What We Know

Given the diversity of Ohio’s population, educators need to provide exemplary science education for all students. Students with unique experiences, abilities, language proficiencies and cultural attributes fill classrooms, creating diverse communities within schools to provide the scientifically literate and technologically competent citizens demanded by today’s society. High-quality education in the sciences has become a national priority. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) and the National Research Council (1996) emphasize this need by advocating scientific literacy for all students. Historically, some sub groups of students have been underserved by science education. Underserved students, such as females, students from ethnically diverse backgrounds, students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency, have traditionally not received encouragement and equal opportunity to pursue science (National Research Council). The Ohio Academic Content Standards K -12 Science reiterate the goal of scientific literacy for all students, despite differences in gender, physical and/or learning disabilities, language proficiency or ethnicity.

What is equity in science education?

Understanding the concept of equity requires highlighting the difference between equality and equity. Equality refers to sameness or uniformity, while equity refers to justness or fairness. Because each student comes to science class with a unique set of characteristics, teaching them equally is not necessarily being equitable. Rather, equity is achieved when sub-groups of students cannot be identified based upon differences in access to, opportunities in, and/or outcomes of science education (Kahle, 1998). An equitable science education system has:

• high expectations for all students to achieve to their fullest potential or to perform at levels specified by the system’s performance standards;

• a commitment through its allocation of resources to the equitable achievement by all culture- and gender-based student populations;

• equal opportunity for participation of diverse groups, particularly those groups traditionally underrepresented in the system;

• accessibility to all stakeholders demonstrating sensitivity to individual variation; and

• policies and procedures for distributing and utilizing resources in ways that narrow any identified differences between subgroups (Kahle, 1998).

What are the current equity concerns in science education?

Research has identified areas where sub-groups of students have not had equal access or equitable opportunities in science and have not demonstrated equal outcomes. In the following section, equity concerns are reviewed for student sub-groups articulated in the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council).

Access: A teacher’s understanding of the culture of a student, beliefs about a student’s interests and abilities, and expectations of performance may affect access to quality science education. Understanding a student’s culture allows teachers to provide relevant examples of terms and concepts that help to facilitate student construction of new knowledge (Velez-Ibanez & Greenberg, 1992). Ladson-Billings (1995) claims that teachers’ beliefs about student ability are as important, if not more important, than the ethnicity of the teacher. Atwater (1995) agrees, claiming that high expectations for all students are vital to providing quality science education and Guild (1994) concurs that teacher beliefs about students’ ability to succeed in science may limit the access of various sub groups of students. If a teacher believes that science is more appropriate for white males, access is limited for other sub-groups of students (Schibeci, 1986). The effect of reduced access is that students from underrepresented sub-groups encounter lower expectations, are offered fewer educational opportunities and are not expected to exhibit higher-level thinking skills (Krueger & Sutton, 2001).

Opportunities: Equity concerns about opportunities to learn science involve the way science is taught, the number and types of courses available, and the support structures and resources available in the community, district and school. Research suggests that teachers need to be aware of the experiences that students bring to school. Experiences that may be dramatically different from those of the teacher can contribute to student learning. For example, incorporating specific aspects of Native American culture and experience, such as community interaction, respect for tasks and shared control of the classroom, will enhance learning (Estrin & Nelson-Barber, 2004). Bert and Bert (1992) report that education, in general, ignores the usual learning styles of Native American students, compelling them to try to learn content as well as adjust to classroom and assessment practices that are incongruent with their culture. Trowbridge, Bybee and Powell (2000) found that a cooperative learning environment with real-world experiences and opportunities for verbal expression enhance science teaching and learning for Latinos. In a study conducted in urban schools across Ohio, Kahle, Meece and Scantlebury (2000) found that inquiry instruction significantly improved science achievement of eighth-grade African American students. 

Students with physical and/or learning disabilities and English language learners have unique needs in science, as well. Trowbridge et al. stress that individual needs may require physical classroom modifications, access to particular types of technology, additional support staff, language support, extra time on assignments, group work as well as opportunities to work alone, use of different materials, or variation in types and levels of assessment. Teachers should provide students with disabilities opportunities to use the materials of science and to experience science as a process. Likewise, accommodations to support English language learners may be needed. Rodriguez (1998) states that students who do not speak English at home usually are unfamiliar with the most basic terms, yet often are expected to master scientific terminology quickly. Schools can accommodate English language learners by providing teachers or teacher aides who are proficient in the language spoken by the students in a particular classroom, using science texts and other curricular materials that are available in a variety of languages, and providing more time as well as visual resources.

Gender-based differences in opportunities to learn in science classes persist. Lee, Marks and Byrd (1994) identified inequities in chemistry classes called “gender-related incidents” (i.e., joking about a girl’s high score on a science test). They found that the number of gender-related incidents increased as the ratio of boys to girls increased in a class. They hypothesize that these subtle and varied incidents affect girls’ confidence and participation. Similarly, Gaskell (1995) identified a factor called “gender lore.” An example of gender lore is the myth that boys are better at math and girls are better at languages. Gaskell’s study suggests that the acceptance of gender lore affects girls’ confidence and performance in physical science classes.

Outcomes: Many scholars have reported gaps in science achievement by student sub-groups. Rodriquez(1998), Campbell (1991) and Arambula-Greenfield (2000) found that boys consistently outscored girls on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science tests between 1970 and 1992. Rodriquez and Campbell also found similar gaps between boys and girls in their analyses of other tests of science reasoning and achievement, including the ACT and SAT. Arambula-Greenfield notes that the gap in science achievement between boys and girls, while absent or small at fourth-grade, widens as students progress through school.

The science achievement gap between boys and girls, however, varies by student sub group. Campbell’s analysis of Asian-American and European-American 1990 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners found that European-American girls scored significantly lower than the other groups on a mix of variables called “technical orientation.” He postulates that European-American girls are limited in both their educational aspirations and their aggressiveness in seeking opportunities in science classes. Conversely, middle school girls in low income, urban schools may have higher science achievement than their male peers. Pollard (1993) and Kahle et al. (2000) found that urban, African-American girls had higher science achievement than the African-American boys in their classes. Kahle et al. found that African- American boys indicated that their friends might reject or ridicule them for showing interest and success in science. African-American girls, on the other hand, said that their parents and their friends supported their interest in science. These findings may help to explain why African- American girls may attain higher science achievement levels than do African-American boys. In contrast, Arambula-Greenfield found little or no gap in science achievement between boys and girls for ethnic groups studied in Hawaii. For students in Hawaii, Arambula-Greenfield suggests that ethnicity has a greater impact than gender on science achievement.

Gaps also exist in male and female students’ attitudes toward science, affecting their willingness to participate in science classes and pursue science career options. In attempting to understand why boys out-perform girls, Jegede and Okebukola (1992) found that friends of girls did not expect them to do well in science, yet almost all boys responded the opposite way. They also found that less than one-quarter of the girls surveyed felt that they studied science in order to pursue a science-related career. Research indicates that gender and many racial/ethnic differences are due to cultural, social and environmental factors.

What instructional practices promote equity?

Many equity concerns can be addressed through daily instructional practices. Trowbridge et al. make a number of research-based recommendations for effective classroom practices that promote equity. These practices are reviewed below.

Supporting cooperative learning: The use of cooperative learning groups has been shown to increase student ownership of learning and improve outcomes for underserved groups of students. Freedman (2002) found that participating in cooperative groups during scientific investigations had positive outcomes in attitudes and achievement levels for girls. Rowe (1978) documented how the lack of out-of-school experiences affected girls’ performances in active investigations. She found that providing opportunities for both African-American and European- American girls to become familiar with the common tools and equipment of science improved their achievement. Kahle and Lakes (1983) support Rowe’s conclusion with their analysis of out-of-school science experiences by gender. Similarly, in a study of 10th-grade science students in Australia, Rennie (1990) found that small learning groups were beneficial in motivating girls to participate in science class. Researchers caution that teachers should monitor the dynamics among students during small group activities when mixed-gender groups are used. It is likely that a boy may take the leadership position and that the boys will not involve girls in the group, reducing opportunities for girls to fully participate.

Teaching science concepts by doing authentic scientific inquiry: According to the National Science Education Standards and the Ohio Science Academic Content Standards, teaching science through inquiry provides opportunities to accommodate all students as they strive to reach their full potential. Research indicates that inquiry-based instruction and the use of active investigations in science enhance learning outcomes for students from underserved subgroups. In their study of urban African-American students in Ohio, Kahle et al. (2000) found that frequent inquiry-based instruction positively influenced science achievement and attitudes. Rosebery, Warren and Conant (1990) found that authentic scientific inquiry was a successful instructional method for English language learners. (For more information on teaching science through inquiry, see Scientific Inquiry.)

Using extended wait-time: Wait time is the length of pause that follows a question by a teacher. Rowe (1974) analyzed more than 800 taped science lessons and found that, on average, a teacher asks a question two or three times per minute. If a reply is not started within one second, teachers typically rephrase the question or call on another student. Rowe and others have found that increased wait-time encourages more students to participate, particularly those who lack confidence in doing science, decreases the number of “I don’t know” responses and leads to longer, more thoughtful responses to questions. Tobin and Garnett (1987) found that extended wait time also may help control participation of students who dominate science classes because they frequently volunteer answers. These “target students” often may assist with demonstrations and dominate access to equipment and supplies during laboratories. Teachers can encourage all students to participate by using extended wait-time, by carefully monitoring whom they call upon, and by refusing to recognize those who shout out responses. 

Implementing a variety of assessment strategies: The importance of using varied types of assessments to measure student learning in science cannot be underestimated. Both the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is offered every four years, and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which was administered in 1995, used short answer items based on actual curricula. Results show that boys outperform girls on NAEP and on TIMSS tests and that majority students outperform minority students on NAEP tests. However, in 2000 a new international test, Performance Indicators of Student Achievement (PISA), used a different format. PISA science items are developed from news articles about real-life issues in science. Interestingly, gender differences found in NAEP and TIMSS scores disappeared in the PISA assessment. Likewise, Doran, Lawrenz and Helgeson (1994) report that girls perform as well as boys on assessments that measure science process skills, indicating that assessing science learning using manipulatives might better demonstrate girls’ learning.

In addition to using varied types of assessment, research shows that careful analysis of test taking patterns is important. Freund and Rock (1992) analyzed the effect that random pattern-marking had on NAEP’s 1990 science and mathematics test scores. Pattern-marking is the practice of completing an answer document without regard to the question but just marking haphazardly or creating pictures by connecting the dots. They found that boys, compared to girls, are more frequently identified as pattern-markers. Additionally, they found that African-American and Hispanic-American students tend to exhibit this behavior more often than white students. Boone (1998) analyzed Ohio student achievement scores and found that subgroups of students have different patterns in test completion. All girls and African American students completed significantly fewer items near the end of the test. He recommends mixing items by difficulty throughout the test and using statistical analyses that enable teachers to not count missing answers as incorrect. (For more information on assessment in science, see Classroom Assessment in Science Education.)

Providing equal opportunities and maintaining high expectations: Teacher beliefs and expectations are key components to student success in science. Science teachers typically hold lower achievement expectations for girls than for boys (Worrall and Tsarna, 1987). In a synthesis of research, Kahle, Parker, Rennie and Riley (1993) report that science teachers acted and responded differently to boys than girls in ways that affected opportunities to learn. They noted that teachers assisted girls in using scientific equipment while instructing boys to figure out the equipment on their own.  Similarly, teachers often have different levels of expectations for European- and Asian-American students than they do for students from other sub-groups (Atwater; Rodriquez). Providing equal opportunities also may involve adjusting instruction to accommodate students with physical or learning disabilities. Educational technology can assist teachers in providing individualized and appropriate instruction for such students. For instance, Kelley, Finley, Koehler and Picard (2001) studied the implementation of science projects involving technology for visually impaired elementary and secondary students. The projects, designed to increase learning and independence, began with teacher direction and guidance and gradually shifted to student collaboration and independent learning. Their findings suggest that visually impaired students benefit from peer support, peer pairing and individualized instruction.