Kooy, 2006). Kooy revealed that the book

clubs aided the six women teachers in understanding and making sense of their lives as a means to develop

1042 MENSAH

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

teacher identities and personal practical knowledge of teaching (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). The book

clubs provided a ‘‘place to tell the stories of their teaching, to explain their lives’’ within a ‘‘supportive and

challenging social context’’ whereby the teachers were able to ‘‘alter their personal, practical knowledge and

build their capacities to improve student learning’’ (Kooy, 2006, p. 673). Largely, book clubs are popular

because ‘‘they provide an intellectual social forum where people can share ideas, thoughts, feelings, and

reactions to a piece of literature’’ (Flood & Lapp, 1994, p. 574).

Book Club in the Current Study

Unlike other studies of book clubs, where members come together to read a ‘‘mutually selected text

(mostly fictions)’’ (Kooy, 2007, p. 662), the book club used in this study took a slightly different approach and

was designed to challenge elementary PSTs’ assumptions and biases about teaching science to diverse

learners. Taking some liberty, the book club in this study was defined as an informal, peer-directed group

discussion that met regularly to discuss an instructor-selected text (an ethnographic, multicultural text)

regarding issues pertinent to science teaching and learning in urban classrooms. The text selection was Ways

with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.2 Written by Shirley Brice Heath

(1983), this ethnographic text of two working-class communities set in the rural south was chosen for three

main reasons: First, personally, I connected with the text when I first read it as a graduate student in an

educational foundations course. I grew up in a similar community in the rural south during the time that Heath

conducted her study. Many of the experiences in the book were examples of my early childhood. Coming

from a background different from the majority of PSTs I teach, I am an example of someone who has

navigated science and can speak to issues addressed in the text and the course from a lived experience (Moore,

2003, 2008b). Second, educationally, the transfer of rural to urban offers a unique cross-cultural immersion

into diversity, language, culture and home-life for the PSTs. This expanded their views of diversity by making

application to the urban context as they read about the rural communities in the text. Third, practically, in the

last section of the text, there is an explicit connection between science and diversity that offers ‘‘a-ha,’’ ‘‘oh,’’

and ‘‘I get it’’ moments for the PSTs as to why they are reading this text in a science methods course.

These three reasons provide an authentic learning experience about issues of diversity and contribute to

the uniqueness of the text and the book club in a teacher preparation course. Thus, this study focuses

on the structure and theoretical foundation of the book club in science teacher education. The book club

incorporated five theoretical constructs: the principle of ideology, critical pedagogy, critical reflective

inquiry, multicultural education, and issues of diversity. Each is discussed below as foundational

for implementing the book club in this study. At the end of the next section, the research questions are

presented.

Theoretical FoundationPrinciple of Ideology

Given the popularity and the success of book clubs with school-age children, practicing teachers, and

professional groups, their aim however has not been toward effecting ideological change regarding subject

matter and student diversity. Therefore, in this study, the ‘‘principle of ideology’’ served as a starting point.

Ideology in this sense means that teachers must ‘‘examine how their own views about knowledge, human

nature, values, and society are mediated through the commonsense assumptions they use to structure

classroom experiences’’ (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2003, p. 13). Thus, PSTs must learn to question and

evaluate their thinking, teaching practices, and the influence of ‘‘mainstream cultural assumptions that may

impede democratic and just teaching practices’’ (p. 13) in learning and teaching science in urban classrooms.

This is critical because the ideological beliefs that PSTs hold, whether conscious or unconscious, influence

how they interact with diverse learners and how they engage learners in science (Moore, 2008a).

Additionally, ideological beliefs are tightly connected to culture and knowledge, that is, cultural models,

which are used to shape, explain, and give meaning to the world, others, and personal experience (Bryan &

Atwater, 2002; Moore, 2008a). Though Nespor (1987) and Pajares (1992) acknowledged that beliefs are

basically unchanging, they nevertheless must be challenged, and critical perspectives may facilitate this

change.

CONFRONTING ASSUMPTIONS THROUGH BOOK CLUB 1043


Critical Pedagogy

Critical theorists such as Apple and Beane (1995) and Beyer (1993, 1995, 2001) conducted research and

worked with teachers regarding social justice and social change. Beyer (2001) asserted that preparing

teachers must include courses and experiences that include theoretical understandings, conceptual analyses,

inquiry orientations and activities. He recommended that teacher education courses incorporate ‘‘an

openness to novel ways of seeing and thinking about teaching, schooling, and society’’ (p. 152). Beyer

continued to say that what was missing from teacher education programs was the development of a ‘‘synoptic

vision’’ (p. 152), or a way of teaching and learning that is grounded in theoretical traditions that cover cultural,

social, and political issues that occur within classrooms. ‘‘Understanding and analyzing the linkages between

day-to-day practices in schools and larger domains and values that are often linked to social and political

realities is central to the generation of critical theory for teaching and teacher education’’ (p. 154).

Accordingly, critical pedagogy was particularly suitable for this study, which enabled the PSTs to become

aware of issues that influence their thinking and teaching in order to promote equitable teaching practices for

all students. In science teacher education, those taken-for-granted notions of teaching and learning must be

questioned as these ideas reveal social, political, and ideological processes that inhibit academic achievement

for students most underserved in science. Critical pedagogy ‘‘analyzes education as a process through which

dominant social and economic groups impose values and beliefs that legitimize their own power and position

of control’’ (Brookfield, 1995, p. 208), and as a consequence, marginalize others in the process. Moreover,

Calabrese Barton (2001) emphasized that ‘‘position matters in the science we teach, and how we choose to

teach it centralizes both the importance of how we think about the purposes and goals of science education as

well as the roles that students and teachers play in the process’’ (p. 856). Therefore, a critical pedagogy

educates students about power interests in the larger society (Steinberg, 1995); it allows for conversations

about power and authority by allowing us to ‘‘speak truth to power’’ (Calabrese Barton, 2001, p. 853); thus,

critical approaches in education promotes the kinds of reflective thinking that fosters changes in ideological

beliefs, which are needed in urban science teacher education.

Critical Reflective Inquiry

Producing not only critical but also reflective teachers was another foundational aspect utilized in the

book club. Similar to exposing ideological beliefs, Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1986) stated that

‘‘without help in examining current beliefs and assumptions, teacher candidates are likely to maintain

conventional beliefs and incorporate new information or puzzling experiences into old frameworks’’ (p. 255).

This idea is important as teacher education has to commit to the preparation of reflective teachers (Eick, Ware,

& Williams, 2003; Hewson et al., 1999; Yerrick & Hoving, 2003; Zeichner, 1987). Specifically, Brookfield

(1995) argued that critical reflection should have two purposes: first, illumination of power, that is ‘‘to

understand how considerations of power undergird, frame, and distort educational processes and

interactions’’; and second, recognition of hegemonic assumptions, that is ‘‘to question assumptions and

practices that seem to make our teaching lives easier but actually work against our own best long terms

interests’’ (p. 8). PSTs through critical reflection must learn to question and challenge their assumptions as

they become more aware of how their beliefs and practices, ideas and actions ‘‘reflect an unquestioned

acceptance of values, norms, and practices defined for [them] by others’’ (p. 9). Often times these ideas ‘‘seem

obvious, even desirable’’ but are revealed as ‘‘harmful or constraining’’ (p. 15). In critical reflective inquiry,

PSTs see the detrimental effect of maintaining views and perspectives that threaten student learning,

especially for diverse students in urban settings, and their own professional development as urban science

teachers. Brookfield also noted that critically reflective teachers do not act in a ‘‘haphazard or arbitrary way’’

but are able to give reasons for their practice that is ‘‘grounded’’ or ‘‘from an examined rationale’’ (p. 266).

Thus, an emphasis on revealing assumptions, biases and ideological beliefs through critical reflection allows

preservice science teachers to make ‘‘deliberate attempts to work democratically’’ (p. 266) in urban schools

and to teach in ways that strongly adhere to multicultural perspectives in science teaching.

Multicultural Education

As mentioned previously, multicultural education is one approach for preparing PSTs for diverse

classrooms; however, many teacher education programs do not require multicultural education as a central

1044 MENSAH


focus in their programs (Garcia & Pugh, 1992; Irvine, 2003). One reason for limited course offerings is that

teacher education is challenged by the ‘‘nature of the population served by teacher education programs, the

assimilationist ideology undergirding these programs, the types of courses and practical experiences that

prospective teachers receive, and the nature of the professoriate’’ (Nieto, 2000, p. 181). Consequently, Banks

(1991) argued that due to the nature of teacher education in the United States, most teachers have not had the

opportunity to acquire the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors to develop multiethnic educational

environments. Another reason that teaching about multiculturalism is insufficient in teacher education is that

educators have limited research and models for practice (Goodwin, 1997). Consequently, teacher preparation

programs do not adequately prepare teachers for the diverse settings they are likely to serve, and in many

instances, teacher educators are not equipped to teach in multicultural ways (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Gay

(2001) remarked that multiculturalists are seeking the same ultimate goals, that is, ‘‘a more effective

educational system for culturally diverse students from a wide variety of backgrounds, and a more democratic

society in which there is much greater equality, freedom, and justice in all spheres of life’’ (p. 34). This is also

true in science education. Luft (1998) acknowledged that multicultural science education strives for a more

holistic view of science in order to make it more accessible to all students. As an example, teaching and

learning science from a multicultural perspective means that all students can learn science, every student is

worthwhile to have in the science classroom, and cultural diversity is appreciated in science classrooms

because it enhances rather than detracts from the richness and effectiveness of science learning (Atwater,

1993, 1995; Atwater & Brown, 1999). Thus, multicultural education would acknowledge, appreciate, value,

and promote diverse perspectives in the science classroom.

Issues of Diversity

In conjunction with multicultural perspectives in science teacher education, the concept of issues of

diversity and equity (diversity) was utilized. ‘‘Diversity’’ is often applied in science education research

ranging from gender, cultural and linguistic diversity (Atwater, 2000; Lee, 2003), to teaching for social

justice (Rodriguez, 1998) and teaching in equitable and diverse ways (Bianchini & Cavazos, 2007; Bianchini

& Solomon, 2003), to a focus on diverse urban settings (Calabrese Barton, 2002, 2003). In this study issues of

diversity and equity included four areas relevant to urban science teacher education: (a) Instruction and

Pedagogy—using various instructional methods and strategies for teaching science, such as planning inquiry

activities, and incorporating multicultural goals within science curriculum; (b) Identity—considering

the influence and intersection of multiple social variables, such as culture, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic

status, gender, age, language, religion, academic ability, and geography on teaching and learning science;

(c) Assessment—making available alternative methods and strategies in science, such as using pre-

assessments, administering formal and informal assessments, and analyzing student artifacts; and (d) Science

& Multiple Perspectives—incorporating various perspectives, ideas, concepts, and content into the teaching

and learning of science, such as discussing critical, political, and social aspects of teaching and learning

science in urban classrooms. These views of diversity are not exhaustive; however, emphasis was placed on

helping elementary PSTs to see the range of diversity and equity issues associated with teaching science in

urban classrooms, thus viewing diversity in broad and specific terms.

In summary, the book club was one approach that combined multiple theoretical perspectives into a

coherent, pedagogical strategy that allowed for a deeper understanding of the complex nature of preparing

science teachers and teaching science with issues of diversity in mind. Particularly, the structure and

theoretical foundation of the book club aimed to effect ideological change in the way PSTs thought about

diversity and science teaching in urban, elementary classrooms. The research questions guiding this study

were: (1) How did the structure and theoretical foundation of the book club reveal changes in PSTs’ thinking

about diversity and science teaching in urban classrooms? (2) In what ways was the book club beneficial in

helping PSTs to think critically about issues of diversity and science teaching?

MethodsSetting, Participants and Forming Book Club Groups

Taken from a larger research project and building upon previous research (Moore, 2006, 2008a),

this study took place at a large urban university in the northeastern United States. The participants were



23 (n¼ 23) PSTs enrolled in a 16-week elementary science methods course, which met once per week for 160

minutes.3 Before the second class meeting, the PSTs completed the Initial Survey (Appendix 1). This

information was used to form the book club groups. In forming the groups, I arranged them with at least one

PSTwho had completed or was currently in a student teaching placement. I did this so that each group would

have at least one person with practical teaching experience. This was important because many of the PSTs

were new to education, had no previous teaching experiences in elementary classrooms, or had spent little

time with school-age children. The insights offered by those who had taught as well as those who were

currently teaching in elementary classrooms on a regular basis were valuable for group learning. Finally, the

remaining PSTs, those with no teaching experiences, were assigned to a group. I also wanted the groups to

have both a broad perspective on PreK-6 education; accordingly, the groups were arranged so that grade level

preferences were mixed.

I also considered gender and racial/ethnic diversity among the PSTs. With only three males in the class,

one had prior teaching experience before acceptance to the college and was currently in his student teaching

placement. He was assigned to a group with two female members who had no prior teaching experience

(Group #3). For the other two male PSTs, one was deaf, and the other was not; the second male was currently

in a deaf school completing his student teaching; both were fluent in American Sign Language; therefore,

these two were in one group for purposes of communication (Group #4). Table 1 lists the six book club groups

with self-identified racial/ethnic background; the average age of the PSTs was 24.8 years; most preferred to

teach K-2; only 8 (35%) had prior teaching experiences, and 13 (57%) planned to teach in an urban

elementary school after graduation.

Table 1

Book club groups and preservice teacher profiles

BookClubGroups

Name (Self-Identified Racial/Ethnic Identitya)

Age (Average,24.8 years)

Grade LevelPreference

(Most Preferred,K-2)

Prior TeachingExperience

(Yes, 8)

Plan toTeach in

Urban School(Yes, 13)

1 Franda, Caucasian 24 K-2 Yes YesIsabel, European/French 24 K-2 None YesMonica, White 22 K-4 None YesRose, White 26 5-6 None Yes

2 Clara, Indian 24 K-2 None YesEliza, Italian/Lithuanian/

American Indian24 K-4 None Yes

Nina, Arab 25 3-4 Yes NoWanda, Chinese American 22 K-2 None No

3 Monroe, Asian American 27 5-6 Yes NoNatalie, Southeast Asian 25 K-2 None NoTrudy, White 25 NR NR NR

4 Dennis, White 25 5-6 No YesLen, NR NR 4-6 Yes YesPeri, NRb NR 1-2 Yes YesVanna, Asian American 24 3-5 None Yes

5 Blair, Chinese 23 K-4 None YesHeather, White, non-U.S. citizen 23 K-2 None YesKlaren, NR1 31 5-6 None NoUma, Caucasian/Croatian 24 K-4 Yes Not sure

6 Alice, Jewish 24 K-2 Yes NoGretal, Indian-South Asian 24 K-2 Yes YesJustine, White, mixed, multi 28 3-4 None MaybeSonja, White 27 3-6 None No

NR, no response.aSelf-reported from Final Survey.bAbsent on last day of class.

1046 MENSAH


Book Club Description and Data Sources

The book club was consistent with four elements of a book club program—that is, reading, writing,

whole-class discussion (community share), and instruction (Raphael & McMahon, 1994). The PSTs

participated in a continual process of Individual, Collaborative, and Collective group learning and critical

reflection about issues of diversity and science teaching over the 16-week course. The assignment was to read

the text (Individual), which was divided into three sections, prior to meeting with their book club members.

The book club was held in class, approximately once per month, or three times over the semester. The three

meetings lasted from 60 to 70 minutes each in small groups (Collaborative), followed by a 30- to 40-minute

whole class reporting session (Collective). Each group had a facilitator/note-taker to record on a laptop

computer notes from the group conversations, which were submitted electronically at the end of each book

club meeting.

Preplanned writing prompts have been used with elementary students to encourage ‘‘personal, creative,

and critical responses’’ (Kong & Fitch, 2002/2003, p. 353). In a similar method, open-ended questions guided

small group discourse (Appendix 2). The questions were designed to promote critical reflection about their

experiences as PSTs and issues from the text, such as language and home as fundamental to science teaching

and learning. Additionally, the questions were developed to raise the level of discourse to the political and

ideological nature of science and education. For instance, the questions prompted the PSTs to make personal

and professional connections among the text, their current and future students, and their own lives. This was a

great challenge and excellent opportunity for many of the PSTs to extend their understanding of diversity

because their lives were qualitatively different from the students in the text. Similarly, the students they

were currently working with in urban classrooms were different from the students of Roadville and Trackton.

The interplay of difference—students, cultures, contexts, and self—allowed for a deeper examination and

understanding of issues of diversity. Hence, the book club questions prompted the class to consider the

implications of ideology and critical perspectives in science education along broad and specific dimensions of

diversity. The questions and classroom discourse were deliberately prompted to address what science means

in the lives of urban children and the role of the teacher in marginalizing or transforming practices for all

students’ active participation and access to science. Within their groups, the questions, topics of discussion,

and implications of practice were relevant and necessary aspects in order for the PSTs to reveal their thinking

(Individual and Collaborative). At the end of each book club meeting, there was a whole class reporting

session (Collective) where each group presented ‘‘something that was interesting from the small group

discussion that you want to share with the whole group’’ (instructor direction) or an issue that ‘‘sparked much

discourse’’ (book club group member comment).

After the third meeting, I compiled all meeting notes into one document (i.e., All book club [BC]

Meeting Notes) and posted it to the course website (BlackBoard). The groups were encouraged to read all of

their notes from the three meetings, as well as other groups’ notes, and think about issues that were common

among their meeting notes as relevant learning within their groups and the class (Collective learning). They

were also instructed to write an individual reflection (Individual learning), indicating what was learned from

participating in the book club. With their individual response, each group met for a fourth meeting outside of

the regular class time to write a one-page final reflection paper (Collaborative learning) and to plan their book

club final group presentation (Collective learning).

On the last day of class, all groups presented their group final presentation—what they learned

(Individual, Collaborative, and Collective) from participating in the book club. Some of the final projects

were PowerPoint presentations, skits, i-movies, poems and stories, and participatory activities such as panel

discussions, which engaged the whole class in a dialogue of key points from the BC meetings. Each group

submitted a final group reflection paper along with their presentation as hard-copy handouts or electronic

files.

The three sets of group notes, the individual reflection paper, and the group final reflection paper served

as the primary data sources for this study. The written reflections, both individual and group, supported the

theoretical framework of the study for gathering critical, reflective, and multicultural comments about

diversity and science teaching. The individual and group reflections were used to assess individual, small

group, and large group learning regarding changes in ideological beliefs and connections to multicultural



perspectives. Finally, the PSTs were asked to complete the Final Survey (Appendix 3). They submitted their

responses via electronic submission on or within a couple of days after the last day of class.

Instructor Role

My role in the book club was ‘‘observer as participant’’ (Merriam, 1998, p. 101). I was not an official

member of the book club groups, yet I circulated to each small group during the meetings. Usually, I listened

to group conversations, took notes, and did little talking because I held my comments and questions for the

whole class reporting session (Collective learning). However, when I did participate, I asked a member to

make connections, share personal experiences, or clarify his/her comments. In the large group reporting

session, my primary responsibility was ‘‘social advocate.’’ I posed questions on issues that emerged from

small group discussions and large group reporting sessions. Specifically, I pushed the PSTs to consider larger

social, political, philosophical, and ideological issues within science education and often within the

educational system in general. I also provided examples from my past and current experiences in teaching

science, working with diverse learners in both urban and rural settings, as well as my experiences in preparing

PSTs and working with inservice teachers. I was also able to discuss my positionality as a science educator

(Moore, 2008b). To illustrate, we discussed how their use of language implied bias and deficient thinking,

and the process of ‘‘schooling’’ on instructional practices, assessments, and educational processes (e.g.,

institutional racism and tracking) in book club Meeting #1; power, science, and the culture of power of

science (e.g., institutional racism and prejudice) in book club #2; and home and community connections, and

teaching science in culturally relevant ways, dominant discourses of language, scientific language and the

‘‘canon,’’ and standards of communication in terms of written and oral language (Moore, 2007) in book club

#3; and my personal connection to the text having grown up similarly to the children of Trackton during the

final book club presentations. I also encouraged the PSTs to consider their views of science teaching in

equitable ways, with issues of diversity, equity, and social justice as a framework for teaching. Thus, my

position as ‘‘social advocate’’ pushed conversations to deeper levels of discourse and understanding by

challenging the PSTs to reflect on how particular views marginalize specific students, the implications of

holding these views, and their role as urban science teachers. I prompted these critical discussions without

dominating the conversation, yet by raising issues and posing questions, rather than ‘‘tip-toeing’’ or ‘‘beating

around the bush’’ (researcher reflections), my role as ‘‘facilitator’’ and social advocate was essential in

‘‘forcing’’ (Theme #3) the PSTs to confront and discuss challenging issues pertinent to urban science

education. Because the structure and theoretical foundations of the book club encompassed Individual,

Collaborative, and Collective learning, and it lasted the entire semester, I noted the PSTs’ evolution in

thinking and integration of ideas about diversity and science teaching over time. I recorded changes in their

learning, especially in terms of their increasing awareness and acceptance of multicultural perspectives in

science. This learning was further substantiated through the data analysis process used in this study.

Data Analysis

To assess the PSTs’ learning from the book club, I used several techniques for analysis and rigor of

qualitative research—multiple data sources, multiple levels of analysis, prolonged engagement, persistent

observation, progressive subjectivity, and peer debriefing (Creswell, 2003; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Strauss &

Corbin, 1998). Moreover, I maintained over the semester a reflective journal, which included notes from

classroom discussions, informal conversations with PSTs, and observations/field notes of PSTs in urban

elementary classrooms (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Merriam, 1998). The journal also served as a form of

‘‘memo-writing’’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 72) in the early stages of data collection and reflection, since the major

analysis took place at the end of the semester.

I applied techniques of grounded theory to guide analysis, which occurred in several stages (Charmaz,

2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). First, I collected the primary data sources (three sets of book club group notes,

final individual papers, and final group book club papers), and secondary data sources (initial and final

surveys and reflective journal). I arranged the primary sources into a case record document for coding (Patton,

2002), and began a word by word, line by line analysis of the book club group meeting notes, thus generating

codes and categories from open and axial coding. In this process, I was able to generate categories and create

themes that were similar and different across the groups. For example, several themes were generated: (a) not

1048 MENSAH


seeing the relevancy of the Book, (b) realizing influence of personal background, (c) making real life

connections to students, (d) recalling past experiences in science, (e) recognizing diversity among

themselves, (f) making connections between rural and urban students, (g) distinguishing different roles in

communities and families, (h) seeing/acknowledging what students bring to the classroom, (i) valuing and

appreciating education, (j) making judgments, (k) understanding differences among people, (l) under-

standing diversity in language, (m) having high expectations for students, (n) making real life connections to

students, (o) revealing cultural biases and assumptions, (p) applying knowledge of diversity, (q) getting to

know students, and (r) understanding the role of the teacher.

Second, ‘‘focused coding’’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 57) and constant comparative analysis was done with the

three sets of book club meeting notes from the six groups. Themes from the groups were compared across

groups and then compared against codes and themes generated from the individual reflection papers. In order

to compare and contrast individually and collectively the PSTs’ learning from the book club, I used display

methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to produce tables containing similar categories and themes in order to

make connections. With the tables, I was able to compare and verify once more the recurring themes for

Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning. Many of the themes were repetitive, thus confirming them

as evidence of teacher learning from the book club, individually and collectively.

Third, I compared across the book club meetings the patterns and themes that were most relevant to each

group and compared these across the six groups using my journal notes and previous coding stages. This made

known topics of discussion that were not revealed individually but were relevant from the whole class

discussions and from the final group reflections. For example, some of the major themes that emerged from

book club meeting #1 (February 16) were not seeing the relevancy of the Book to science learning, or not

connecting early life experiences to the importance of home, culture, and community for education and

science instruction specifically. In book club #2 (March 9), changes in thinking were noted. The PSTs’ ideas

began to evolve from deficit models of thinking to more inclusive or multicultural perspectives, such as being

appreciative of differences. They were considering strengths that diverse students brought to the science

classroom (i.e., not only Roadville and Trackton students specifically, but also the urban students they were

working with during the semester). They were using students’ experiences to make science learning engaging

and fun, and they saw the importance of connecting community to science learning. Another relevant theme

was centered on the role of the teacher in helping students to learn science. Finally, the themes that emerged

from book club meeting #3 (March 30) were attentiveness to connections of home, language, and science

learning. Groups discussed engaging students in inquiry learning, helping parents to assist their children in

learning science, and creating science curriculum which played a large part in how and what students learned

in science.

The structure and theoretical foundation of the book club enhanced the stages of analysis such that the

process of comparative analysis at the multiple levels of learning (Individual, Collaborative, and Collective)

was valuable for documenting change in beliefs, leading to teacher learning and the development of new

views and perspectives about science and diversity. The findings are reported in the section below.

Findings

Five themes which emphasize Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning from participating in

the book club are presented. These findings highlight how the book club structure and theoretical foundation

fostered critical, reflective inquiry and served as a pedagogical strategy for effecting ideological change

which is needed in order to embrace issues of diversity in urban science education.

Theme One: Relevancy—Relevancy of the Book

Relevancy was a major theme—first for the text and second for learning about diversity in the methods

course. Ways with Words was relevant because it focused on the child—his/her community, language,

culture, life, and home experiences—prior to formal education in school. Without realizing these aspects,

every group reported that they did not see the relevancy of the text, or the first section of the text which gave

background information about the two rural communities. They failed to see what students brought with them

upon entering science classrooms and how community, language and culture were relevant for science



teaching. For example, one member stated: ‘‘I did not understand how [the first section of reading] relates to

science’’ (BC Meeting #1, Group #2, February 16), and another member felt: ‘‘The first section, I do not think

related to science’’ (BC Meeting #1, Group #2, February 16). For another group, they shared, ‘‘We have

all agreed to some degree that we aren’t really sure about the relevance of this [book] to science education.

Some of us found the wordiness of the descriptions to be long, confusing and somewhat tedious and

repetitive’’ (BC Meeting #1, Group #6, February 16).

Peri stated that she learned from the book club discussions because they ‘‘sparked great discourse’’

within her group about teaching science. She also confessed that she learned more than she had imagined

from the discussions, thus changing her initial views of the text and its appropriateness in science education:

‘‘I didn’t understand the relevance of the book to teaching science, but it became apparent as the reading went

on. It was a great selection for our class to read and apply to our present/future teaching careers’’ (Peri, Final

BC Reflections, April 15). Additionally, Wanda and her book club members did not see the relevancy of the

text in a science methods class; however, Wanda learned not only about herself as a teacher but also about not

holding biases and assumptions about children from different cultural backgrounds:

I learned a lot about myself as a teacher from these book club meetings. At first, we were all unclear

about what the point of the book was and why we were reading it for this class. Now, after reading the

entire book, I realize that the two communities we read about can teach us a lot about what students

might be like. (Wanda, Final BC Reflections, April 15)

Finally, Klaren commented that she was ‘‘skeptical’’ of the text in the science methods course. However,

after reading the text, she understood its relevancy:

While skeptical at first, by the time I completed the book I was pleased to find that its subject matter

was ripe for aiding the critical analysis of curriculum development, teaching and assessing

achievement in science, and general issues of differences in the classroom, ultimately leading to new

ideas about diversity and science. (Klaren, Final BC Reflections, April 15)

As reflected above, the PSTs revealed their assumptions and biases about what was appropriate

curriculum to learn in a science methods course and were challenged to consider how a multicultural text fit

into their science teacher preparation. Indeed the text and content were pertinent to their learning as science

teachers.

Theme Two: Revelation—Revealing Assumptions and Beliefs

The book club prompted the PSTs to reveal assumptions, beliefs, biases and values they had about

teaching science and teaching diverse learners. By revealing these ideas within their groups, they were also

able to challenge and change their views. For instance, Vanna shared one of her assumptions about language

and communication. The conversations her group had really challenged these ideas and at the same time

brought ‘‘new perspectives to [her] preconceived notions.’’

One of the main assumptions that I had about diverse students was that as long as you were speaking

the same language, you would be able to communicate. Even if you are speaking the same language,

there will always be differences and misunderstandings in communication. I cannot assume that they

have the basic knowledge that I grew up with. A key to alleviating that assumption is having

conversations with the students to see what their ideas, conceptions, and misconceptions are on a

certain topic. (Vanna, Final BC Reflections, April 15)

Uma also shared her assumptions about teaching diverse learners, which came from her beliefs about

parenting and her own upbringing. As she revealed her assumption, she reflected on her change in perspective

from participating in the book club discussions:

Although I tend to be an open-minded person, I was not without opinion concerning

Trackton and Roadville. At first I assumed that the children from Roadville [White working

1050 MENSAH


class-community] would do better in school because of their stern upbringing and rule-oriented

lifestyle, and the Trackton [Black working-class community] children seemed to lack structure

which I thought would prove problematic in the classroom. I judged the parenting in Roadville to be

superior to the parenting in Trackton. . . .Luckily I view my opinions as starting points rather than

finish lines, and I learned a lot from my change in perspective. I think we all walk into new situations

armed with certain assumptions or biases, but what the book and discussions reinforced was that

these are merely preconceived notions that need to be deconstructed. (Uma, Final BC Reflections,

April 15)

Similarly, Natalie admitted that ‘‘one major misconception’’ that she had was to ‘‘assume that children

from more privileged homes are smarter or would grasp information better than those that come from lower or

middle class backgrounds,’’ but she now wanted to have ‘‘realistic expectations of students and provide

guidance’’ because ‘‘different children are exposed to different ways of thinking, learning and interacting

with one another. That is why teachers must understand this and be able to adapt their lessons accordingly’’

(Natalie, Final BC Reflections, April 15).

Even among a seemingly ‘‘homogeneous’’ group of teachers in terms of education and upbringing, all of

the groups realized that they had different experiences and backgrounds. As one group stated, ‘‘As a

collaborative group, we have come to the conclusion that diversity does not mean that you have to come from

a different country or speak a different language. We all bring our differences to the classroom, therefore

diversifying the environment’’ (Final BC Group Reflections, Group #2, May 4). Realizing these differences

allowed the PSTs to talk about how they may alleviate problems in their classrooms due to a better

understanding of difference. Sonja specifically noted that within her group, their views regarding science

education and the classroom environment ‘‘really grew, and contrasted some of their prior ideas and

misconceptions.’’

I believe that we all have become more sensitive to these issues in our daily lives, and even more aware

of their occurrences in the classroom. Although addressing the diverse needs and differences among

students seems to be a perpetual problem in every classroom, I would like to believe that as a group we

have become more aware, and motivated to help alleviate some of these problems, at least in our own

classrooms. (Sonja, Final BC Reflections, April 15)

The differences among group members were highlighted by Monica also. She felt that those who were

currently student teaching ‘‘spoke about their experiences and the challenges they faced in the classroom’’

(Monica, Final BC Reflections, April 15), and this allowed her and another member to gain valuable

knowledge about teaching in urban schools.

Furthermore, within the groups, differences created an opportunity for the PSTs to look more deeply at

their beliefs and values. For example, one group discussed how challenging it was to make changes in beliefs,

especially when they assumed that they shared the same values about teaching and learning. Within this

group, Heather explained how strongly members held to their beliefs about ‘‘valuing learning to read, valuing

school, valuing science, or valuing a two-parent family structure.’’ As a result of sharing their beliefs, Heather

said at times the conversations ‘‘felt very aggressive and insulting to challenge what others valued,’’ yet she

concluded that values were ‘‘not an individual decision, but a community glue of sorts’’ that allowed people to

reaffirm their beliefs (Heather, Final BC Reflections, April 15). However, as one group noted: ‘‘We think that

it’s very natural to make assumptions/judge others, but that as teachers, we probably shouldn’t be doing that.

By making assumptions about students, it’s really easy to hinder kids and hold them back from their true

potential’’ (BC #3, Group #2, March 30).

The diverse book club groups allowed for Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning.

Several opportunities for intimate student–student interactions permitted the PSTs to confront, talk and

share their views and values about diversity, teaching, and learning. At times, the conversations were

‘‘aggressive and insulting,’’ yet members were able to learn from each others’ perspectives. They realized

that they too were diverse and brought differing perspectives—a Revelation regarding diversity, education

and self.



Theme Three: Responsiveness—Forcing a Response to Issues of Diversity in Science

From early book club reflections and classroom discussions, the PSTs did not think that diversity and

science were compatible. They could not imagine teaching, thinking, or presenting science in diverse ways.

Consequently, responding to issues of diversity in science was a goal of the book club. Many stated that the

book club meetings ‘‘forced’’ them to think about diversity in science teaching. Sonja noted: ‘‘When reading

and discussing this book, I realized that I was continuing to build on and expand my vision of diversity, and

how it is or isn’t represented in the classroom. In many ways, when we first started out this semester, I wasn’t

sure how to really address issues of diversity in relation to science.’’ But from participating in the book club,

Sonja realized that her initial conceptions and ideas about science had expanded. She added: ‘‘I have been

forced to think about how to bring diversity into the science classroom, and most importantly recognize that it

exists regardless if it is apparent to the naked eye’’ (Sonja, Final BC Reflections, April 15).

Similarly, the book club also ‘‘forced’’ Wanda to think about how to develop curriculum that was

multicultural and ‘‘sensitive to diverse students.’’ She saw diversity in terms of curriculum and questioned her

views of science in this way: ‘‘How do I develop curriculum that is appealing to students from all walks of

life? How do I engage all students, regardless of their past experiences or their interests?’’ Wanda continued to

think about diversity in terms of her students and multicultural approaches to teaching. She replied, ‘‘The

book club has forced me to address issues, by showing me two communities that would benefit greatly from a

multicultural approach to teaching. . . . both communities could have benefited from other forms of teaching

and learning’’ (Wanda, Final BC Reflections, April 15).

In the same way, Perri felt that understanding issues of diversity from the course and the book club

‘‘forced’’ her to look more critically at the role of science curriculum so that she could learn more about her

students: ‘‘I think this course and this book have forced me to really look at how effective (or non-effective)

science curriculum can be if you know/understand where your students come from.’’ Furthermore, Perri

expressed additional comments related to teacher education:

Diversity is an area that needs so much attention. While our teacher education has addressed it, I truly

believe that we have only skimmed the surface and that so much more is needed to really understand it

and how it affects our educational system, students, and schools. Actually, this class has probably

addressed it more so than any other one that I have taken here (which has been great). (Peri, Final BC

Reflections, April 15)

As a result of being ‘‘forced’’ to consider diversity and science instruction as compatible in framing

science teaching, many of the PSTs were able to broaden their definition of diversity and see the importance of

recognizing various aspects of diversity in science education. For example, Sonja revealed that the definition

of diversity went beyond ‘‘the color of your skin or your ethnicity’’ and that ‘‘in addition to these visible

differences, there are cultural, social, economic, gender, academic, linguistic, and familial factors that are

extremely significant when taking diversity into account’’ (Final BC Reflections, April 15). Once Sonja

‘‘recognized all of these elements of diversity, [she] became much more in tune with the composition of the

classroom, and more importantly the structure of society.’’ Therefore, her view of diversity extended beyond

ethnicity and the classroom to larger sociocultural issues that impacted the classroom. She ended her final

book club reflection acknowledging that ‘‘by not reflecting on these additional learning environments, we are

not making science, its concepts, and teachings accessible to all.’’

Finally, those who participated in the book club meetings gained insights about issues of diversity and

teaching science to diverse learners. They recognized diversity in the classroom as a ‘‘collection of valuable

experiences that are all relevant and meaningful in science’’ (BC #2, Group #5, March 9). Some of the PSTs

admitted that they were ‘‘forced’’ to respond to diversity in science classrooms, predominantly from the

position of curriculum change, while others were forced to consider broader implications of teaching for

diversity in science education.

Theme Four: Reflection—Developing Critical, Reflective Science Teachers

The book club structure and theoretical foundation were significant in helping the PSTs to develop a

critical, reflective stance toward science curriculum, views of race and ethnicity, and even their classmates’

1052 MENSAH


views along these same topics. Thus, Reflection was essential in expanding the PSTs’ views of science and

diversity. For instance, the critical stance was enhanced as members within groups and during whole class

discussions questioned their role as science teachers. They became more open to issues of diversity, yet they

confronted their own biases about curriculum and assessment. Though one group recognized how their own

cultural understandings influenced science curriculum and teaching, members were critical of the hidden

curriculum:

Is diversity just about race and the color of your skin? Based on our experiences, we all share similar

feelings about what issues are being hidden in the curriculum, such as issues of sexuality and gender.

These are very important issues that tend to be pushed under the rug. (BC #3, Group #6, March 30)

Similarly, Len questioned an evaluation system developed by the mainstream teachers in the text that

was based on skin color and differences in social and academic behaviors between Blacks and Whites. He

reflected on his own students: ‘‘I have to think critically about why my students behaved differently. Their

skin colors should not be accounted for their behaviors. The book shows me that I need to explore further than

their skin colors, their background experience, communities, families, values, traditions, etc.’’ (Len, Final BC

Reflections, April 15).

Eliza’s critical stance was aimed at curriculum planning, teacher education, and members of her BC

group. Like Peri previously, Eliza felt that more needed to be done in teacher education and professional

development to help teachers learn about multiculturalism:

By participating in the class discussions, I realized that many students studying elementary education

do not realize the importance of multicultural education within the school curricula . . . After reading

this book, I started to think critically about curriculum development and how such affects students, not

only now, but for years to follow. A genuine interest in curriculum development has emerged . . .why

do textbooks still focus on questions found right in the text; why is it that, outside of teacher prep

programs such as ours, I rarely hear of teacher training on how to prepare students to think and ask

questions as ‘scientists’? (Eliza, Final BC Reflections, April 15, 2005)

For some of the PSTs, they were also critical of their teaching practices and less judgmental of their

students. For example, Franda, rather than blaming her students when they did not understand science

content, looked more critically at her teaching practices and the curriculum after participating in the book

club:

The book club reiterated how crucial it is as a teacher to be creative and meet your students’ needs.

I now see a student ‘‘not getting it’’ as a product of my teaching as opposed to a product of his/her

intelligence. I am more critical than ever of the curriculum I teach, and I approach my lessons now

with a different attitude. . . . I teach the science material I’m supposed to teach in many different ways

so that I can reach all of my diverse students, and I understand how critical it is to relate scientific

concepts to a student’s everyday life. (Franda, Final BC Reflections, April 15, 2005)

Not revealing, challenging, and reflecting on negative assumptions and biases about diversity or learners

can potentially impact science teaching in a negative way. For Gretal, this meant that she had to ‘‘critically

examine’’ her own actions to ‘‘expose any stereotypes that may not be conducive to student learning’’ and not

impose her values, either ‘‘consciously or unconsciously’’ on her students (Gretal, Final BC Reflections,

April 15).

In sum, as the PSTs engaged in Individual, Collaborative, and Collective discussions and

reflections over the semester, they became more reflective and critical of their own practices, their

education, and their peers. This was especially true for the PSTs who were student teaching, like Len,

Gretal and Franda. They broadened their definitions of diversity and questioned taken-for-granted

understandings of diversity and science teaching, especially in regards to science curriculum and assessment.

From whole class discussions, all the groups considered larger social, political, institutional, and educational

factors for teaching and their role within these systems; however, it was the individual reflection and



their personal role as science teachers that caused them to want to effect change within themselves and

their classrooms.

Theme Five: Reformation—Gaining Deeper Understandings and Changing Beliefs

Along with their final group presentations, each group submitted a final book club reflection paper at the

end of the semester. This final reflection summarized Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning from

the semester long book club. Although some of their learning has already been presented in the four themes

above, a comparative analysis of the final group reflection papers revealed deeper understandings and

changes in beliefs about teaching science to diverse learners. For example, the book club was a positive

experience for everyone, and the PSTs expressed the importance of understanding issues of diversity and how

critical it was in science education. Additionally, one group discussed what they learned about their own

identities as teachers and the necessity to question and ‘‘confront their own upbringing’’ and ‘‘to be conscious

of how it may manifest itself during an academic year’’ (Final BC Group Reflections, Group #4, May 4). This

group continued to reflect on teacher identity and diversity:

Having a class with diverse backgrounds and cultures would be moot if a teacher fails to acknowledge

herself/himself for what attitudes and opinions stem from their own cultures. Before stepping foot into

a classroom, a teacher must challenge herself to stop and face whatever facets of their own belief

systems that they may harbor and that will negatively affect their teaching. Specifically in the science

content area, if a teacher has a set belief system about how science should be taught that may not meet

the needs of her students, she will fail to be an effective teacher and subsequently adversely affect

students’ development and learning. Teaching is not just about facing the ‘diversity’ in one’s

classroom; it’s also about facing the ‘diversity’ in oneself. (Final BC Group Reflections, Group #4,

May 4)

For Group #3, they highlighted three broad themes that emerged from their BC meeting notes: ‘‘the

value and challenge of a diverse class setting, the impact of community and culture in the classroom, and the

place for diversity in curriculum development.’’ These three points matched themes generated from this

study. One member of that group shared the following:

Our book club helped to shed light on my flawed, and almost, dismissive approach to this book, and

how this could be incredibly detrimental in the classroom. Accordingly, overtime, I realized how

cognizant I need to be of my existing biases and sensitive to the often subconscious effect of my

ethnocentricity. Stereotypes are easy; just as I needed to focus to find the real value and meaning in the

text, I could find constructive insight and realize a mutually beneficial experience/interaction from a

deliberate effort to understand my students and their backgrounds. (Final BC Group Reflections,

Group #3, May 4)

Gaining a deeper understanding of issues of diversity was a huge part of the discussions throughout

the semester. Thus, one group acknowledged that ‘‘diversity [makes] a huge impact on a classroom

atmosphere and it also plays a major role in the way children will behave’’ (Final BC Group Reflections,

Group #5, May 4). The group admitted that the challenge of diversity in the science classroom meant that

the teacher had to see diversity as a ‘‘benefit in the classroom, rather than trying to force all students to

assimilate into a classroom culture that might be very foreign to them.’’ Consequently, the teacher should

‘‘allow students to take ownership over their education and make meaningful connections that will remain

with them.’’

As a pedagogical strategy, the book club was valuable in effecting change and enhancing teacher

learning in a science methods course along three areas: Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning.

For example, Uma commented, ‘‘Discussing the book with my group members helped to reinforce what I

took from the readings myself’’ (Final BC Reflections, April 15); Blair remarked, ‘‘If I didn’t work in book

club, I do not think I would have learned as much as I did’’ (Final BC Reflections, April 15); and Group #6

commented, ‘‘Perhaps the most salient message we received from reading Ways with Words was the need for

understanding where your students come from and their culturally influenced ways of communicating and

1054 MENSAH


learning, in order to create meaningful science lessons that resonate with students’’ (Final BC Group

Reflections, Group #6, May 4).

To summarize, the PSTs discussed their ideas and confirmed the importance of paying attention to issues

of diversity in science teaching. They examined how their initial assumptions and beliefs about science and

issues of diversity and equity changed over the semester from participating in the book club. For example,

they gained a deeper or more ‘‘expanded’’ view of diversity and science education, and they acknowledged

their roles as the teacher: ‘‘all children can bring different resources to the table; what can we bring out of

them?’’ (BC #1, Group #2, February 16). As a consequence, the book club—its structure and theoretical

foundation which promoted Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning—proved to be successful in

forcing the PSTs to reveal ideological beliefs and assumptions about issues of diversity in science, to reflect

on their role as teachers, and finally to gain a deeper understanding, awareness, and sensitivity about issues of

diversity in science education.

Discussion and Implications

Briefly, the findings from this study emphasize Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning from

the implementation of the book club with PSTs in an elementary science methods course. The study discusses

teacher learning as well as the structure and theoretical foundation of the book club as a pedagogical strategy

for the preparation of urban elementary science teachers. The findings focus on five themes: (a) Relevancy,

using a multicultural text in a science methods course; (b) Revelation, revealing assumptions and biases about

issues of diversity and teaching science; (c) Responsiveness, forcing a response to issues of diversity in

science education; (d) Reflection, developing critical and reflective science teachers; and (e) Reformation,

gaining a deeper understanding of diversity by changing ideological beliefs. These five themes suggest that

the overall structure and theoretical foundation of the book club promotes teacher learning about complex

issues in urban science education and issues of diversity and equity. For example, the book club combines

multiple theoretical perspectives (i.e., the principle of ideology, critical pedagogy, critical reflective inquiry,

multicultural education, and issues of diversity) that challenges deficit models of thinking and teaching, and

at the same time, establishes a purpose for educating critically reflective teachers to improve science

education in urban schools. After reading a multicultural text, participating in school-based experiences (i.e.,

observations microteaching and student teaching), and reflecting on course assignments, the PSTs in this

study demonstrate a change in beliefs on multiple levels, such as science, curriculum, teaching, and diverse

learners. The discussion below focuses on three specific points that connect the findings generated from the

study. These points emphasize the relevancy of pedagogical strategies to reveal beliefs, the use of multiple

theoretical perspectives in teacher education, and the implementation of the book club in the preparation of

science teachers for diverse urban classrooms.

Relevancy of Pedagogical Strategies to Reveal Ideological Beliefs

First, many approaches to multicultural education are used in teacher education. They aim to prepare

teachers to ‘‘acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and dispositions to work effectively with a diverse

student population’’ (Melnick & Zeichner, 1998, p. 88), yet they fall short in promoting change in

perspectives regarding diversity and subject matter. Accordingly, this study introduces book club in a science

methods course. The book club encourages intimate dialogue on a number of broad topics where PSTs reveal

and discuss their initial skepticism of the book club selection and the ability of the text to educate them about

science and diversity. They view diversity through hegemonic eyes—from mainstream, privileged, and

dominant perspectives that reveal the principle of ideology at work (Darder et al., 2003). Although, there are

PSTs not from mainstream cultures (Table 1), their views of diversity are at times similar to dominant

perspectives of teaching and learning such that the class collectively share an unawareness—a

‘‘dysconsciousness’’ or ‘‘uncritical habit of mind’’—that accepts the existing order of things as given

(King, 1994, p. 338). As a result, they do not see the relevancy of a multicultural text in a science methods

course; nor do they consider issues of diversity within their preparation as elementary science teachers. This is

significant as multiculturalism is viewed initially as irrelevant to science and their preparation as urban



science teachers. Therefore, the book club challenges dominant discourses in science teacher education for

what is relevant and appropriate to learn in an elementary science methods course.

Similarly, the PSTs miss the important connection between home, language, family, community, and

culture in learning science. Their initial beliefs regarding issues of diversity, science, and teacher education

speak precisely to the importance of presenting multicultural perspectives and curriculum, alternative texts,

and critical approaches in science education. Essentially, what the PSTs perceive as non-relevant knowledge

for science teacher education ‘‘forces’’ them to consider learning in novel ways as they explore and respond to

issues of diversity in relationship to science while participating in classroom discussions. As the semester

advances, their ideological beliefs about science teaching and diverse learners are challenged and

consequently changed. Without challenging their beliefs, PSTs are likely to maintain their old ways of

thinking (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1986) and continue learning in ways that do not challenge their

thinking, thus perpetuating practices that marginalize students in science, while also hindering their

professional growth as teachers. This discovery therefore has strong implications for teaching students of

color, teaching science in diverse urban classrooms, and teacher education.

An increasingly higher number of teachers of middle-class, White backgrounds are teaching diverse

student populations in schools (Hodgkinson, 2002). Consequently, PSTs need multiple opportunities to

reflect critically on expectations they hold about learners who are different from themselves. The critical

discussions within Collaborative and Collective groups impact their thinking such that they develop a critical

stance toward self and their views of language, class, race and ethnicity, science curriculum, assessment, and

even their classmates’ views among these topics as they engage in the book club discussions. This critical,

reflective discourse is necessary for revealing their assumptions and gaining a deeper understanding of

diversity, and for broadening their perspectives in the development and application of new knowledge. They

eventually view issues of diversity as highly relevant in their preparation as science teachers and see it as

appropriate in teaching science.

Similarly, using a multicultural text in science teacher education provides an authentic context for

learning about issues of diversity in science and stimulates critical discourses about science education in

urban classrooms. Surprisingly, in the last section of Ways with Words, Heath (1983) describes science

teaching and learning and offers several examples of culturally relevant science teaching. Finally, the PSTs

are convinced of the Relevancy of the text as ‘‘ripe’’ for learning about science and diversity and ‘‘a great

selection’’ that is ‘‘appropriate for teacher preparation.’’ To educate PSTs well, we need multiple perspectives

that consider non-dominant paradigms, such as critical and multicultural perspectives in science education

that will have a liberating effect on the ways in which teachers think about issues of diversity and teach science

in urban classrooms. This transformative, liberating teacher education curriculum facilitates knowledge and

reflection, which is grounded within a strong structure and theoretical foundation that facilitates this kind of

learning.

Relevancy of Structure and Theoretical Perspectives in Teacher Education

Second, the overall structure and theoretical foundation of the book club create an environment for

discussing issues pertinent to science teaching in diverse urban classrooms. The PSTs over the semester

engage in a continuous cycle of Individual, Collaborative, and Collective learning as well as critical and

reflective thinking about issues that are rarely discussed in science methods yet are relevant to teaching

elementary science, especially in urban classrooms. Specifically, the Individual, Collaborative, and

Collective learning—accomplished through, individual reading, small and large group discussion, and

written reflections—provide a forum for transformative learning, change in beliefs, and teacher professional

growth. Mayher (1990) states that, ‘‘While it is undoubtedly the case that all of us do learn as individuals, we

usually do our best learning in a community of learners which features collaboration’’ (p. 58). Likewise,

Banks (1993) argues that ‘‘knowledge that people create is heavily influenced by their interpretations of their

experiences and their positions within particular social, economic, and political systems and structures of a

society’’ (p. 5). To facilitate the learning process, all of the book club notes are returned to the PSTs at the

end of the semester, giving them access to Individual, Collaborative, and Collective thinking over time. This

‘‘tri-partite nature of present time’’ (Conway, 2001, p. 91), where they learn from the past, think in the present,

and plan for the future, and the structure of the book club encourage critical reflective thinking and teacher

1056 MENSAH


learning within these three contexts of time. Therefore, the PSTs are given several opportunities to see the

progression of their thinking, and to challenge, confront, and develop new perspectives as they consider their

ideas alongside those of others and within the context of urban classrooms. They pay particular attention to

how dominant ideology, or ‘‘patterns of beliefs and values shared by the majority of individuals’’ (McLaren,

2003, p. 81), and even their own beliefs and values impact student learning in science. Although the book club

discussions ‘‘sparked discourse’’ and a few members state some tension within group meetings, the PSTs are

able to reassess issues that are brought to the forefront within the structure of the book club.

In terms of the theoretical perspectives used in this study as a basis for science teacher education—the

principle of ideology, critical pedagogy, critical reflective inquiry, multicultural education, and issues of

diversity and equity—they mutually support teacher learning in ways that foster the kinds of knowledge,

attitudes, and beliefs needed to teach in diverse settings. The current study specifically capitalizes on the

structure and theoretical foundation of the book club to support the preparation of science teachers for urban

classrooms, while previous research reports the learning that has taken place from this strategy (Author,

2008a). Therefore, I argue that teacher preparation in science requires multiple perspectives that are

theoretically connected allowing for a unique approach in order to address more deeply those issues pertinent

to urban science education. Concurrently, science teacher education must engage in critical, collaborative,

and collective discussions about the role of the science teacher within larger sociocultural factors that

influence the education of students who are traditionally marginalized from science. However, having a

critical yet safe space to share these ideas must be nurtured in courses aimed at preparing teachers to work

with diverse student populations.

Book Club in Science Teacher Education and Urban Education

Third, the findings from the current study support previous work on teacher learning from book clubs

and research aimed at addressing issues of equity in urban education. For example, Smith (2000) states that

‘‘when adults talked about why they valued their book club discussions, three themes emerged: the social

aspect, the equality among club members, and the spirit of cooperation that infused the clubs’’ (p. 30). Smith

continues to say that ‘‘instructional strategies suggested by these themes may help teachers challenge the

discourse patterns that characterize literature discussion in schools’’ (p. 30). Thus, Smiths’ findings speak to

the value of implementing discourse strategies for teacher learning. Similarly, the book club as a pedagogical

strategy for teacher learning about issues of diversity and equity in science is reproducible. For example,

Gunckel (2006) implemented the book club within her elementary science methods course. Her aim was to

‘‘to push PSTs to think about how their own ways of using language might be different from their students’

ways of using language; to help PSTs recognize students’ sociocultural backgrounds as potential intellectual

resources, rather than deficits; and to provide an image of how a teacher can take advantage of students’

sociocultural backgrounds to teach science (or any subject matter)’’ (p. 1). Gunckel reports that from ‘‘in-

depth’’discussions, the PSTs were able to modify their own teaching experiences, view students’ experiences

as resources and not deficits, and recognize the importance of students’ lived experiences.

With the success of the book club as a strategy to effect change and to promote teacher learning about

diversity in science education, there are still limitations. A question to consider is the long term impact of the

book club on PSTs’ practices in science and the question of resistance (Rodriguez, 1998, 2001) and teacher

learning over time (Bianchini & Cavazos, 2007). Hence, Becker (1991) states ‘‘the way that teachers teach is

a product of their own schooling, training, and experiences as teachers’’ (p. 8). Therefore, follow-up

classroom observations and interviews with early career elementary teachers (i.e., former students of the

science methods course) are underway. This is an important next step as researchers question the impact of

teacher education on future teaching practice and the sustainability of learning from preservice to inservice

(Darling-Hammond, 2000). However, I maintain that the structure and theoretical foundation of the book club

offer a promising pedagogical strategy for promoting the kinds of learning needed in order to prepare urban

science teachers for increasingly diverse classrooms.

By making diversity related issues real, relevant and explicit, science educators must model

appropriately the talk and walk—the conversation and knowledge, and the actions and skills—necessary for

changing the ways in which we critically prepare and educate teachers who will serve students from diverse

cultural, linguistic, social, and educational backgrounds. Within a larger framework for research that



emphasizes theoretical perspectives and methods aimed at improving the science education of students of

color and urban youth, the findings from the current study contribute to continuing conversations about equity

in science education with pedagogical implications for teachers of diverse urban students. For example,

researchers offer findings regarding increasing African American students’ achievement in science in an

urban middle school from a Black Cultural ethos framework (Parsons, 2008); implementing a professional

development intervention to improve science and literacy achievement for English Language Learners in

urban elementary schools (Lee et al., 2008); and incorporating ‘‘funds of knowledge’’ into the learning

environments of high-poverty urban middle school youth for a sustained interest in science (Basu &

Calabrese Barton, 2007). While these studies do not specifically address PSTeducation or the use of the book

club, they, along with the findings of the current study, address a larger issue regarding equity in science for

diverse learners within the context of urban education and the ways in which teachers use their knowledge of

diversity and equity to promote meaningful science learning for all. In many ways, the collective findings of

previous research address the ‘‘science achievement dilemma’’ (Parsons, 2008, p. 666) of students

traditionally marginalized from science at differing levels of engagement. These research findings explain

methods that have been successful in improving the learning experiences of urban students that subsequently

connects to and raises a key concern for the preparation of preservice science teachers for diverse urban

classrooms. At the level of teacher preparation, this may constitute reading multicultural literature in a

science methods course, being exposed to multiple perspectives across contexts, and providing space within

the curriculum to confront assumptions and beliefs through intimate discourses about issues teachers will

encounter in urban schools. From earlier research, it means that science education for urban youth has to be

empowering and transformative (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007). As a science education community, this

approach to teaching is essential because ‘‘no real political struggle can be waged by one lone voice in the

wilderness’’ (Darder et al., 2003, p. 20). The multiple voices of teacher education, professional development,

and student must be engaged. Thus, educators must deem this approach to be highly crucial in the preparation

of teachers for our increasingly diverse urban schools. Our efforts must be thoughtful and deliberate, critical

and reflective, immediate and pervasive. Accordingly, the book club in an elementary science methods course

holds promise as an effective approach that supports and builds upon the research and conversations of

appropriate methods to address the issues we face as science educators, namely to increase the achievement of

students of color, to provide meaning science experiences for students in urban settings, and to create

intervention strategies for the professional development of urban teachers (Basu & Calabrese Barton, 2007;

Lee et al., 2008; Parsons, 2008).

Conclusion

If we are serious about preparing and educating future teachers of science for increasingly diverse

classrooms, then we have to develop strategies and experiences that ‘‘force’’ PSTs to change taken-for-

granted notions about science, issues of diversity and equity, and teacher education, to think reflectively and

critically about their assumptions, and to visualize science teaching through multicultural perspectives. For

that reason, Beyer (2001) affirms that in preparing PSTs ‘‘novel ways of seeing and thinking about teaching,

schooling, and society’’ should be done (p. 152). The structure and theoretical foundation of the book club

promotes the kinds of change in beliefs, multicultural awareness, and transformative learning that educators

should encourage in science teacher education. Therefore, as I enact practices to promote a better

understanding of issues of diversity and equity in science teacher education, I also risk making diversity ‘‘too

diverse to handle’’ (Moore, 2005). Teaching for diversity is indeed a complicated and challenging endeavor,

yet it is vital to the education of every child, and the professional development of every teacher.

Notes

1The capitalized ‘‘Book Club’’ refers to the specific pedagogical strategy, that is, the structure and

theoretical foundation, used in this study; lower case ‘‘book club’’ refers to the generalized literature on

book clubs.2In this 9-year ethnographic study, Shirley Brice Heath narrates the story of three culturally

different communities—Trackton, Roadville and the townspeople—located in the Piedmont Carolinas

1058 MENSAH


in the desegregated south, 1969–1978. Roadville is a white-working class community of mill workers;

Trackton is a black working-class community with a history of older generations of farming workers and

recent generations of mill workers. The third community is composed of mainstream Black and White

educated people. Using the mainstream teachers as ethnographers, their goal was to find ways to

communicate more effectively with children in school and adults in the two communities.3The book club was one assignment within the science methods course. Other assignments were

course readings and discussions; interviewing a child about his/her science ideas; conducting classroom

observations; making observations of science in the city; and planning and teaching a science lesson in

an urban elementary classroom. All the PSTs agreed to participate in the study by signing consent forms

and then submitting course assignments, which included individual and collaborative reflective papers,

electronically. Most of the PSTs submitted their assignments within 1 week after the course. Human

Subjects approval was granted in order to analyze collected data and interview PSTs after submission of

final grades.

References

Apple, M.W., & Beane, J.A. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Atwater, M.M. (1993). Multicultural science education: Assumptions and alternative views. The

Science Teacher, 60, 33–37.

Atwater, M.M. (1995). The multicultural science classroom: Part II: Assisting all students with science

acquisition. The Science Teacher, 60, 42–45.

Atwater, M.M. (2000). Females in science education: White is the norm and class, language, lifestyle,

and religion are nonissues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 386–387.

Atwater, M.M., & Brown, M.L. (1999). Inclusive reform: Including all students in the science education

reform. The Science Teacher, 66, 44–47.

Banks, J. (1991). Teaching multicultural literacy to teachers. Teaching Education, 34, 135–144.

Banks, J.A. (1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education.

Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4–14.

Banks, J.A. (1994). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

Banks, J.A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. Journal of Negro

Education, 64(4), 390–400.

Barrett, M.B. (1994). Preparation for cultural diversity: Experiential strategies for educators. Equity &

Excellence, 26(1), 19–26.

Basu, S.J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban

minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466–489.

Becker, H.J. (1991). When powerful tools meet conventional beliefs and instructional constraints. The

Computing Teacher, 18(8), 6–9.

Beyer, L.E. (1993). Teacher education and the politics of schooling. Education Research and

Perspectives, 20(1), 1–12.

Beyer, L.E. (1995). Teachers’ reflections on the struggle for democratic classrooms. Teaching

Education, 8(1), 91–102.

Beyer, L.E. (2001). The value of critical perspectives in teacher education. Journal of Teacher

Education, 52(2), 151–163.

Bianchini, J.A., & Cavazos, L.M. (2007). Learning from students, inquiry into practice, and

participation in professional communities: Beginning teachers’ uneven progress toward equitable science

teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 586–612.

Bianchini, J.A., & Solomon, E.M. (2003). Constructing views of science tied to issues of equity and

diversity: A study of beginning science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(1), 53–76.

Brevig, L. (2006). Engaging in retrospective reflection. The Reading Teacher, 59(6), 522–530.

Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



Bryan, L., & Atwater, M.M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher

preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821–839.

Calabrese Barton, A. (2001). Capitalism: Critical pedagogy, and urban science education: An interview

with Peter McLaren. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 847–859.

Calabrese Barton, A. (2002). Urban science education studies: A commitment to equity, social justice

and a sense of place. Studies in Science Education, 38, 1–38.

Calabrese Barton, A. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Carmichael, M. (2001). Readers group in your school. Teacher Librarian, 28(5), 22–24.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chelton, M.K. (2001). When Oprah meets e-mail. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 41(1), 31–36.

Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational

Researcher, 19, 2–14.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R.D. (2003). Critical pedagogy: An introduction (Eds.),

The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 1–21). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3),

166–173.

Ediger, M. (2000). A teaching of reading book club. Reading Improvement, 37(4), 173–178.

Eick, C.J., Ware, F.N., & Williams, P.G. (2003). Coteaching in a science methods course: A situated

learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 74–85.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1986). The first year of teacher preparation: Transition to

pedagogical thinking? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(3), 239–256.

Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1994). Teacher book clubs: Establishing literature discussion groups for teachers.

The Reading Teacher, 47(7), 574–576.

Flood, J., Lapp, D., Ranck-Buhr, W., & Moore, J. (1995). What happens when teachers get together to

talk about Books? Gaining a multicultural perspective from literature. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 720–723.

Fraser-Abder, P., Atwater, M.M., & Lee, O. (2006). Research in urban science education: An essential

journey. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 599–606.

Garcia, J., & Pugh, S.L. (1992). Multicultural education in teacher preparation programs: A political or

an educational concept? Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 214–219.

Garmon, M.A. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity: What are the

critical factors. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(3), 201–213.

Gay, G. (2001). Curriculum theory and multicultural education. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.),

Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 25–43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Geraci, P.M. (2003). Promoting positive reading discourse and self-exploration through a multi-cultural

book club. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(2), 54–59.

Goldberg, S.M., & Pesko, E. (2000). The teacher book club. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 39–41.

Gollnick, D.M., & Chinn, P.C. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gomez, M.L. (1993). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching diverse children: A review with

implications for teacher education and practice. Journal of Negro Education, 62(4), 459–474.

Goodman, J. (1998). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers’

professional perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 121–137.

Goodwin, A.L. (1997). Historical and contemporary perspectives on multicultural teacher education. In

J. King, E. Hollins, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 5–22). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

1060 MENSAH


Gunckel, K.L. (July, 2006). Using book clubs to engage preservice teachers in thinking about teaching

diverse students in elementary science. Poster presented at the Summer Knowledge Sharing Institute.

Michigan State University.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.

Cambridge: University Press.

Hewson, P.W., Tabachnick, B.R., Zeichner, K.M., Blomker, K.B., Meyer, H., Lemberger, J., Marion, R.,

Park, H., & Toolin, R. (1999). Educating prospective teachers of biology: Introduction and research methods.

Science Education, 83, 247–273.

Hodgkinson, H. (2002). Demographics and teacher education: An overview. Journal of Teacher

Education, 5392, 102–105.

Houser, N.O., & Chevalier, M. (1996). Multicultural self-development in the preservice classroom:

Equity education for the dominant culture. Equity & Excellence in Education, 28(3), 5–13.

Irvine, J.J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers

College Press.

King, J.E. (1994). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. In L. Stone

(Ed.), The education feminism reader (pp. 336–348). New York: Routledge.

Kong, A., & Fitch, E. (2002/2003). Using book clubs to engage culturally and linguistically diverse

learners in reading, writing, and talking about books. The Reading Teacher 56(4), 352–362.

Kooy, M. (2006). The telling stories of novice teachers: Constructing teacher knowledge in book clubs.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 661–674.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, O. (2003). Equity for linguistically and culturally diverse students in science education: A research

agenda. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 465–489.

Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R.D., LeRoy, K., & Secada, W.G. (2008). Science achievement of

English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development

intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 31–52.

Luft, J. (1998). Multicultural science education: An overview. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9,

103–122.

Mayher, J. (1990). Uncommon sense: Theoretical practice in language education. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, &

R.D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 69–96). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Melnick, S.L., & Zeichner, K.M. (1998). Teacher education’s responsibility to address diversity issues:

Enhancing institutional capacity. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 88–95.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moore, F.M. (2003). In the midst of it all: A feminist perspective on science and science teaching.

In A.L. Green & L.V. Scott (Eds.), Journey to the Ph.D.: How to navigate the process as African Americans.

(pp. 104–121). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Moore, F. (September, 2005). Diversity: Is this just too diverse to handle? Paper presented at the Science

Education at the Crossroads Conference. Storrs, CT.

Moore, F. (2006). Multicultural preservice teachers’ views of diversity and science teaching. Research

and Practice in Social Sciences, 1(2), 98–131.

Moore, F.M. (2007). Language in science education as a gatekeeper to learning, teaching, and

professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 319–343.

Moore, F.M. (2008a). Preparing preservice teachers for urban elementary science classrooms:

Challenging cultural biases toward diverse students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 85–109.

Moore, F.M. (2008b). Positional identity and science teacher professional development. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 684–710.



Moss, M.L., Townsend, A., & Tobier, E. (1997). Immigration is transforming New York City. New York:

Taub Urban Research Center.

Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education in

the new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 108–187.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317–

328.

O’Flahavan, K.F. (1994). Teacher role options in peer discussions about literature. The Reading

Teacher, 48(4), 354–356.

Olmedo, I.M. (1997). Challenging old assumptions: Preparing teachers for inner city schools. Teaching

& Teacher Education, 13(3), 245–258.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review

of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–322.

Parsons, A.C. (2008). Learning contexts, black cultural ethos, and the science achievement of

African American students in an urban middle school. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 45(6), 665–

683.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Raphael, T.E. (1999). What counts as teacher research? An essay. Language Arts, 77(1), 48–52.

Raphael, T.E., & McMahon, S.I. (1994). Book club: An alternative framework for reading instruction.

The Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102–116.

Roach, R. (1998). Internet book club promotes Black books. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(14),

34.

Rodriguez, A.J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism

and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

35, 589–622.

Rodriguez, A.J. (2001). Courage and the researcher’s gaze: (Re)defining our roles as cultural warriors

for social change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 277–294.

Sleeter, C.E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming

presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.

Smith, S.A. (2000). Talking about ‘‘real stuff’’: Explorations of agency and romance in an all-girls’ book

blub. Language Arts, 78(1), 30–38.

Steinberg, S.R. (1995). Critical multiculturalism and democratic schooling: An interview with

Peter McLaren and Joe Kincheloe. In C.E. Sleeter & P.L. McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education,

critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. (pp. 129–154). New York: State University of New

York Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Technique and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the

curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.

Wood, K.D., Roser, N.L., & Martinez, M. (2001). Collaborative literacy: Lessons learned from

literature. The Reading Teacher, 55(2), 102–111.

Yerrick, R.K., & Hoving, T.J. (2003). One foot on the dock and one foot on the boat: Differences among

preservice science teachers’ interpretations of field-based science methods in culturally diverse contexts.

Science Education, 87, 390–418.

Zeichner, K.M. (1987). Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which

have been employed in preservice teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 11,

565–575.

1062 MENSAH


Appendix 1Initial Student Information Survey

Teaching Questions

Initial Diversity Survey



Diversity Questions

Appendix 2Book Club Questions/Discussion Prompts

The purpose of this assignment is for you to read and discuss how important your role of the teacher is in

teaching students who are culturally, linguistically, and academically different from you, and how these

differences are influential in the teaching and learning of science. Discuss relevant issues related to

understanding students and helping them to be successful in learning science. Make connections to your

current observations and teaching of students.

Choose a facilitator typist for your group discussion. This person will direct the conversation and type

notes for the group on key points, topics of discussion, ideas, and questions that arose within your group. At

the end of the discussion, we will have a whole class debriefing session. Save your group’s notes and submit to

the professor’s email address, portable thumb drive, or to the course website Drop Box. Below are guiding

questions for your discussion:

Open a new word document. Type your group members’ names at top of the page. Type just the number

of the question and the parenthetical phrase and then begin your notes.

Book Club Meeting #1

Heath (pp. 1–112)

(1) (Personal Reactions) What were your personal reactions to this first section (pp. 1–112)? What

issues seemed to be evident in the first section of the Book?

(2) (Personal Connections) What connections can you make between the message(s) of the Book,

your current/past teaching experiences or interactions with children, and the children/students

Heath discusses in the Book?

(3) (Communities and Skills) What are similar and different characteristics that both Trackton and

Roadville parents share concerning their children’s education? What kinds of skills do you think

children from both communities have learned from home that can be utilized in the science

classroom setting?

1064 MENSAH


(4) (Language) How critical is language to learning? How is language used in the two communities?

(5) (Science and Communities) Though Heath speaks specifically about the home environment as

influential in students’ interactions in their communities, what arguments can you make for the

importance of learning science and providing meaningful science activities based upon students’

home experiences?

(6) (Group Personal Reflections) What did you learn about yourself as a (science) teacher from

reading and participating in this discussion? What did you learn from your group members?

Book Club Meeting & Discussion #2

Heath (pp. 113–262)

(1) (Language and Science) Read pp. 127–128, first full paragraph on p. 127 to the first paragraph on

p. 128, ‘‘Adult . . . alternative term’’—Discuss implications for talk and language as ‘‘right.’’

Does science have a ‘‘right’’ way? How might this impact the teaching and learning of science in

your present and future classrooms?

(2) (Role of Teacher) Both Trackton and Roadville children ‘‘have learned their community’s ways

of using language to get along with the people and to accomplish their social goals. They have

learned to use language to acquire the knowledge their community has judged they should know

at their age, and they have learned appropriate ways of expressing that knowledge’’ (p. 145). As a

science teacher what is your role or how do you teach children science, which is often so

different from their community’s ways of knowing?

(3) (Students’ Strengths) What strengths do students (Trackton and Roadville, and the students in

your placements) have that seem to be ‘‘untapped’’ in the science classroom? What do students

bring to the classroom that teachers are not necessarily using to their students’ advantage in the

classroom, and the science classroom specifically?

(4) (Mainstream Values) Did your ‘‘mood’’ change when the ‘‘townspeople’’ were introduced into

the story? Why or why not? Discuss the last sentence on p. 262, ‘‘For children of Trackton and

Roadville . . . townspeople’s ways . . . are strange.’’ Do you think that school for your students and

ways of doing science are strange to them? Discuss.

(5) (Group Personal Reflections) What did you learn about yourself as a teacher from reading and

participating in this discussion? What did you learn from your group members?

Book Club Meeting & Discussion #3

Heath (pp. 265–376)

(1) (Language, Power, and Science)—‘‘. . . language is power . . . needing to learn to read, write, and

speak . . . has something to do with moving them up and out . . .’’ (p. 265). Discuss this quote in

terms of your students’ need for language in the science classroom. What is the power of language

in the science classroom? How do you help students to acquire this power/this language?

(2) (Dominant Discourses)—For those who have taught, either in a real elementary classroom or

among your peers, how consistent or inconsistent were you in ‘‘judging your students’ habits by

the norms of the interactions of the townspeople/mainstream’’ (p. 266), or even by your own

habits? Did your habits and those of your students become clearer as you taught and assessed

your students? Did you have to reassess what was considered success and failure in your

students’ learning and in your teaching?

(3) (Culturally Relevant Teaching)—I would consider Mrs. Gardner (pp. 286–289) to be a culturally

responsive teacher and sensitive to issues of diversity. What specific things can you do or what

have you done with your students that could be considered culturally relevant teaching? Give

specific examples from your experiences. What do you hope to do as a culturally responsive

teacher as you prepare for microteaching?

(4) (School and Cultural Connections)—Heath talks about the differences between stories in school

‘‘storytelling’’ and at home ‘‘tellin’-a-story’’ (p. 295). How might science at home and science at

school use different conventions and at the same time be appropriate at school but not at home, or

vice versa? How might we add ‘‘science and scientific understandings’’ to the things children do

at home and bring to school? (p. 299)



(5) (Inquiry Teaching)—What is scientific literacy? How do you know if students have it? How can

inquiry be used to build students’ skill in learning science and gaining scientific literacy?

(numbered points on p. 326)

Book Club Meeting & Discussion #4 (Outside of Class)

The final book club reflection paper and presentation are completely up to each group to design as you

like. You are asked to respond or think about the following questions individually, but as a group, it might be

important to share your responses to help write your group reflection paper.

(1) What did you learn about yourself as a teacher from reading and participating in this discussion?

What did you learn from your group members? What do you think are the challenges set before

you as teachers of diverse students?

(2) How was the book club beneficial in helping you to think critically about curriculum

development, teaching, and about issues of diversity? How did the Book connect with you as a

science teacher and/or teacher in general?

(3) Did your ideas about curriculum, teaching, planning, and students change because of the book

club? In what specific ways? What new ideas have you developed about issues of diversity and

teaching science?

(4) In what ways do you see yourself as an agent of change concerning issues of diversity? What are

worries and concerns you have around diversity and curriculum planning/development?

Appendix 3Final Student Information Survey

Diversity

(1) Define diversity.

(2) If I were to visit your classroom during your first year as an elementary teacher, what would I see

in your science classroom and science teaching that there was some influence of diversity in your

science teaching?

(3) How can we assess what students know and understand in science?

(4) What have you learned this semester that has contributed most significantly to your thinking

about teaching science in an urban elementary setting? Give specific example(s) or

assignments(s).

(5) Do you see yourself as a science teacher right now, or identify with being a science teacher? Yes/

No. Explain why/why not.

(6) What are you still curious or unsure about teaching elementary science and teaching diverse

students?

Book Club

(1) What did you learn about yourself as a teacher from reading and participating in these book club

discussions? What did you learn from your group members?

(2) What were some of your biases, assumptions, and stereotypes of Trackton and Roadville

students, and diverse students in general, that came out from interacting in the book club? How

did your views change over the course of the class about issues of diversity in teaching science?

(3) How was the book club beneficial in helping you to think critically about curriculum

development, teaching science, diverse students, assessing students, and issues of diversity in

general? What new ideas have you developed about issues of diversity and teaching science?

(4) How did the Book connect with you as a science teacher and/or teacher in general? What was

relevant for you as a teacher?

(5) Do you see yourself as an agent of change? In what ways do you see yourself as an agent of change

concerning issues of diversity and teaching elementary science? What are worries and concerns

you have around diversity, curriculum planning (development), assessment, and science teaching?

(6) What are worries and concerns you have around diversity, curriculum planning (development),

assessment, and science teaching?

1066 MENSAH


Documents

Book Club