The Tomato Pip's Story: Creative Narratives as Bridging Cultural and Science Discourses for Indigenous Students

Authors

  • Lorrin Ruihi Shortland Western Springs College
  • Terry Locke University of Waikato

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2017.11

Keywords:

Science writing, creative narrative, teachers as writers, Indigenous education

Abstract

This article reports on what happened when a Rumaki pūtaiao kaiako (Science) teacher at a New Zealand high school trialled the use of creative narratives with her Year-10 students as a way of developing their understanding of the human digestive system. These students were members of the school's Māori immersion unit, and creative narratives were in part utilised as a bridge between science discourse and the cultural knowledges these students brought to their learning. In this case study, students developed ‘Tomato Pip’ narratives through four versions, which told the story of a tomato pip travelling through the human digestive system. Word-count data based on these versions and from a summative test were analysed and correlations found between test scores and three categories of word-count total (total words, total science words and total discrete science words). A discourse analysis of one student's narratives identified two distinct voices in these texts: the personal narrator and the emerging biologist. Questionnaire and focus-group data indicated that the use of creative narratives was both motivational to these students and effective as a bridge into science discourse mastery. It is argued that the findings have implications for disciplinary literacy theory, Indigenous education and science instruction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

BakhtinM. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Bakhtin, M. Holquist, C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp.269–422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

BereiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

BernsteinB. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised ed.). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

CavagnettoA., HandB., & Norton-MeierL. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.

CloptonJ. (2011). Narrative accounts of research for teaching the processes of science. The American Biology Teacher, 73(1), 8–14.

CohenL., ManionL., & MorrisonK. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.

DirnbergerJ., McCullaghS., & HowickT. (2005). Writing & Drawing in the naturalist's journal: Reviving the tradition of the naturalist's journal as an effective learning tool. The Science Teacher, 72(1), 38–42.

ElbowP. (2000). Everyone can write: essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

GalbraithD. (2009) Writing as discovery. In V. Connelly, A. Barnett, J. Dockrell, & A. Tolmie (Eds.), Teaching and learning writing (pp.5–26). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society (British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6).

GeeJ. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed). London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

GrimbergB., & HandB. (2009). Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students’ written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503–521.

HanrahanM. (1999). Rethinking science literacy: Enhancing communication and participation in school science through affirmational dialogue journal writing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 699–717.

HeighamJ., & CrokerR. (Eds.) (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

HoogeveenM., & van GelderenA. (2013). What works in writing with peer response? A review of intervention studies with children and adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 473–502.

IvankovaN., & CresswellJ. (2009). Mixed methods. In J. Heigham & R. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp.135–161). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

KillingbeckK. (2006). Field botany and creative writing: Where the science of writing meets the writing of science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(6), 26–28.

LockeT. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Continuum.

LockeT. (2015a). Developing writing teachers: Practical ways for teacher-writers to transform their classroom practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

LockeT. (2015b). The impact of intensive Writing Workshop professional development on a cross-curricular group of secondary teachers. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), 137–151.

LockeT., & HawthorneS. (2016). Affecting a high school culture of writing: Issues and dilemmas in participatory action research. In L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh, & M. Riel (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of action research (pp.527–544). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

LockeT., & JohnstonM. (2016). Developing an individual and collective self-efficacy scale for the teaching of writing in high schools. Assessing Writing, 28, 1–14.

LytleS., & Cochran-SmithM. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 447–474.

MartinB., & BrouwerW. (1991). The sharing of personal science and the narrative element in science education. Science Education, 75(6), 707–722.

McKinleyE., & KeeganP.J. (2008). Curriculum and language in Aotearoa New Zealand: From science to pūtaiao. L1 –Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(1), 135–147.

MenterI., ElliotD., HulmeM., LewinJ., & LowdenK. (2011). A guide to practitioner research in education. London, UK: Sage.

MieleE. (2010). A case for narrative writing in science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2), 10–11.

Ministry of Education (2014). Māori language in education. In Education counts: Statistics. Wellington, NZ: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori_education/schooling/6040.

Ministry of Education (2013). Ka Hikitia – Accelerating Success 2013–2017. Ministry of Education, Wellington. Retrieved June 9, 2017, from https://education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Strategies-and-policies/Ka-Hikitia/KaHikitiaAcceleratingSuccessEnglish.pdf.

MollL., AmantiC., NeffC., & GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classroom. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 125–141.

MorganD.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Norton-MeierL., TippettC., HandB., & YoreL. (2010). Professional development in teaching disciplinary writing in the context of international science reform efforts. In G. Troia, R. Shankland & A. Heintz (Eds.), Putting writing research into practice: Applications for teacher professional development (pp.115–153). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

NuthallG. (2007). The hidden lives of learners. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER.

PagnucciG., & Abt-PerkinsD. (1992). The never-making-sense story: Reassessing the value of narrative. English Journal, 81(8), 54–58.

PaltridgeB. (2000). Making sense of discourse analysis. Brisbane, QLD: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

SeraphinK. (2014). Where are you from? Writing towards science literacy by connecting culture, person, and place. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(1), 11–18.

SullivanA.M. (2000). Notes from a marine biologist's daughter: On the art and science of attention. Harvard Educational Review, 70(2), 211–227.

TurkanS., De OliveiraL., LeeO., & PhelpsG. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–30.

YinR. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

YoungM., & MullerJ. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11–27.

Downloads

Published

2017-07-06

How to Cite

Shortland, L. R., & Locke, T. (2017). The Tomato Pip’s Story: Creative Narratives as Bridging Cultural and Science Discourses for Indigenous Students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 47(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2017.11

Issue

Section

Articles