The challenge of altering elementary school teachers' beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 44, NO. 9, PP. 1269–1291 (2007)

The Challenge of Altering Elementary School Teachers’ Beliefs and PracticesRegarding Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Science Instruction

Okhee Lee,1 Aurolyn Luykx,2 Cory Buxton,1 Annis Shaver3

1School of Education, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146

2College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968

3Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH 45314

Received 15 November 2005; Accepted 27 December 2006

Abstract: This study examined the impact of a professional development intervention aimed at

helping elementary teachers incorporate elements of students’ home language and culture into science

instruction. The intervention consisted of instructional units and materials and teacher workshops. The

research involved 43 third- and fourth-grade teachers at six elementary schools in a large urban school

district. These teachers participated in the intervention for 2 consecutive years. The study was conducted

using both quantitative and qualitative methods based on focus group interviews, a questionnaire, and

classroom observations. The results indicate that as teachers began their participation in the intervention,

they rarely incorporated students’ home language or culture into science instruction. During the 2-year

period of the intervention, teachers’ beliefs and practices remained relatively stable and did not show

significant change. Possible explanations for the limited effectiveness of the intervention are addressed, and

implications for professional development efforts are discussed. � 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci

Teach 44: 1269–1291, 2007

Keywords: general science; bilingual education; elementary; classroom research

Teacher professional development is critical to achieving the dual goals of promoting high

academic achievement while simultaneously pursuing educational equity for diverse student

groups. In the case of science education, most elementary teachers are not adequately prepared to

teach science effectively, lacking both science content knowledge and familiarity with inquiry-

based science instruction (Kennedy, 1998a; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998).

Most are also insufficiently prepared to meet the learning needs of linguistically and culturally

diverse students (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). As a consequence of

Contract grant sponsors: The National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Education, and National Institute of

Health; contract/grant number: REC-0089231.

Correspondence to: O. Lee; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20198

Published online 18 April 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

shortcomings in these areas, many teachers have difficulty articulating science content with

students’ linguistic and cultural knowledge, or even understanding the need to do so (Bryan &

Atwater, 2002; Lynch, 2000; Rodrıguez & Kitchen, 2005).

This study is part of a large-scale instructional intervention to promote achievement and

equity in science and literacy for linguistically and culturally diverse elementary students. The

larger project emphasizes the integration of three domains: (a) inquiry-based science instruction,

(b) English language and literacy development, and (c) students’ home language and culture.

The integration of these three domains in the intervention is based on the rationale that

science instruction should articulate science disciplines with students’ linguistic and cultural

experience to make science learning meaningful and relevant, while also promoting English

language and literacy development as part of science instruction for English language learners

(ELLs) (Lee, 2002; Lee & Fradd, 1998).

This particular study examined the process and impact of a professional development

intervention focused on helping teachers incorporate elements of students’ home language and

culture into science instruction. The intervention involved the provision of instructional units and

materials and teacher workshops. The study addressed two questions: (1) what were teachers’

initial beliefs and practices related to incorporating students’ home language and culture into

science instruction? and (2) what was the impact of the professional development intervention on

teachers’ beliefs and practices after their participation for 2 consecutive years?

Literature Review

In recent years, professional development efforts that consider issues of linguistic and cultural

diversity in science education have begun to emerge (see Lee & Luykx, 2006, for a comprehensive

literature review). Some studies examined the impact of professional development interventions

on science teachers’ beliefs and practices with diverse student groups (Ballenger & Rosebery,

2003; Lee, 2004; Rodrıguez & Kitchen, 2005; Warren & Rosebery, 1995). Others examined the

impact of professional development interventions aimed at helping teachers of ELLs promote

science learning and English language development simultaneously (Amaral, Garrison, &

Klentschy, 2002; Hampton & Rodriguez, 2001; Hart & Lee, 2003; Merino & Hammond, 2001;

Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002). Collectively, these studies indicate varying degrees of

success in fostering more effective teaching practices and more positive changes in teachers’

beliefs in teaching science for diverse student groups.

Despite successes reported in some of the studies above, a larger body of literature indicates a

multitude of challenges in addressing the intersection between student diversity and science

instruction. These challenges fall into at least six categories, described next.

First, some of the difficulties reside with teachers’ beliefs about student diversity. Many

teachers are unaware of linguistic and cultural influences on student learning, do not consider

‘‘teaching for diversity’’ as their responsibility, purposefully overlook cultural/racial differences,

accept inequities as a given condition, or resist multicultural views of learning (Bryan & Atwater,

2002; Buxton, 2005). Some teachers also believe that nonmainstream students are less capable,

and ascribe problems associated with learning to students’ parents, communities, or other aspects

of their lives outside of school. Additionally, most teachers assume that ELLs must acquire

English before learning subject matter, although this approach almost inevitably leads these

students to fall behind their English-speaking peers (August & Hakuta, 1997; Garcia, 1999).

Second, effective professional development to address the intersection between science

education and students’ linguistic and cultural diversity requires a more intensive engagement

than is usually feasible in projects involving large numbers of teachers. This is especially the case

1270 LEE ET AL.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching. DOI 10.1002/tea

with elementary teachers who have insufficient knowledge of science content and content-specific

teaching strategies (Kennedy, 1998a), on one hand, and are often inadequately prepared to meet

their students’ learning needs in academically challenging subjects such as science, on the other

hand (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). There are inherent challenges in designing

and implementing integrated professional development—the infusion of multiple, simultaneous

professional development objectives—with elementary teachers of diverse student groups in

science instruction.

Third, multiculturalist science educators argue for the importance of culturally relevant

curriculum materials that recognize diverse cultural perspectives and contributions (National

Science Foundation, 1998; Ninnes, 2000). This idea presents various challenges to science

educators. The knowledge base for science-related examples, analogies, beliefs, and practices

from a range of cultures is limited. Where such a knowledge base exists, instructional materials

may be developed for specific cultural groups (e.g., Aikenhead, 1997; Matthews & Smith, 1994).

However, in educational settings that bring together students from multiple cultural backgrounds,

it is difficult to incorporate knowledge from all these groups into instructional materials without

making the materials too cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise impractical. Additionally,

developing instructional materials that incorporate linguistic and cultural knowledge may run

counter to the desire for standardized materials in large-scale implementation.

Fourth, professional development programs that have succeeded in promoting fundamental

change in teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning nonmainstream students have usually

involved small numbers of committed, volunteer teachers. To reach all students, professional

development opportunities should be made available to a broader array of teachers beyond a self-

selected group of volunteers with interest in ‘‘teaching science for diversity.’’ Including teachers

who do not share this interest in teaching science for diversity would be more representative of

teachers in general, and would provide results with implications for large-scale implementation

(i.e., scale up) of the intervention with diverse student groups (Elmore, 1996). However, including

these ‘‘less-willing’’ teachers in a research study raises its own challenges. These challenges

include the human subjects protection issue of getting disinterested teachers to willingly participate

in a study. Once these teachers do agree to participate, they may be less likely to fully engage in the

project activities. This may lead to difficulties with fidelity of implementation of the intervention.

Fifth, standards-based instruction and accountability policies in a growing number of

states reinforce the mainstream view that linguistic and cultural minorities are expected to

assimilate to the dominant language and culture (Lee & Luykx, 2005). These policy trends give

rise to ideological and conceptual challenges for teachers working with diverse student groups.

To incorporate students’ home languages and cultures into science instruction, teachers need

to develop conceptual understandings about how to articulate science disciplines with

student diversity. However, such understandings are not arrived at easily, and there are few

incentives for teachers to make such efforts in the climate of a one-size-fits-all approach to science

instruction.

Finally, more states are shifting toward ‘‘English-only’’ policies that disregard development

of students’ home language and fail to consider students’ proficiencies in the home language as a

relevant aspect of academic achievement (Garcia & Curry Rodriguez, 2000; Wiley & Wright,

2004). In ‘‘English-only’’ states, science instruction for most ELLs is conducted in English; thus,

students must learn new academic content in a language that they are still acquiring. In addition,

some students may be removed from their classrooms during science instruction to receive

instruction for English language development, and thus may receive little or no science instruction

until they are assessed as English proficient. Furthermore, students may be deemed English

proficient well before they have mastered the academic register of English.

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE 1271


Building on the existing literature on student diversity in science instruction, we implemented

a professional development intervention with the intention of strengthening elementary teachers’

beliefs and practices concerning the articulation of students’ linguistic and cultural diversity with

science instruction (see the Professional Development Intervention section below). At the time we

conceptualized the intervention, the literature on professional development integrating science

instruction and student diversity was just beginning to emerge. The literature indicated that an

integrated approach to professional development that simultaneously addressed science inquiry,

English language and literacy, and students’ home language and culture would provide the greatest

likelihood of success, because the three domains could mutually support one another. Thus, we

decided to include the home language and culture domain in our professional development

intervention that consisted of instructional units and teacher workshops (addressing the first three

challenges described above).

Furthermore, our intervention addressed multiple challenges identified in the literature as

major research interests. First, as a school-wide initiative, we involved all teachers at selected

grade levels. It was our intent to examine the process and impact of an intervention involving

teachers who otherwise might not seek professional development opportunities for science

instruction with diverse student groups as well as those who would seek such opportunities.

Second, building on the emerging literature on scaling up, our research examined challenges in

scaling up an educational innovation with diverse student groups in elementary science education

(for details, Lee & Luykx, 2005). We were interested in understanding how scaling up would affect

the conceptual rigor and fidelity of implementation of an innovation by subjecting it to the realities

of varied educational contexts, especially in multilingual, multicultural, or urban settings. Finally,

our research addressed the professional development intervention within the context of English-

only policies and school accountability measures that did not include science. The results of our

research contribute to the literature on science education in culturally and linguistically diverse

contexts and offer implications for designing and implementing professional development

initiatives to help teachers provide effective science instruction for all students. Additionally, the

results highlight the reality of current educational policies that often fail to provide equitable

learning opportunities for nonmainstream students.

Research Context and Participants

The research was conducted in a large urban school district in the southeast with a student

population displaying a high level of linguistic and cultural diversity. During the 2001 to 2002

school year (the first year of this research), the ethnic makeup of the student population in the

school district was 57% Hispanic, 30% Black (including 7.4% Haitian according to the district

data on students’ home language), 11% White non-Hispanic, and 2% Asian or Native American.

Across the school district, 70% of elementary students participated in free or reduced price lunch

programs, and 25% were designated as limited English proficient (LEP).1

Under the current ‘‘English-only’’ policy regarding ELLs, the state implements English to

Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs focusing on the acquisition of English language

with little attention to the maintenance or development of the home language. Moreover, efforts to

prepare students for high-stakes statewide assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics

dominate classroom instruction. Statewide assessment in science was administered at the fifth

grade level beginning in the 2002 to 2003 school year (the second year of this research), but it did

not yet factor into school accountability.

The six elementary schools were selected to represent student diversity with regard to

students’ ethnic, linguistic, and SES backgrounds, among other factors. A summary of key

1272 LEE ET AL.


features of the schools during the 2001 to 2002 school year is presented in Table 1. Our

intervention was a school-wide initiative in which all teachers from selected grade levels

participated.

Because the study addressed teacher change over 2 consecutive years, only those teachers

who participated during both years are considered. Although 53 teachers participated each year,

43 teachers (21 third grade and 22 fourth grade) from the first year continued their participation

through the second year. All but 2 of the 43 teachers were female. Eighteen reported English as

their native language, 13 reported Spanish, 6 reported both English and Spanish, 1 reported

Haitian Creole, and 5 did not respond to this item. Twenty identified themselves as Hispanic, 9 as

White non-Hispanic, 10 as Black non-Hispanic (including 1 teacher of Haitian descent and 1 from

the Bahamas), 1 as Asian/Multiracial, and 3 reported their ethnicity as ‘‘other.’’ The majority (36)

had ESOL endorsement through college coursework or from district professional development,

and more than half (25) had master’s degrees.

Professional Development Intervention

The major components of the intervention were the provision of instructional units (including

all necessary materials) and teacher workshops. The results of the intervention from the first year

provided insights for our efforts during the second year.

Instructional Units

The intervention focused on two instructional units each for grades three (Measurement and

Matter) and four (The Water Cycle and Weather). These topics were selected for several strategic

reasons. At the start of this line of research in 1995, we could not find existing curriculum materials

that adequately met our needs in working with elementary students from diverse linguistic and

cultural backgrounds. Our participating teachers requested science lessons to guide their

instruction and, thus, we began to develop our own curriculum materials. We initially decided on

the topic of ‘‘matter,’’ because (a) this is a major topic for intermediate elementary grades in both

the national and state standards, (b) this topic lends to science inquiry, and (c) there is a large body

of literature on students’ alternative conceptions about matter (e.g., Lee, Eichinger, Anderson,

Berkheimer, & Blakeslee, 1993). We became aware that for students to succeed in the Matter unit,

Table 1

School demographics

School % Ethnicity % LEP % Low SES

School 1 41 Haitian28 African-American 46 9525 Hispanic

School 2 53 African-American 26 9937 Haitian

School 3 92 Hispanic 47 85School 4 87 Hispanic 19 44School 5 55 White

25 Hispanic 10 1916 African-American

School 6 34 African-American33 Hispanic 1 1632 White



they needed the skills and understandings of measurement; thus, a unit on measurement was

added. Over time, we extended the Matter unit into the Water Cycle and Weather units. The topics

in these four units follow the sequence from basic skills and concepts (measurement, matter), to

variable global systems (the water cycle, weather).

As part of our ongoing research since the mid-1990s, the units have undergone an iterative

process of revision according to the national standards in science (American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 1989; National Research Council, 1996) and English as a Second

Language (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1997). The materials

development team consisted of scientists, science educators, bilingual educators, and district

administrators in science and mathematics. Moreover, a key feature was the involvement of

experienced elementary teachers from our previous research, who contributed to the development

and ongoing revision of the units. Based on their experience and understanding of the overall

research goals, these teachers have provided insights into the linguistic and cultural experiences of

diverse student groups, the instructional appropriateness and adequacy of the science content for

elementary students, and the feasibility of implementation in urban elementary classrooms.

The units are designed to promote both standards-based and inquiry-based science learning

(for detailed accounts, see Lee, Deaktor, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2005). In addition, the units

support students’ English language and literacy development through a variety of reading and

writing activities and through explicit guidance for English proficiency (for detailed accounts,

Hart & Lee, 2003). Furthermore, the units consider students’ linguistic and cultural experiences in

relation to science, which is the focus of this study. For example, both metric and traditional

(English) units of measurement are used to incorporate the prior knowledge of students from

different countries and to help students understand the relation between the two systems. The

lessons make various linkages between scientific phenomena and students’ experiences in their

home and community settings (e.g., cooking, weather conditions typical of the region). The

lessons also include brainstorming activities, narrative vignettes, and trade books to activate

students’ prior knowledge about science topics. The lessons encourage a variety of group

formations, so that students learn to work independently as well as collaboratively.

Teachers’ guides offer strategies to incorporate students’ prior linguistic and cultural

knowledge into science instruction. For example, translations of key terms into Spanish and

Haitian Creole are provided to support communication and comprehension for students who are in

the process of learning English. The teachers’ guides emphasize how teachers can move along the

continuum of teacher-explicit instruction to student-exploratory inquiry for students with various

levels of science experience and different cultural expectations regarding science instruction

(Fradd & Lee, 1999; Lee, 2002). Providing more structure for earlier lessons within each unit,

while later lessons are more open-ended, encourages student initiative and exploration. The level

of complexity of science concepts and the degree of inquiry required from students also increase as

they learn the norms of talk and practice expected in science classrooms and how to articulate such

norms with the cultural norms and practices of their homes and communities.

As we developed the instructional materials, we found that including explicit and

concrete support for students’ home language and culture was more challenging than expected.

Adequate knowledge of how the norms and practices of different cultural groups relate to specific

science topics is lacking (Lee & Luykx, 2006). In those cases in which there is an incipient

knowledge base regarding specific student groups, this information may be relevant to these

groups but not to others, limiting its applicability in culturally heterogeneous classrooms (e.g.,

Aikenhead, 1997; Matthews & Smith, 1994). In addition, there are concerns about fueling

stereotypes, biases, or overgeneralizations about particular student groups on the basis of limited

information. To address these limitations, we provided specific classroom strategies during the

1274 LEE ET AL.


teacher workshops (described below), in an effort to give teachers the background needed to adapt

these strategies to the context of their own classrooms.

Teacher Workshops

Teachers attended four full-day workshops each year on regular school days over the course of

the 2 years. Separate workshops were held for third- and fourth-grade teachers to address specific

issues pertaining to the instructional units for each grade. For the final workshop at the end of the

first year, all third- and fourth-grade teachers met together to foster cross-grade collaboration. The

workshops were designed and conducted by project personnel with expertise in science, literacy,

ESOL, and linguistic and cultural issues in education. Several teachers who had participated in our

previous research (and continued their participation in the current research) took an active role in

demonstrating how the instructional units could be implemented in diverse classroom settings.

The first workshop each year focused on science instruction, particularly how to promote

inquiry-based science (for detailed accounts, see Lee et al., 2005; Lee, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders,

2004). The second workshop focused on incorporating English language and literacy into specific

science lessons (for detailed accounts, see Hart & Lee, 2003). Building on the first and second

workshops, the third workshop focused on how to incorporate elements of students’ home

languages and cultures into science instruction (described below). At the final workshop each year,

teachers shared their feedback on the content and design of the instructional units; their

experiences with classroom implementation of the units; their perceptions of student progress; and

their thoughts on how to integrate science instruction, English language and literacy development,

and students’ home language and culture. The workshops ended with teachers’ suggestions to

further improve the intervention.

The specific emphases within the topic of students’ home language and culture differed

between the first- and second-year workshops. During the first year, the focus was on presenting

theoretical issues of students’ home language and culture, so that teachers would become aware of

these issues and reflect on their personal beliefs and practices in light of these issues. During the

second year, the focus was on familiarizing teachers with actual classroom strategies for

incorporating elements of students’ home languages and cultures, and engaging teachers to revisit

their beliefs and practices in this domain.

The first-year workshop on students’ home language and culture began by focusing on

theoretical issues of home language use, such as the difference between social and academic

registers, potential semantic confusion around particular science terms, and how a lack of English

proficiency can masquerade as a lack of science knowledge. These points were illustrated with

examples from students’ test responses and anecdotes from our classroom observations. The

discussion also emphasized that teachers could enhance ELLs’ comprehension by using key

science terms in the students’ home languages (provided in the instructional units), allowing

students to use their home language among themselves, and encouraging more fully bilingual

students to assist less English-proficient peers.

Discussion turned to theoretical issues about cultural patterns in classroom communication

and interactions based on the cultural congruence literature (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Gay, 2002;

Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Project personnel and teachers shared their knowledge of how different

students might be more or less familiar with the types of participation expected in science

classrooms; what interactional patterns are common among Hispanic, Haitian, African–

American, and White students; how these patterns might foster or limit students’ participation in

science classrooms; and how to balance consideration of culturally based communication and

interaction patterns against the dangers of stereotyping or overgeneralization.



The next part of the workshop addressed cultural influences on science teaching and learning.

Teachers were organized into small groups and asked to discuss possible cultural influences on

their own teaching styles, with the aim that this would combat the tendency to think of ‘‘culture’’ as

something possessed mainly by nonmainstream groups. Then, the entire group of teachers was

presented with examples of cultural influence in students’ written test responses, after which they

returned to their small groups to discuss cultural influences on student learning. Discussion

questions were designed to lead teachers beyond a simplistic conception of culture as ‘‘food, fairs,

and festivals,’’ and to consider the variability they had observed among their students as possibly

having a cultural basis.

During the final phase, teachers worked in small groups on specific lessons from the

instructional units and shared examples of linguistic and cultural experiences drawn from

students’ home and community lives that bore relation to the science lessons. They also discussed

what kind of instructional adaptations they would need to make in order to teach in a more

culturally informed manner, for example, how to capitalize on students’ preference for

cooperation and teamwork while also encouraging them to work individually and independently.

Because the first-year workshop had focused on the theoretical support for incorporating

students’ home language and culture, the second-year workshop focused on actual classroom

strategies and activities for doing so, and on leading teachers toward a more personal, experiential

understanding of the challenges faced by diverse student groups. Teachers were led through group

activities and short readings designed to help them see schooling through the eyes of immigrant

students. Other activities aimed to familiarize teachers with classroom strategies they might use to

promote such students’ classroom participation and encourage students to share aspects of home

culture related to the different science topics.

To start with, project personnel led teachers through activities designed to illustrate how their

own culturally specific knowledge (and, by extension, that of students) could serve as a resource

for science inquiry activities. For example, teachers were asked to think of folk beliefs concerning

the weather and devise experiments to test the validity of such beliefs. Then, they related these

examples to the weather unit they were teaching to their students.

Other exercises illustrated some of the linguistic and cultural barriers frequently faced by

linguistically and culturally diverse students. For example, teachers acted as students in a

‘‘Science Bowl’’ in which some teams were required to answer only in Spanish, others were

required to cede the floor if interrupted, and yet others were prohibited from calling out to the

teacher (mirroring some of the differing interactional norms that guide the behavior of students

from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds).

Teachers also listened to a guest speaker (who was also a member of the research team, but not

known to most teachers) who had migrated to the United States from Haiti as a high school student.

The speaker discussed her schooling both in Haiti and in the United States, and some of the

difficulties encountered by Haitian–Americans in making the transition to a new school, a new

language, and a new culture. Afterward, teachers were invited to ask questions, and some of them

later remarked that the talk had ‘‘opened [their] eyes’’ to a new perspective on the challenges faced

by their students.

At varying points throughout the workshop, teachers were asked to think about and discuss

(first in pairs and then with the whole group) the following questions:

1. On the survey last fall, most of you thought that incorporating elements of students’ home

language and culture into science instruction is important. Can you name any difficulties

you might have doing this, or things that get in the way of doing it?

2. Think of those students whom you feel you know best. Write down their names and look

at the list. Do those students have anything in common? Now think of those students

1276 LEE ET AL.


whom you know least well, and write down their names. Do they have anything in

common?

3. Are there ESOL students in gifted programs in your school? How many, compared to

non-ESOL students? Why do you think that is?

4. What kinds of accommodations did you make for ESOL students during administration

of the statewide assessments? What suggestions do you have for ‘‘closing the gap’’

between state-mandated policy and actual school practice?

At the completion of the workshop, teachers were given information about other resources for

incorporating linguistic and cultural diversity into science instruction, including Web sites with

activities for multicultural science classrooms and contact information for the district office in

charge of assuring compliance with state policies regarding ESOL students.

Data Collection and Analysis

The study involved both quantitative and qualitative results from three data sources: focus

group interviews with teachers, a questionnaire, and classroom observations. Because most

research on language and culture in educational settings employs qualitative methodologies in

small numbers of classrooms to gain an in-depth understanding of the local contexts, thematically

appropriate instruments that use standard procedures to measure instructional practices across a

large number of classrooms were not found. Based on our previous work (Fradd & Lee, 1999; Lee

& Fradd, 1998) and relevant literature (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Gay, 2002; Villegas & Lucas,

2002), our research team developed classroom observation scales and a questionnaire to

quantitatively capture how teachers incorporate students’ home language and culture into science

instruction. Detailed descriptions of the classroom observation guideline for the home language

and culture scales are discussed elsewhere (Luykx & Lee, in press). Because the same constructs

were operationalized and measured in all three instruments (i.e., interview protocol,

questionnaire, and classroom observation guideline), the three data sources enabled triangulation

of the results. Thus, one of the contributions of this study is the development of these instruments

that can be used by others to add a quantitative component to otherwise interpretive studies of the

role of home language and culture in the science classroom.

Data Collection

Focus Group Interviews. The interview protocol opens with a set of questions regarding

teachers’ conceptions about the level of students’ prior knowledge in science, leading to teachers’

conceptions of how students’ culture, home language, and socioeconomic status (SES) influence

science learning. It should be mentioned that the question about SES was not formally addressed

during the first year, but after project personnel noted that teachers kept bringing up SES in

their discussions about student diversity, this question was incorporated into the interview

protocol during the second year. Not only are SES and home culture related concepts (see

Bourdieu’s [1984] notion of ‘‘class cultures’’), teachers also tended to link or conflate them in

interviews.

All third- and fourth-grade teachers in the research participated in focus group interviews at

(a) the initial workshops during year 1, (b) the final workshops of year 1, and (c) the final

workshops of year 2. All teachers from a single grade level within each school (five teachers on

average) made up a group, and the sole science teacher within each grade from the smallest of the

six schools joined a group from another school. Project personnel conducted a total of 30 focus



group interviews: 10 groups (five from third grade and five from fourth grade) interviewed at each

of the three points in time. Interviews lasted from 45 to 90 minutes; all were audiotaped and then

transcribed.

Questionnaire. Opening questions gathered demographic and professional information

about teachers. Then, two sets of items examined teachers’ beliefs about incorporating aspects of

students’ home language and culture into science instruction. Grounded in our previous research

and relevant literature, described above, the construct of students’ home language was measured

by multiple items related to supporting (a) key science terms in students’ home language to

enhance understanding, (b) students’ home language use among students to construct meaning,

and (c) more English proficient students assisting less proficient students through their home

language. The construct of students’ home culture was measured by multiple items related to

incorporating (a) the ways students’ cultural experiences may influence science instruction;

(b) culturally based ways students communicate and interact in their home and community;

(c) students’ lives at home and in the community; and (d) students’ cultural artifacts, culturally

relevant examples, and community resources. Using a 5-point rating system (1¼ very low,

2¼ low, 3¼ average, 4¼ high, 5¼ very high), teachers were asked to rate both their own

knowledge about and the importance of each item. Internal consistency reliability estimates for the

‘‘knowledge’’ and ‘‘importance’’ scales for the home language and home culture constructs

ranged between Cronbach a¼ .85 and ¼.97.

The questionnaire was administered at three points in time: (a) the initial workshops during

year 1, (b) the final workshops of year 1, and (c) the final workshops of year 2. With those few

teachers who had been absent from the workshops, questionnaires were administered individually

at a later time, resulting in a virtually complete response rate.

Classroom Observations. The classroom observation guideline included the following

constructs:

1. Students’ home language2: to what extent does the teacher use students’ home language

to enhance understanding in regular (nonbilingual) classrooms?

2. Diversity of cultural experiences and materials: to what extent does the teacher integrate

students’ cultural experiences and materials in instruction?

3. Culturally congruent communication and interaction3: to what extent does the teacher

communicate and interact with students in culturally congruent ways?

In addition to directions for constructing narrative fieldnotes, the observation scales provided

quantitative ratings of observed teacher behavior using a 5-point rating system (for the scales and

ratings, see Luykx and Lee, in press). The rating system was based on the frequency of

the teacher’s (a) use of students’ home language or cultural experiences and materials and

(b) encouragement of students to use their home language or share their own cultural experiences

and materials. A rating of 1 indicates no use of students’ home language or cultural experiences

and materials during the observed lesson, whereas a rating of 5 indicates substantial use of

students’ home language or use of a variety of cultural experiences and materials by the teacher

and students during the observed lesson.

Training of observers during the 2-year period of the study was carried out with videotapes of

four elementary science lessons that used our instructional units from our previous research. The

videotapes were selected to represent (a) the ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity of the

1278 LEE ET AL.


participating schools, and (b) a wide range of instructional practices relating to student diversity.

Prior to fall 2001 observations, seven team members watched three videotapes, submitted their

ratings to obtain reliability estimates, and discussed the individual ratings and justifications.

Interrater reliability estimates were r¼ 0.74, r¼ 0.84, and r¼ 0.60. Prior to spring 2002

observations, the same procedure was followed again using a fourth videotaped lesson, and the

interrater reliability estimate was r¼ 0.81.

During each year of the study, a single observer visited each teacher twice (one visit for each

unit taught). In general, observers visited the same teachers in the spring as they had in the fall. The

observations were not standardized or controlled, inasmuch as different teachers were observed

teaching different lessons. This limitation has less to do with conceptual grounding of the

classroom observation guideline or methodological rigor than with the inherent difficulties of

conducting large-scale research in varied educational settings (Lee & Luykx, 2005). Each

observation typically lasted 30 minutes to an hour, and produced narrative fieldnotes and numeric

ratings along with justifications for the ratings.

Data Analysis

Because this study focused on overall patterns in teachers’ responses, analysis was conducted

for the entire sample of teachers. Analysis was not conducted at this time into patterns within

subgroups of teachers, such as by grade level, home language, ethnicity, or school site.

Focus Group Interviews. Two researchers coded the data. The initial coding scheme

followed the three dimensions of the interview protocol (i.e., home culture, home language, SES).

Within each dimension, the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used to

identify major themes that emerged from teacher responses across the 30 focus group interviews.

Approximately half of the data were coded by both researchers to establish intercoder agreements,

and the other half of the data were coded by either one researcher or the other. Coding was done

using QSR NUD*IST software to facilitate data management and analysis. Illustrative quotes

representing major themes were identified from the original interview transcripts.

Questionnaire. Changes in teachers’ questionnaire responses across three data points over

2 years were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance tests and partialh2 effect size

magnitudes (Cohen, 1988, pp. 284–288).

Classroom Observations. The two observations from each year were averaged, creating two

data points over 2 years. Then, changes in observation ratings between years 1 and 2 were analyzed

using the same measures as the questionnaire (repeated-measures analysis of variance tests and

partial h2 effect size magnitudes) to provide consistency.

Results

Results are presented in terms of teachers’ initial beliefs and practices, and changes in their

beliefs and practices following the intervention. The results are based on (a) qualitative analysis of

focus group interviews, (b) statistical analysis of teachers’ self-ratings on the questionnaire, and

(c) both qualitative and statistical analysis of classroom observations.



Teachers’ Beliefs

Teachers’ beliefs were examined through focus group interviews and the questionnaire.

Based on the qualitative results of focus group interviews, we discuss teachers’ conceptions of

three distinct but related dimensions of student diversity: home language, home culture, and SES.

For reasons of space, we highlight prominent patterns appearing at the beginning and end of the

intervention. Then, based on the statistical results of the questionnaire, we present teachers’ self-

ratings of their own ‘‘knowledge’’ and ‘‘importance’’ of incorporating home language and culture

into science instruction.

Home Language. Even from the beginning of their participation, most teachers believed it

was important to attend to students’ home language if their students were going to succeed in

learning science. However, many teachers felt frustrated by the difficulties that their ESOL

students faced.

T: I see [how the home language affects students’ science learning] with the support they

get. For example, some of my kids, they go home, and if they don’t understand

something from the homework and they can’t call, let’s say, an older brother, an aunt, or

somebody and all they have is Mom or Dad who doesn’t speak English, how do they get

that help? I can see the frustration. They’ll tell me, ‘I tried, I really tried, but my mommy

couldn’t read it and I couldn’t explain it to her.’ And it’s not that they don’t try, it’s the

language barrier that frustrates them sometimes [School 3, third grade]

At the end of the second year, many of the teachers continued to see their ESOL students as

being at a significant disadvantage in terms of science education as well as in terms of their

education more generally. However, some teachers commented that the disadvantage facing these

students could be overcome through a combination of teacher and parental support, if the parents

‘‘value their children’s education.’’4

T: This child that I told you about that did the project on the earthquake, his mother doesn’t

speak a word of English, but the parents value education tremendously and they provide

those things [referring to this family’s watching the Discovery Channel in Spanish] for

them. So I don’t think it’s a language thing at all. It’s a cultural thing. . . .5[School 3,

fourth grade]

Other teachers had begun to change their beliefs, viewing ESOL students’ home language as

an educational resource, for example, similarities between science terms in Spanish and English:

T: I would show them [ESOL students] how close the word was in Spanish, like

evaporation or evaporacion, and try to relate that, so that they could see that their

Spanish was actually an asset and not something that was hindering them. It worked

very well. [School 4, fourth grade]

Teachers’ perceptions of their own knowledge and the importance of incorporating students’

home language into science instruction are presented in Table 2. The 5-point rating system ranged

from 1¼ very low, to 3¼ average, to 5¼ very high. Even at the beginning of the intervention,

teachers emphasized the importance of incorporating students’ home language into science

instruction (M¼ 4.20). However, teachers’ self-ratings of their own knowledge of this aspect of

instruction (M¼ 3.54) were lower than their ratings of its perceived importance. At the end of the

1280 LEE ET AL.


first year, teachers continued to emphasize the importance (M¼ 4.59), while self-ratings of their

own knowledge (M¼ 3.86) were lower. At the end of the second year of the intervention, there had

been little change. Teachers continued to emphasize the importance (M¼ 4.31), while self-ratings

of their own knowledge (M¼ 3.72) remained lower.

Significance tests of mean scores indicated a significant change for teachers’ perceptions of

the importance (F¼ 5.32, p¼ 0.008). Pair-wise comparisons indicated that there was a significant

difference between the beginning and end of the first year. Analysis yielded a medium effect

magnitude (partial h2). In contrast, there was no significant difference for teachers’ perceptions of

their own knowledge, and analysis yielded a small effect magnitude.

Culture. At the beginning of the intervention, most teacher responses indicated a deficit

perspective on the role of students’ home cultures—nonmainstream students were seen as lacking

prior science knowledge, inquiry skills, and habits of mind necessary for learning science:

T: They don’t tend to question, basically. I’m speaking of Hispanic societies. You are

basically told to do this and you don’t question much. The American society is much

freer and children are taught to question. Even as the child in the home, the Hispanic

households, the child better not question whatever the parent says, and I think that’s

something that’s ingrained in their culture pretty much.6 They don’t question much, so

that science inquiry, ability of questioning, it’s not there. [School 4, fourth grade]

At the end of the second year, many teachers continued to view the influence of students’

culture on science learning as something detrimental to be overcome. Some teachers, however,

became more attentive to how students’ cultural experiences could be connected to science:

T: I try to relate everything we cover so that they really understand it, to what goes on in

their daily environment. If we’re talking about condensation, then it’s their water bottles

that they bring to the classroom. If it’s boiling, then it’s either the frijoles [beans] that are

boiling or the arroz [rice]. [School 4, fourth grade]

Teachers’ perceptions of their own knowledge and the importance of incorporating students’

home culture into science instruction are presented in Table 2. Even at the start of the intervention,

teachers emphasized the importance (M¼ 4.22). However, teachers’ self-ratings of their own

knowledge (M¼ 3.67) were lower than their ratings of its perceived importance. At the end of the

Table 2

Teachers’ beliefs: significance tests (n¼ 43)

Year 1 Pre Year 1 Post Year 2 Post

ConstructTeachers’reports of: M SD M SD M SD F pa

Partial h2

(effect size)h2b

(magnitude)

Language Importance 4.20 .72 4.59 .47 4.31 .72 5.32 .008* .12 mediumKnowledge 3.54 .93 3.86 .87 3.72 .78 2.43 .099 .06 small

Culture Importance 4.22 .60 4.36 .66 4.15 .82 1.60 .20 .04 smallKnowledge 3.67 .82 3.85 .75 3.86 .79 1.56 .21 .04 small

aa< 0.017.bh2 > 0.01 is ‘small’ effect size; h2 > 0.06 is ‘medium’; and h2 > 0.14 is ‘large.’



first year, teachers continued to emphasize the importance (M¼ 4.36), while their self-ratings of

their own knowledge (M¼ 3.85) were lower. At the end of the second year of the intervention,

there had still been little change. Teachers continued to emphasize the importance (M¼ 4.15),

while their self-ratings of their own knowledge (M¼ 3.86) remained lower. Significance tests of

mean scores indicated no significant difference, and analysis yielded small effect magnitudes

(partial h2).

SES. Students’ SES was an emergent theme that teachers repeatedly returned to as they

discussed the role of home language and culture in science instruction. At the beginning of the

project we did not explicitly ask the teachers about the role of SES in science learning, but teachers

themselves brought it into the conversation. Recurring themes involved students’ limited access to

materials and supplies directly related to school science activities (e.g., science fair projects),

resources indirectly related to school activities (e.g., educational TV stations, books, toys, or

games), and middle-class educational leisure activities (e.g., travel, trips to the zoo, the aquarium,

museums, or educational camps). Other themes involved the educational attainment and attitudes

of parents and other family members.

T: When they [the students] were making something, somebody poured the stuff on the

table, and the whole room got silent because they just knew they would be in trouble,

because at home you don’t waste anything, because that’s food for tonight, or that’s

tomorrow’s lunch. So like going home and doing experiments is like, that’s out of the

question because you don’t waste food like that. Here we use rice to measure with. In

some cultures, you can’t bring rice to school to measure because that’s your dinner.

[School 4, third grade]

At the end of the second year, there was still frequent discussion of a perceived ‘‘science

experience gap’’ between poor and middle-class students. Teachers from the two schools with

predominantly middle-class students talked about SES in terms of the advantages that their

students tended to have that prepared them to do well in science, while teachers at the four more

economically disadvantaged schools tended to describe the shortcomings and challenges faced by

their students from low SES backgrounds. On the other hand, there were several instances where

teachers noted that low-SES students might have certain science-related experiences that more

economically favored students lacked.

T: I came from a different setting with more upper, higher economic level students before,

and when I was teaching dirt and rocks and stuff, I think our kids here really know more

about bugs and dirt and things like that because a lot of them have spent time in the

country, rural places, whereas in my previous school they didn’t. [School 3, third grade]

Teachers’ Practices

The two constructs addressed on the questionnaire (i.e., use of students’ home language and

diversity of cultural experiences in science instruction) were also examined through classroom

observations. The mean observation ratings for these two scales across all the observed lessons

each year are presented in Table 3, and the relative frequencies (%) of ratings are presented in

Table 4. Although the study involved both statistical and qualitative results of classroom

observations, this article is limited to the presentation of statistical results. Qualitative results

including an extensive vignette from one observed lesson, ratings of the lesson, and justifications

1282 LEE ET AL.


for such ratings, in addition to detailed conceptual accounts of the constructs of home language

and culture, are reported elsewhere (Luykx and Lee, 2007).

Home Language. During the first year of the intervention, the mean rating for the home

language scale was 2.30. A majority of the observed lessons (63%) rated a 1 on this scale.

According to the classroom observation guideline, a rating of 1 indicates ‘‘the teacher does not

use students’ home language in instruction, and does not allow or invite students to use their home

language.’’ In contrast, several lessons (11%) received a rating of 5, indicating teachers used

students’ home language more substantially for instructional purposes, consistently invited

students to use it, or regularly encouraged more fully bilingual students to assist less English-

proficient students in the home language.

During the second year of the intervention, the mean rating on the home language scale was

2.02. Most of the observed lessons (71%) received a rating of 1—more than did during the first

year of the intervention. In contrast, fewer lessons received a rating of 5 (only 3%) than did during

the first year of the intervention.

Significance tests of mean ratings indicated that there was no significant change in the degree

to which teachers incorporated students’ home language into science instruction during the 2 years

of the intervention. The analysis yielded a small effect magnitude (partial h2).

Culture. During the first year of the intervention, the mean rating for the home culture scale

was 1.84. A rating of 1 was observed in a majority of the observed lessons (60%). According to the

classroom observation guideline, a rating of 1 indicates ‘‘the teacher does not use or mention

diverse cultural experiences or materials in instruction.’’ Almost never did teachers incorporate a

variety of cultural experiences or materials, or encourage culturally or linguistically diverse

students to share their own cultural experiences or materials (thus earning a rating of 4 or 5).

Table 3

Teachers’ practices: significance tests (n¼ 43)

Construct

Year 1 Year 2

FM SD M SD pa Partial h2 effect size) h2b (magnitude)

Language 2.30 2.31 2.02 1.42 .85 .36 .03 smallCulture 1.83 .76 1.83 .76 .00 1.00 .00 no change

aa< 0.017.bh2 > 0.01 is ‘small’ effect size; h2 > 0.06 is ‘medium’; and h2 > 0.14 is ‘large.’

Table 4

Teachers’ practices: frequencies (%) of ratings

Year 1 Ratings (%) Year 2 Ratings (%)

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Languagea 63 10 4 6 11 71 11 10 1 3Culture 60 15 20 4 1 58 18 23 0 1

aThe frequencies do not add up to 100% because this scale was not applied in the case of bilingual classrooms at one

school site.



During the second year of the intervention, the mean rating was 2.02. A majority of the

observed lessons (58%) rated a 1 on this scale. Almost never did lessons receive a rating of 4 or 5.

These results were similar to those during the first year of the intervention.

Significance tests of mean ratings indicated that there was no significant change in the degree

to which teachers incorporated students’ home culture into science instruction during the 2 years

of the intervention. The analysis yielded no effect (partial h2).

Conclusions and Implications

The professional development intervention described in this study was designed to help

elementary teachers simultaneously enhance their teaching of science inquiry, develop their

students’ English language and literacy skills, and incorporate their students’ home language and

culture into science instruction. The rationale for this integrated approach to professional

development was our belief that omitting any of these three domains, each of which is seen as

critical in the literature, would make science less accessible, less meaningful, and less relevant to

students from linguistically, culturally, and socioeconomically nonmainstream backgrounds

(Dilworth & Brown, 2001; McAllister & Irvine, 2000). This article focused specifically on

teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding students’ home language and culture.

Conclusions

The central finding of this study is that throughout the 2-year period of the intervention,

teachers’ beliefs and practices in the home language and culture domain remained relatively

stable and did not show significant change. Even at the beginning of the intervention, many

teachers viewed students’ home language as a potential resource during focus group interviews.

Similarly, they expressed the importance of incorporating students’ home language into science

instruction on the questionnaire. At the end of the 2-year intervention, teachers’ perceptions of

the importance of incorporating students’ home language showed some positive changes.

However, teachers generally did not incorporate students’ home language and did not show

change in their instructional practices. Unlike the case of students’ home language, teachers

revealed a deficit perspective of students’ home culture during focus group interviews, although

they emphasized the importance of incorporating students’ culture into science instruction on the

questionnaire. They generally did not incorporate diverse cultural experiences or materials into

their teaching. They did not show change in either perceptions or practices related to students’

home cultures.

There are a number of plausible explanations for the limited effectiveness of our intervention

in promoting teachers’ use of students’ home language and culture in their science instruction.

Earlier, we addressed six challenges, pointed out in the literature, that we seemed likely to face in

our attempts to promote teacher change. Here, we discuss each of these challenges in terms of how

they were manifested in our intervention and how they impeded significant change in teachers’

beliefs and practices.

The first challenge related to teachers’ beliefs about the place of diversity in science and

science education (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Buxton, 2005). Our first-year professional

development efforts focused on general beliefs and conceptual issues about diversity and

science, followed by actual classroom teaching strategies and activities during the second-year

efforts. However, we became increasingly aware that all of these issues are subtle and complex,

and that helping teachers learn to connect students’ language and culture to science goals and

objectives requires a wide variety of supportive structures. In popular culture as well as in schools,

1284 LEE ET AL.


science is portrayed as ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘acultural.’’ Some teachers, therefore, seemed to feel

conflicted, indifferent, or even resistant when it came to infusing students’ language and culture

into their science instruction.

Second, there is a good deal known about features of effective professional development

programs (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Kennedy, 1998b; Loucks-Horsley

et al., 1998). Such programs tend to have significant content area focus with ongoing support. In

our intervention, the 1-day workshop each year dedicated to linguistic and cultural issues may

have deepened teachers’ awareness of the complexities and consequences of linguistic and

cultural factors, but apparently was not sufficient to produce a major change in their beliefs and

practices. Furthermore, we observed throughout the research that many of the participating

teachers were uncertain about their own science content knowledge. Making links between

science content and students’ home culture or prior knowledge requires teachers to go beyond the

prepared curriculum, and teachers whose own grasp of scientific phenomena is shaky may be less

likely to make such creative connections or to do so effectively and in a scientifically accurate

manner. For a large-scale, ‘‘integrated’’ professional development intervention, such as ours, it is a

challenge to provide adequate support for teacher change in each domain of the intervention, and

science knowledge was definitely a domain in which many teachers needed support. The apparent

need for ongoing support in effective professional development is often in conflict with available

resources, including teachers’ time. This is especially true in scaling-up efforts to include

nonvolunteer teachers across multiple schools.

Third, the literature suggests that the availability and use of culturally relevant curricular

materials is central to teachers’ application of students’ home language and culture in science

instruction (Aikenhead, 1997; Matthews & Smith, 1994; National Science Foundation, 1998;

Ninnes, 2000). The primary reason we created our own curricular materials was the lack of

existing materials that simultaneously emphasized science inquiry, English language and literacy,

and students’ home language and culture. As we discussed in the instructional units section above,

although our materials did incorporate certain linguistic and cultural elements, the curricular

support appears not to have been as extensive as was required to foster teacher change. Most

participating teachers claimed that having such features in the instructional units was beneficial;

yet classroom observations showed only occasional instances of teachers making use of these

features in their science instruction.

Fourth, focusing the intervention on school-wide implementation by grade level meant that

we would be including teacher participants who were not self-selected volunteers. School-wide

professional development presents both advantages and limitations. On the one hand,

participation of all teachers from a given school or grade level in professional development

activities allows teachers to develop common goals, to share instructional materials, and to

exchange ideas and experiences arising from a common context (Garet et al., 2001). It can also

help build social capital and institutional memory that can promote sustainability of change and

buffer against the destabilizing effects of teacher or administrator turnover (Bryk & Schneider,

2002). On the other hand, school-wide implementation inevitably leads to the inclusion of teachers

who are not interested in participation, unlike programs comprised completely of volunteer

teachers seeking opportunities for professional growth (Elmore, 1996; Supovitz & Zeif, 2000).

Thus, our professional development efforts were constrained by the relatively large-scale

implementation and the inclusion of some teachers who did not fully ‘‘buy into’’ the goals of

the intervention. Furthermore, it is likely that teachers’ collective reflection on and discussion of

the intervention was limited to the workshops themselves; providing a space for continued

reflection back in their respective schools might have helped the professional development to

‘‘take root.’’



Fifth, the policy context of high-stakes assessment and accountability created major

challenges to our intervention. The teachers were under a great deal of pressure to cover clearly

delineated standards and benchmarks in reading, writing, and mathematics. Compared to these

core subjects, science did not factor into school accountability. Furthermore, state science

standards and benchmarks made no mention of students’ home language and culture and, thus,

infusing home language and culture into science instruction was even further removed from the

accountability requirements that our teachers faced. These policy demands tend to be felt much

more strongly in urban schools where the threat of accountability-related sanctions is more serious

(Spillane, Diamond, Walker, Halverson, & Jita, 2001).

Finally, accountability challenges were magnified by other state policies, such as

the emphasis on moving ELLs into English-only instruction as quickly as possible, with

the corresponding lack of institutional concern for maintenance or development of students’ home

languages. The participating teachers sometimes used the knowledge they had gained from the

language and culture workshops to point out the added challenges facing ESOL students in

attempting to master science content in a second language. It could have been the case that the

workshops made teachers more aware of (and thus more frustrated with) the English-only

language policy and the constraints that such policy placed on their ability to address learning

issues in their students’ home languages. At the same time, the explicit mandate of the school

district was to minimize use of students’ home language in most instructional contexts (Luykx,

Lee, & Edwards, in press). Thus, the intervention depended on teachers’ rejection—not only in

word but in deed—of the district’s stated policies. Even for teachers who may have been

sympathetic to the project goals with regard to students’ home language, this is not a small request.

The policy context of this study, characterized by high-stakes accountability requirements

and an English-only policy, might well have discouraged teachers from more fully considering

students’ home language and culture in science instruction. Even those teachers who were from

racial/ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds similar to those of their students failed to make

significant use of students’ home language and culture. For example, many of the teachers at the

two predominantly Hispanic schools spoke Spanish, but did not use Spanish for instructional

purposes once their students were minimally proficient in English. In some ways, these teachers

could be seen as a best-case group in terms of their ability to both appreciate and implement the

home language and culture domain of our intervention. That they (and we) were unsuccessful in

this regard speaks to the magnitude of challenges we faced in promoting the use of home language

and culture in teachers’ science instruction.

Implications

Given the findings of our study we are left with two overarching questions. First, is an

emphasis on students’ home language and culture necessary, valuable, or even worthy of attention

as part of attempts to improve the science learning experiences of students from nonmainstream

linguistic and cultural backgrounds? Both the relevant research literature (for a comprehensive

review, see Lee & Luykx, 2006) and our own experiences in linguistically and culturally diverse

classrooms attest to its importance. Second, how can we better help facilitate teachers’

understanding and application of students’ home language and culture as a critical component of a

larger framework for making science accessible, meaningful, and relevant to all students?

We see two possible ways forward in addressing the second question. The first approach is to

keep students’ home language and culture as an explicit component of the intervention and to work

on refining how this component is enacted through professional development. For example, one

could diversify or tailor the focus of teacher workshops to the specific challenges faced by

1286 LEE ET AL.


different groups of teachers. In this approach, all teachers might participate in the same activities

for learning to teach inquiry-based science and to integrate English language and literacy into

science instruction. Then they would break out into subgroups to study specific aspects of

integrating home language and culture into science instruction. Examples of subgroup topics

might include: comparisons of science instruction between Haiti and U.S. schools, the daily

routines and funds of knowledge of students from low SES households, or comparisons of key

science terms in Spanish and English and strategies for using cognate terms in both languages to

help ELL students activate their prior knowledge.

The purpose of such break-out groups would be to infuse just a single aspect of home language

and culture into teachers’ thinking about science instruction. If such content were introduced in

smaller chunks, in greater depth, and in ways to target aspects of language and culture relevant to

each teacher’s students more specifically, teachers might be more willing and more able to change

their practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity. If teachers were to have some success in

implementing one new practice, they might be willing to attempt other new practices over time.

Additionally, modifications to the instructional materials could support this approach, by

including language and culture ‘‘feature boxes’’ that present specific activities for linking science

content to students’ home language and culture. Such explicit approaches to the infusion of home

language and culture can be supported by existing research on the possibility that changes in

teacher practices may precede changes in teacher beliefs under certain circumstances (Borko &

Putnam, 1996).

A second approach would be to replace explicit professional development based on

incorporating students’ home language and culture with a more implicit integrated component.

This implicit approach would foreground topics and strategies that teachers readily believe can

enhance student performance on standards-based accountability measures (e.g., English language

and literacy development or science inquiry), while backgrounding students’ home language and

culture using a funds-of-knowledge approach (Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). For

example, curriculum materials on measurement could introduce questions about weight in terms

of measuring grocery items, volume in terms of taking medicine, length in terms of measuring out

a soccer field or a basketball court, or temperature in terms of body temperature and illness. Having

these conversations with students would allow teachers to tap into their students’ prior knowledge

and lived experiences outside of school. Such informal experiences with science are deeply

connected to students’ home language and culture due to the context in which the experiences took

place, even without explicitly exhorting teachers to attend to students’ language and culture.

Presenting culturally sensitive instructional strategies in these terms might avoid the resistance

that some teachers displayed toward addressing issues of ‘‘diversity.’’

Debriefing and building on such strategies as part of the professional development workshops

could further highlight the value of attending to home language and culture. Another positive

aspect of this approach is that it does not essentialize culture. For example, instead of claiming that

Haitian students or Hispanic students have certain experiences or certain ways of relating to

science, a funds-of-knowledge approach would allow for inclusion of a range of experiences that

individual students have had with science-related topics at home and at play. Such an approach

begins to shift the underlying theoretical model from one of static cultural attributes to more fluid

theories of identity formation and ‘‘culture as practice’’ (Gonzalez, 2004; Gutierrez & Rogoff,

2003). Patterns or themes observed across individuals can be seen as emergent and socially

constructed, rather than as culturally determined.

In closing, relationships among culture, language, and science learning are subtle and difficult

for the nonspecialist to grasp, as is the culture concept itself (Atkinson, 1999; Holland & Quinn,

1987; Lipka & Mohatt, 1998; Liston & Zeichner, 1996). Yet to be successful in reaching all



students, teachers must learn to make connections between students’ lived experiences and the

science knowledge for which the students are held accountable. As this study shows, creating the

context in which such connections can be made through professional development is a complex

issue fraught with challenges. We must learn from our failures as well as from our successes.

Careful examination of the challenges our intervention faced will provide important insights for

future interventions of this kind. Further large-scale studies of the relations among policy contexts,

teacher beliefs and practices, and student learning will contribute to designing effective

professional development approaches that promote science and literacy achievement for all

students.

Notes

1‘‘Limited English proficient (LEP)’’ is the term used by the state to designate English language

learners (ELLs) who are in English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs. These terms are

used interchangeably in this paper.2‘‘Students’ home language’’ in this context refers to languages other than English (most commonly

Spanish, but also Haitian Creole in the case of two of the six schools). This scale was not applied in the case

of two bilingual classrooms at one school site.3This scale is not graded on a rating system, because the corresponding behaviors were not easily

reduced to a numerical scale. Observers were instructed to provide narrative descriptions of any observed

classroom activity relevant to this construct.4Supposed lack of interest in their children’s education is a common stereotype attributed to (and hotly

contested by) immigrant parents. Although lack of parental involvement is indeed a problem in schools

serving immigrant or low-SES students, it is largely attributable to institutional barriers to parents’

participation (e.g., lack of translation services at parent–teacher meetings, or the scheduling difficulties

faced by parents working two or more jobs) and differing cultural expectations about parents’ proper role

vis-a-vis the school, rather than parents’ lack of interest in their children’s education (Valdes, 1996).5Interestingly, although teachers often responded in terms of SES when asked about the effect of

students’ home culture on their science learning, this teacher interpreted as ‘‘cultural’’ an (arguably

economic) difference in the sorts of resources that parents provided to students—failing to note that cable

television was a luxury that was out of reach for many of the families whose children they taught.6Although her reference to ‘‘their culture’’ seems to suggest otherwise, the teacher is herself Hispanic.

The authors thank Jane Sinagub for her valuable feedback to draft versions of the

manuscript. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this

publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position, policy, or

endorsement of the funding agencies.

References

Aikenhead, G.S. (1997). Toward a First Nations cross-cultural science and technology

curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217–238.

Amaral, O.M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase

achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 213–239.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625–654.

Au, K.H., & Kawakami, A.J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In: E. R. Hollins, &

J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base.

(pp. 5–24). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

1288 LEE ET AL.


August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority

children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ballenger, C., & Rosebery, A.S. (2003). What counts as teacher research? Investigating the

scientific and mathematical ideas of children from culturally diverse backgrounds. Teachers

College Record, 105, 297–314.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In: D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London:

Routledge.

Bryan, L.A., & Atwater, M.M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for

science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821–839.

Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B.L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

Buxton, C. (2005). Creating a culture of academic success in an urban science and math

magnet high school. Science Education, 89, 392–417.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Dilworth, M.E., & Brown, C.E. (2001). Consider the difference: Teaching and learning in

culturally rich schools. In: D.V. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching. (4th ed. pp.

905–950). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational

Review, 66, 1–26.

Fradd, S.H., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students

from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28, 14–20. 42.

Garcia, E.E. (1999). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge.

(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Garcia, E.E., Curry, & Rodriguez, J. (2000). The education of limited English proficient

students in California schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 15–35.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American

Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,

53, 106–116.

Gonzalez, N. (2004). Disciplining the discipline: Anthropology and the pursuit of quality

education. Educational Researcher, 33, 17–25.

Gutierrez, K.D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or

repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19–25.

Hampton, E., & Rodriguez, R. (2001). Inquiry science in bilingual classrooms. Bilingual

Research Journal, 25, 461–478.

Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and

literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 475–

501.

Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Kennedy, M.M. (1998a). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of

Research and Science Teaching, 35, 249–263.

Kennedy, M.M. (1998b). Form and substance in inservice teacher education. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.



Lee, O. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In: W.G.

Secada (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 26 , pp. 23–69). Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association.

Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with

English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 65–93.

Lee, O., Deaktor, R.A., Hart, J.E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional

intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically

diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 857–887.

Lee, O., Eichinger, D., Anderson, C.W., Berkheimer, G.D., & Blakeslee, T.C. (1993).

Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 30, 249–270.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S.H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language

backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 12–21.

Lee, O., Hart, J., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based

science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 41, 1021–1043.

Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in science instruction

with nonmainstream elementary students. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 411–

438.

Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research

agenda. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lipka, J., & Mohatt, G.V. (1998). Transforming the culture of schools: Yup’ik Eskimo

examples. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1996). Culture and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional

development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Luykx, A., & Lee, O. (2007). Measuring instructional congruence in elementary science

classrooms: Pedagogical and methodological components of a theoretical framework. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 44, 424–447.

Luykx, A., Lee, O., & Edwards, U. (in press). Lost in translation: Negotiating meaning in a

beginning ESOL science classroom. Educational Policy.

Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Matthews, C.E., & Smith, W.S. (1994). Native American related materials in elementary

science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 363–380.

McAllister, G., & Irvine, J.J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher

education. Review of Educational Research, 70, 3–24.

Merino, B., & Hammond, L. (2001). How do teachers facilitate writing for bilingual learners

in ‘‘sheltered constructivist’’ science? Electronic Journal in Science and Literacy, 1.

Moll, L.C., Armanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:

Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–

141.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation

and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1998). Infusing equity in systemic reform: An implementation

scheme. Washington, DC: Author.

1290 LEE ET AL.


Ninnes, P. (2000). Representations of indigenous knowledges in secondary school science

textbooks in Australia and Canada. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 603–617.

Rodrıguez, A., & Kitchen, R.S. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing prospective mathematics and

science teachers to teach for diversity: Promising strategies for transformative action. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Spillane, J.P., Diamond, J.B., Walker, L.J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school

leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an

undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 918–940.

Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and

language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

39, 664–687.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Supovitz, J.A., & Zeif, S.G. (2000). Why they stay away. Journal of Staff Development, 21,

24–28.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K-12

students. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the

curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20–32.

Warren, B., & Rosebery, A.S. (1995). Equity in the future tense: Redefining relationships

among teachers, students, and science in linguistic minority classrooms. In: W.G. Secada, &

E. Fennema, & L.B. Adajian (Eds.). New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 298–

328). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wiley, T.G., & Wright, W.E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education

policy and politics in the ‘‘age of accountability’’. Educational Policy, 18, 142–168.



Documents

The challenge of altering elementary school teachers' beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction