“Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science

Recent curriculum design projects have attempted to engage students in authentic science learning experiences in which students engage in inquiry-based research projects about questions of interest to them. Such a pedagogical and curricular approach seems an ideal space in which to construct what Lee and Fradd referred to as instructional congruence. It is, however, also a space in which the everyday language and literacy practices of young people intersect with the learning of scienti®c and classroom practices, thus suggesting that project-based pedagogy has the potential for con ̄ict or confusion. In this article, we explore the discursive demands of project-based pedagogy for seventh-grade students from nonmainstream backgrounds as they enact established project curricula. We document competing Discourses in one project-based classroom and illustrate how those Discourses con ̄ict with one another through the various texts and forms of representation used in the classroom and curriculum. Possibilities are offered for reconstructing this classroom practice to build congruent third spaces in which the different Discourses and knowledges of the discipline, classroom, and students' lives are brought together to enhance science learning and scienti®c literacy. ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 38: 469± 498, 2001 Recent curriculum design projects have attempted to engage students in responsive or authentic science learning experiences in which students engage in inquiry-based research projects about questions of interest to them (Goldman, 1997; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, Bass, & Fredricks, 1998; Merino & Hammond, 1998; Warren, Rosebery, & Conant, 1989). Typically, the features of what is often called project-based pedagogy include (a) questions that encompass worthwhile and meaningful content anchored in authentic or real-world problems; (b) investigations and artifact creation that allow students to learn apply concepts, represent knowledge, and receive ongoing feedback; (c) collaboration among students, teachers, and others in the community; and (d) use of literacy and technological tools (Cognition and Technology Group, 1992; Krajcik et al., 1998; Mercado, 1993). Project-based pedagogy engages children in textual and experiential inquiry about authentic questions, and so can be considered discourse enabling. That is, project-based pedagogy affords Correspondence to: E.B. Moje ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. students and teachers opportunities to investigate, talk, read, and write about questions of interest to them. This approach thus can be said to represent an excellent way to learn science (National Research Council, 1996). Indeed, such a pedagogical and curricular approach seems an ideal space in which to construct what Lee and Fradd (1998) referred to as instructional congruence, or `̀ the process of mediating the nature of academic content with students' language and cultural experiences to make such content (e.g., science) accessible, meaningful, and relevant'' (p. 12). At the same time, however, the extensive discourse demands of the inquiry activities in projectbased pedagogy can be dif®cult for students because teachers and students alike bring many different language and literacy practices to their classroom work. These language and literacy practices are embedded in various Discourses, or ways of knowing, doing, talking, reading, and writing, which are constructed and reproduced in social and cultural practice and interaction (Gee, 1996; Heath, 1983). [Gee (1996) referred to these ways as `̀ Discourses,'' using the uppercase `̀ D'' to distinguish this use of the term from a mere stretch of language, which he identi®es as `̀ discourse.'' Any stretch of language (discourse) is always embedded in a particular way of knowing (Discourse) so the distinction may at times seem arti®cial, but for the purposes of this article we do distinguish between the discursive, or technical demands of speaking, reading, and writing (e.g., decoding, de®ning terms) and the Discursive, or cultural demands of negotiating different ways of knowing, doing, speaking, reading, and writing (e.g., knowing how to write a technical report on a science inquiry as opposed to writing an opinion piece on science issues).] This concern about the possibility that project-based pedagogy may ask students to navigate different ways of knowing, doing, reading, and writing (Discourse), as well as technical language and concepts associated with talking, reading, or writing (discourse), is especially important in light of the calls of science for all (Lee & Fradd, 1998; McLaughlin, Shepard, & O'Day, 1995), and in light of recent critiques of the standards designed to further that charge (Rodriguez, 1997). Intrigued by the idea that project-based pedagogy may be both discourse enabling and dependent, and because project-based work is often offered as a way to engage all students in science learning, we undertook an analysis of the language, literacy, and Discourse demands represented in a particular project-based curriculum and its enactment. Speci®cally, we wanted to know whether the written curriculum and a teacher's enactment of it scaffolded students in engaging in the many different Discourses required for deep learning in project-based pedagogy. In this article, we present our analysis of the competing Discourses (Gee, 1996) at work in one project-based classroom and curriculum. We focus on the Discursive demands made on students from non-mainstream backgrounds and their teacher as they engaged in this project-based curriculum, and we provide some evidence regarding how students responded to those demands. We do not intend the analysis to serve as an indictment of our curriculum development and research or of the teacher represented here. Instead, we intend to illustrate the complexities of developing and teaching science-for-all curricula in project-based classrooms, and we argue that the Discourse issues we raise have implications for all science classrooms, regardless of pedagogical or curricular orientation. Language, Literacy, and Discourses in School Science: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives We operate from the perspective that cognition is mediated by social interaction and cultural practice and that language, literacy, and discourse are both tools and products of cognitive, social, and cultural practice (Scribner & Cole, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978). Because science is an endeavor conducted within social and cultural interactions, scienti®c knowledge production and 470 MOJE ET AL.