Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 33-56

  Olitsky, Stacy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY; INTERACTION RITUALS; LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; STUDENT ENGAGEMENT;

EDUCATION; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; NATURAL SCIENCES; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 33846640102     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20128     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Barton, A.C. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 899-917.
2. Barton, A.C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 871-889.
3. Brickhouse, N.W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 421-458.
4. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Durkheim. (1912/1965). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.
6. Elmesky, R. (2001). Struggles of agency and structure as cultural worlds collide as urban African American youth learn physics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2001, Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 3337.
7. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
8. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Random House.
9. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10. Kurth, L.A., Anderson, C.W., & Palincsar, A.S. (2001). The case of Carla: Dilemmas of helping all students to understand science. Science Education, 86, 287-313.
11. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
13. Loman, L. (2005). Successful practices in urban middle school science teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology.
14. Olitsky, S. (2005). Social and cultural capital in science teaching: Relating practice and reflection. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 279-297). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
15. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Zimmermann, A., Bryant, N., & Davis, C. (2002). Lessons on/from the dihybrid cross: An activity theoretical study of learning in coteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 253-282.
16. Seiler, G. (2002). A critical look at teaching, learning, and learning to teach science in an inner city, neighborhood high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
17. Tobin, K. (2005). Dialectical perspectives on urban science education: Transforming the future while learning from the past. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 305-320). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
18. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225-246.