Underprivileged urban mothers' perspectives on science

Angela Calabrese Barton; Toby J. Hindin; Isobel R. Contento; Michelle Trudeau; Kimberley Yang; Sumi Hagiwara; Pamela D. Koch

doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1026

Underprivileged urban mothers' perspectives on science

Angela Calabrese Barton, Toby J. Hindin, Isobel R. Contento, Michelle Trudeau, Kimberley Yang, Sumi Hagiwara, Pamela D. Koch

Teaching and Learning

Montclair State University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to report our findings from a qualitative study intended to develop our understandings of how inner-city mothers perceive science. Using qualitative methodologies our analysis reveals that the mothers' perceptions can be grouped into four categories: perceptions of science as (a) schoolwork/knowledge, (b) fun projects, (c) a tool for maintaining the home and family, and (d) an untouchable domain. After we present these categories we compare our findings across categories to argue that those mothers who had spent time doing science with their children were more likely to have a more personal, dynamic, and inquiry-based view of science. We also argue that mothers perceptions of science were more dynamic when they spoke about situations and contexts that were familiar to them, such as food, nutrition, and child care. We conclude the article with a discussion of the implications our findings have for science education reform.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	688-711
Number of pages	24
Journal	Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Volume	38
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1026
State	Published - Aug 1 2001

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Education

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1026

Cite this

@article{0167376ca6984db1bfcb7beb08fccb37,

title = "Underprivileged urban mothers' perspectives on science",

abstract = "The purpose of this article is to report our findings from a qualitative study intended to develop our understandings of how inner-city mothers perceive science. Using qualitative methodologies our analysis reveals that the mothers' perceptions can be grouped into four categories: perceptions of science as (a) schoolwork/knowledge, (b) fun projects, (c) a tool for maintaining the home and family, and (d) an untouchable domain. After we present these categories we compare our findings across categories to argue that those mothers who had spent time doing science with their children were more likely to have a more personal, dynamic, and inquiry-based view of science. We also argue that mothers perceptions of science were more dynamic when they spoke about situations and contexts that were familiar to them, such as food, nutrition, and child care. We conclude the article with a discussion of the implications our findings have for science education reform.",

author = "Barton, {Angela Calabrese} and Hindin, {Toby J.} and Contento, {Isobel R.} and Michelle Trudeau and Kimberley Yang and Sumi Hagiwara and Koch, {Pamela D.}",

year = "2001",

month = aug,

day = "1",

doi = "https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1026",

language = "English",

volume = "38",

pages = "688--711",

journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",

issn = "0022-4308",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Underprivileged urban mothers' perspectives on science

AU - Barton, Angela Calabrese

AU - Hindin, Toby J.

AU - Contento, Isobel R.

AU - Trudeau, Michelle

AU - Yang, Kimberley

AU - Hagiwara, Sumi

AU - Koch, Pamela D.

PY - 2001/8/1

Y1 - 2001/8/1

N2 - The purpose of this article is to report our findings from a qualitative study intended to develop our understandings of how inner-city mothers perceive science. Using qualitative methodologies our analysis reveals that the mothers' perceptions can be grouped into four categories: perceptions of science as (a) schoolwork/knowledge, (b) fun projects, (c) a tool for maintaining the home and family, and (d) an untouchable domain. After we present these categories we compare our findings across categories to argue that those mothers who had spent time doing science with their children were more likely to have a more personal, dynamic, and inquiry-based view of science. We also argue that mothers perceptions of science were more dynamic when they spoke about situations and contexts that were familiar to them, such as food, nutrition, and child care. We conclude the article with a discussion of the implications our findings have for science education reform.

AB - The purpose of this article is to report our findings from a qualitative study intended to develop our understandings of how inner-city mothers perceive science. Using qualitative methodologies our analysis reveals that the mothers' perceptions can be grouped into four categories: perceptions of science as (a) schoolwork/knowledge, (b) fun projects, (c) a tool for maintaining the home and family, and (d) an untouchable domain. After we present these categories we compare our findings across categories to argue that those mothers who had spent time doing science with their children were more likely to have a more personal, dynamic, and inquiry-based view of science. We also argue that mothers perceptions of science were more dynamic when they spoke about situations and contexts that were familiar to them, such as food, nutrition, and child care. We conclude the article with a discussion of the implications our findings have for science education reform.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0347155033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1026

DO - https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1026

M3 - Article

SN - 0022-4308

VL - 38

SP - 688

EP - 711

JO - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

JF - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

IS - 6

ER -

Underprivileged urban mothers' perspectives on science

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this