Teaching Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Intercultural teaching practices for science

education to support teachers in culturally diverse
classrooms

Julio César Tovar-Gálvez

To cite this article: Julio César Tovar-Gálvez (2023): Intercultural teaching practices for science
education to support teachers in culturally diverse classrooms, Teaching Education, DOI:
10.1080/10476210.2023.2167975

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2023.2167975

Published online: 21 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cted20
TEACHING EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2023.2167975

Intercultural teaching practices for science education to

support teachers in culturally diverse classrooms
Julio César Tovar-Gálvez
Sachunterricht, Institut für Schulpädagogik und Grundschuldidaktik , Martin-Luther-Universität Halle
Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Science teachers in culturally diverse classrooms need support to Received 26 August 2021
plan and enact an inclusive relationship between the epistemology Accepted 4 January 2023
of science and traditional epistemologies. Two Intercultural KEYWORDS
Teaching Practices for Science Education (ITPSE) potentially solve Science teachers; teacher
this problem. The ITPSE are teaching supports that embody the education; cultural diversity;
‘epistemological bridge’. The epistemological bridge is a didactic epistemology; teaching
process through which teachers engage students in producing practices
explanations of a phenomenon from different epistemologies.
This study aims to discuss the design of the ITPSE using evidence
of how a high school teacher uses them. The method is Design-
Based Research to inform the ITPSE empirically. The analysis con­
sists of a suite of a priori categories and identifying teacher perfor­
mance patterns. Results reveal the need to redesign the ITPSE to
support teachers in better connecting the content to the students’
learning output. Therefore, the ITPSE redesign includes an auxiliary
framework and a new task.

Introduction
Science teachers in culturally diverse classrooms need support to plan and enact an
inclusive relationship between the epistemology of science and traditional epistemolo­
gies. Traditional epistemologies are the knowledge and ways of knowing belonging to
communities with a cultural identity different from modern western culture. In the case of
Colombia, teachers count on students belonging to indigenous, afro-descendants, farm­
ers and mestizo communities with cultural backgrounds different to the western culture
represented in the science curriculum. The proposal is to support teachers with two
Intercultural Teaching Practices for Science Education (ITPSE). The ITPSE guide teachers
in planning and enacting an inclusive relationship between the epistemology of science
and traditional epistemologies. Epistemological inclusion consists of teachers symmetri­
cally recognising, validating and using the diverse epistemologies belonging to different
cultures in their lessons. However, the ITPSE proposal requires empirical information to
validate or adjust it as a new design. This study aims to discuss the design of the ITPSE
using evidence of how a high school teacher uses them.

CONTACT Julio César Tovar-Gálvez joule_tg@yahoo.com Institut für Schulpädagogik und Grundschuldidaktik,
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle Wittenberg, Franckeplatz 1, Haus 4, Halle Saale, 06110 Germany
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

Supporting teachers to plan and enact an inclusive relationship between the tradi­
tional epistemologies and the epistemology of science contributes to social justice, policy
development and science learning. Various organisations (Council of Europe, 2008; OECD,
2010) understand that education is a way to achieve social justice, respect for all cultures
and peaceful coexistence. A part of such justice means that the minoritised cultures are
also part of the curriculum. Additionally, designing teaching supports for culturally
diverse classrooms helps solve some problems related to educational policies. First, the
ITPSE would answer the lack of clarity on bringing policies to the classroom practice
(Guido & Bonilla, 2010; Tarozzi, 2012). Second, incorporating epistemological inclusion
into teaching helps teachers prevent the reductionism present in some policies regarding
diversity (Rodriguez, 2015; Rodriguez & Morrison, 2019). Another impact of supporting
teachers in this issue is regarding learning science in comparison with other epistemol­
ogies. For Meyer and Crawford (2011) and Namy and Clepper (2010), students better
differentiate science categories and domains when teachers explicitly teach science
compared to other epistemologies.
The following subsections explain how the relationships between epistemologies
affect teaching, what kind of teaching supports emerge from diverse research trends in
science education, and the more accurate frame for the ITPSE design.

Relationships between epistemologies (cultures) and teachers’ practice

Relationships between epistemologies are relationships between cultures which influ­
ence teachers’ practice. Collste (2019) argues that domination relationships between
epistemologies result from one culture’s imposition over another. Nonetheless, this
connection between epistemology and culture is not the only important in the classroom.
For example, Sulimma (2009) provides evidence on the relationship between students’
epistemologies, culture and learning behaviour. As the cultural relationships teachers
enact in the classrooms are relevant to social justice and learning, it is helpful for culturally
diverse contexts to review some explanatory models.
Mpofu et al. (2014) propose four kinds of integration between epistemologies in
a science classroom: a) substitutive integration, when teachers consider that only science
is valid and replace the other ‘irrelevant’ epistemologies with it; b) divergent integration,
when teachers assume that the epistemologies are incompatible, and for this reason, they
privilege the epistemology of science and ignore the others; c) parallel integration is when
teachers with students address the diverse epistemologies in parallel without connection;
d) convergent integration, when teachers establish dialogues among epistemologies,
taking into account common elements between them.
On the other hand, Ludwig and El-Hani (2020) postulate two central relationships
between the official curriculum and the local knowledge systems. The first relationship
is marginalisation, consisting of two mechanisms: a) when teachers are ignorant of the
local knowledge systems; and b) when teachers recognise the local knowledge systems
only when they overlap the scientific foundations and values. The second relationship is
recognition. The recognition happens when teachers acknowledge the inequity between
the knowledge systems and look for solutions in practice.
The previous explanatory models of relationships, in general, describe exclusion and
inclusion between epistemologies. Specifically, for Mpofu et al. (2014), the convergent
 TEACHING EDUCATION 3

integration is close to inclusion. Furthermore, in Ludwig and El-Hani (2020), the episte­
mological recognition is also close to inclusion. Therefore, the inclusion relationship
between epistemologies is more suitable for reaching social justice in the science tea­
cher’s practice in the classroom.
The inclusive relationship is the symmetric or equitable coexistence and interaction
between epistemologies. For Tubino (2005) and Walsh (2009), hierarchical relationships
between cultures also exist in educational processes. These hierarchies emerge because
society assumes the mainstream culture and its epistemologies as real or valid. It also
means that society adopts the other cultures and epistemologies as less relevant and
valuable. That is why the official curricula only take elements from the mainstream culture
as content. From the authors’ perspective, it is necessary to change the relations between
cultures to horizontal ones. This new configuration demands that society provide condi­
tions to acknowledge the value of minoritised cultures and include them in the curricu­
lum. According to this expectation, the inclusive relationship between epistemologies is
possible when society a) recognises and values the epistemological pluralism (Guédez,
2005); b) validates the diverse epistemologies’ independency, intrinsic value and con­
tribution (López & Küper, 1999); and c) uses the different epistemologies as part of the
curriculum (López & Küper, 1999; UNESCO, 2008).

Science teaching supports and epistemological inclusion

Tovar-Gálvez and Acher (2019) state that some teaching approaches are partially inclusive
in the didactics of science, and some are inclusive epistemologically. A set of proposals
guides teachers to recognise the communities’ knowledge but use it as a context to teach
science, a continuation or complement of science, or an ethnic version of science. In those
proposals, teachers recognise community knowledge, but they do not validate it as
independent epistemologies and do not use it as independent content.
Another suite of works guides teachers to symmetric recognition, validation and use of
the diverse epistemologies. A case is the epistemological bridge approach. Castaño (2009)
understands the epistemological bridge as a process of knowledge construction in the
science classroom, validating other epistemologies alternative to science. The author and
her team (Castaño, 2011) use the epistemological bridge to guide teachers to engage
students in solving problems using biological and farmers’ knowledge. Thus, the episte­
mological bridge is an opportunity to support teachers in planning and enacting an
inclusive relationship between epistemologies.

Framework to design intercultural teaching practices for science education

The epistemological bridge and cultural inclusion in the science classroom
For Tovar-Gálvez (2021), the epistemological bridge is the process during which teachers
plan, enact and assess students’ learning from an inclusive relationship between epis­
temologies. Teachers engage students in participating in the science epistemology’s
domain and the domain of the traditional epistemologies. The domain consists of every
epistemology’s ideas, practices, values, languages and norms. Participation is when
students learn and use such domains, implying that they move between epistemologies.
4 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

The transition means that students cross the borders or limits of every domain and enter
other domains. This transit is in all directions, at any time, respecting each epistemology’s
elements. Respecting refers to not mixing epistemologies, not explaining one from the
other, not transferring the identity from one to others, not privileging/marginalising
some, and not validating only one. Taking explanations as students’ learning output,
Tovar-Gálvez (2021) proposes two practical principles to guide the design of practices and
experiences using the epistemological bridge.

Principle of epistemological independence

This principle makes practical the epistemological plurality (Cobern & Loving, 2001; El-
Hani & Mortimer, 2007; Lowan, 2012; Santos et al., 2008; Sedano, 2013; Valladares, 2011a,
2011b). The principle states that there are diverse epistemologies besides the epistemol­
ogy of the sciences, which have their own nature, structure, dynamics and intrinsic
validity. Thus, teachers recognise the independent domain of every epistemology, vali­
date their potential to explain phenomena and use them as content to teach. Every
independent domain is an endpoint of the bridge. When teachers guide their practices
through this principle, they avoid using traditional epistemologies as a context for
learning science, explaining them from science, or mixing both epistemologies. This
expected performance is because the traditional epistemologies have an intrinsic value
and own domain, independent of science.
For example, a teacher would not enact epistemological independence when planning
to teach biomolecules, taking as learning context the wrapped corn (cooked corn rolled in
its leaves, according to the indigenous and popular Colombian tradition). The teacher
plans to guide students to analyse in the lab carbohydrates, vitamins, and organic
pigments (carotenoids) in the corn. In this case, the teacher prioritises the scientific
domain and subordinates the traditional domain to science. The teacher recognises the
scientific content and practice as a valid viewpoint to explain phenomena. On the
contrary, the teacher neglects the traditional domain (knowledge, values, and practices)
to which the wrapped corn belongs. The teacher reduces tradition as a means to teach
and learn science without an inner value.
In the opposite case, to enact epistemological independence, the teacher could
address biomolecules in human nutrition and the spiritual meaning of the wrapped
corn. The teacher plans to engage the students in studying processed food’s carbohy­
drates, vitamins, and organic pigments (carotenoids). Likewise, the teacher plans to
engage the students in the production of wrapped corn with wise women from the
indigenous community. Thus, the teacher would recognise, validate, and use chemistry
and the indigenous tradition as independent content. Students would learn a part of the
traditional and scientific domains without mixing or overlapping them and with reciprocal
relevance in the classroom.

Principle of epistemological similarity

This principle makes interculturality practical (Aikenhead, 1996; Aikenhead & Michell,
2011; Becker & Ghimire, 2003; Castaño, 2009; Gay, 2013; O’Flaherty et al., 2008; Teo,
2013). The principle states that the independent epistemologies have common elements
through which individuals may cross epistemological borders, transit between and parti­
cipate in the epistemologies. Teachers identify processes, situations, actions, values,
 TEACHING EDUCATION 5

instruments, artefacts, practices, and others, with a similar aim of producing knowledge,
both in scientific and traditional epistemology. When teachers guide their practices
through this principle, they and students build the bridge’s walkway – identify the
epistemological elements that resemble each other, explicit this similarity and participate
in such elements.
For example, a teacher would not enact epistemological similarity when engaging
students in two activities without a relationship. One activity could be the scientific
experience of identifying functional groups of biomolecules in the laboratory. Another
could be the traditional experience of preparing different types of wrapped corn. In this
case, the teacher addresses both independent domains but does not build the bridge
walkway. The teacher does not engage students in identifying that scientific and indi­
genous communities have common or similar practices. Thus, indigenous and scientists
carry out experiences to produce knowledge, services or objects. The empirical dimension
is part of both domains. When the students know this similarity explicitly, they have more
opportunity to transit between domains and differentiate them.
In the opposite case, to enact epistemological similarity, the teacher and students
would identify that both traditional and scientific communities create knowledge, infor­
mation, services or products through experiences. Thereby, it is explicit for students that
the laboratory and the wrapped corn preparation are similar practices because, in both
experiences, they use knowledge to obtain information and products. This commonality is
the walkway to transit between domains because the students would consciously parti­
cipate in both experiences differentiating them.

Intercultural Teaching Practices for Science Education (ITPSE)

The ITPSE are teaching supports that embody the practical principles of epistemological
independence and epistemological similarity derived from the epistemological bridge.
They describe the teachers’ performance from the epistemological bridge framework and
the previously obtained empirical evidence. Teachers might use the ITPSE at any educa­
tional level and teach any scientific and traditional content. Through the ITPSE, teachers
might decide the content of each epistemology (scientific and traditional) and how to
relate them inclusively.
The ITPSE come from a sequence of design cycles to integrate theory and empirical
data to solve the problem of supporting teachers in culturally diverse classrooms. During
the first cycle (Tovar-Gálvez & Acher, 2021), the design consisted of three ITPSE: one of
planning, to guide teachers in deciding what to teach (epistemologies’ domain), and two
of enactment, to guide teachers in engaging students in scientific and traditional prac­
tices. The evidence demonstrated that it is not enough to guide teachers to identify and
delimit the contents independently or identify possible similarities. Instead, it is necessary
to guide teachers to plan according to the students’ learning output: explanations about
the same phenomenon from both epistemologies. Likewise, in this first design cycle,
teachers only counted on enactment tasks to engage students in participating in each
epistemology’s experiences. Teachers also need support to guide students to identify
how each experience contributes to constructing explanations. These findings led to the
re-design of the ITPSE in: a) introducing McNeill and Krajcik’s (2012) frame to guide
teachers regarding the structure of the explanation (claim, evidence and reasoning);
6 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

Table 1. ITPSE design summarised.

ITPSE of planning
Planning task 1. Organise domains (ideas, production and legitimisation practices)
Planning task 2. Identify similarities between domains
ITPSE of enactment
Enactment task 1. Engage students in production practices
Enactment task 2. Engage students in legitimisation practices
Enactment task 3. Engage students in proposing explanations

and b) redirecting the tasks to support teachers to engage students in producing

explanations on a phenomenon from each epistemology. Table 1 summarises the new
ITPSE obtained after the first design cycle, which will be detailed later:

ITPSE of planning: building the epistemological bridge

This ITPSE aims to guide teachers in building the epistemological bridge process through
the science curriculum. First, teachers use the epistemological independence principle to
decide what to teach from each culture and the students’ learning output. The epistemol­
ogies’ domain (ideas, practices, values) are the content. The learning output consists of
explaining the same phenomenon from each epistemology. Second, teachers use the
principle of epistemological similarity as an explicit motivation for the border crossing
process. Here is an example of two similarities between scientific and traditional commu­
nities: a) the production of knowledge or goods through experience; and b) legitimisation
of knowledge and goods through regulation norms. Production and legitimisation are
two of several possible similarities between the epistemologies.

● Planning task 1. Organise the knowledge and experiences of each culture indepen­
dently, according to specific categories (ideas, production practices and legitimisa­
tion practices). Students will use such categories for proposing different explanations
of a phenomenon from tradition and science. Prompt: a production practice is an
experience through which communities use their knowledge to originate informa­
tion, goods, products, services or new knowledge. For example, in science, laboratory
experiments are a production practice. In the traditional domain, a production
practice might be creating something (textiles, food, and medicine) or a ritual.
A legitimisation practice is an experience through which communities use rules to
regulate, recognise, normalise, support and disseminate their knowledge and pro­
ducts. For example, in the traditional domain, communities legitimise knowledge
when adults provide knowledge to new generations. In science, legitimisation occurs
when scientists use protocols, statistics and other forms of validation.
● Planning task 2. Identify similarities between scientific and traditional domains to
motivate students’ epistemological border crossing. Students will use such simila­
rities to propose different explanations of a phenomenon from tradition and science.
Prompt: a possible similarity is that both the traditional and the scientific commu­
nities produce knowledge and goods through experience. Those experiences are
production practices. Another possible similarity is that both communities use rules
 TEACHING EDUCATION 7

to validate or incorporate knowledge and goods. Those rules and procedures are
legitimisation practices.

ITPSE of enactment: teaching to produce explanations from the epistemological

bridge
This ITPSE aims to guide teachers in engaging students in proposing explanations about
phenomena from the epistemological bridge. Thus, teachers engage students to partici­
pate in each epistemology’s production and legitimisation practices. First, the participa­
tion matches the principle of epistemological independence (the ideas and practices of
one epistemology do not explain, justify, clarify, organise or validate the other epistemol­
ogy). Second, the participation matches the epistemological similarity principle (identify­
ing the practices, activities, processes or artefacts from each epistemology that resemble
each other).

● Enactment task 1. Engage the students in production practices, scientific and tradi­
tional, to obtain evidence to explain the phenomenon.
● Enactment task 2. Engage the students in legitimisation practices, scientific and
traditional, to obtain evidence to explain the phenomenon. Prompt: Science legit­
imisation consists of internal and social validation. The scientific community uses
rules and norms to validate knowledge, data, and procedures. The civil society
participates in science regulation. Tradition legitimisation may consist of communal
incorporation of wisdom and practices. An example of wisdom incorporation is when
Elders tell the youngest stories, meanings, secrets, customs or history.
● Enactment task 3. Engage the students in producing explanations about
a phenomenon using separately the ideas and evidence (obtained during the
participation in the practices) of each domain.

Method
The ITPSE development by design-based research
The method to develop the ITPSE is Design-Based Research (Edelson, 2006; Mckenny &
Reeves, 2012; van den Akker et al., 2006). This method is accurate in solving the problem.
First, teachers need to put into practice theory to solve teaching problems. Second,
teachers need solutions while working in their contexts and not go to actualisation-
research processes outside of schools. Third, teachers need proposals that take into
account their experience. Design-Based Research aims to produce practical solutions
using educational theory and empirical evidence through different design cycles. This
evidence might come from empirical research reports, but the most crucial evidence
emerges from the contexts. The Design-Based Research’s products are not generalisable
but transferable and adaptable to other contexts.

Constructs to study and data collecting

There are two constructs to study the ITPSE contribution to solving the problem. One of
the constructs is the teacher’s practical epistemology or ‘version of the epistemological
8 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

bridge enacted by the teacher’. The other construct is the ‘teacher’s reflection on the
practice and feedback on the ITPSE’.
For Wickman (2004), each didactic experience is an epistemology that teachers have
put into practice. Thus, when teachers implement ITPSE, they enact their version of the
epistemological bridge. A practical epistemology analysis (Piqueras et al., 2012; Wickman,
2012) interprets evidence from observable teaching practice dimensions. The evidence to
study the epistemological bridge version that the teacher enacts through ITPSE emerges
from: a) what the teacher says: the meaning they verbally assign to epistemologies, their
relationships and uses; b) the teacher’s actions: the nature and meaning of the activities to
engage students in; and c) material designed by the teacher (schemes, formats, guides,
instructions, models, and others). The data collecting is through the teacher’s reports
(class recordings, field notes, audio with descriptions and reflections on the lessons,
lesson planning chart and assessment of the process), the researcher’s field notes and
the students’ explanations.
The evidence to study teachers’ reflection and feedback emerge from: a) teacher’s
reflection on their didactic practice (planning and enactment); and b) teacher’s sugges­
tions, better-supporting petitions and commentaries on the ITPSE limitations. In addition,
the teacher provides this evidence in conversations with the researcher. Thus, the design
evaluation is from the researchers’ and teachers’ perspectives.

Case study
A chemistry teacher in a public urban high school in Bogotá (Colombia) implements the
ITPSE to produce empirical evidence. The teacher holds a bachelor’s and a master’s
degree in chemistry teaching. She understands cultural diversity as students from differ­
ent regions and ethnicities. Moreover, she identifies students from different geographic
regions of Colombia and indigenous communities. For the teacher, the students are in this
school due to forced displacement from the countryside to the city caused by internal
armed conflict. She was unfamiliar with theoretical and methodological references to
address cultural diversity in her chemistry class. However, her school holds days of
recognition for Afro-descendants and Muisca indigenous people. She has 12 years of
teaching experience. The students with whom she implemented the ITPSE are between
12 and 14 years old.
The first phase was to elucidate the teacher’s perceptions and experience of cultural
diversity in her school and the chemistry class. Another important part was presenting the
ITPSE proposal to the teacher. She expressed interest in the Chicha – a sacred drink of
Muisca. As a Muisca community is near the school, the teacher wanted to engage students
in this culture. Finally, she communicated her time restrictions, as she only meets students
for one hour per week.
During the next phase, the teacher developed lessons using the ITPSE. The teacher
conducted seven classroom sessions and two practical experiences with one group of
students in ten months. The process took a long time because there were two civil strikes
in Colombia and the schools closed that year. The researcher took some field notes on
some lessons. The teacher provided: audio recordings, field notes, images, graphics, work
guides and videos. There are also audio recordings and a form on the reflection and
feedback process between teacher and researcher.
 TEACHING EDUCATION 9

Data analysis
A priori category system for deductive analysis
A priori categories guide the constructs’ study. For example, the category ‘Epistemological
Bridge’ with its sub-categories ‘epistemological independence’ and ‘epistemological simi­
larity’ accounts on the construct ‘version of the epistemological bridge enacted by the
teacher’. Furthermore, the category ‘ITPSE potential to guide teachers’ and its sub-
category ‘implementation, adaptation and tools’ accounts on the construct ‘teacher’s
reflection on the practice and feedback on the ITPSE’. This part of the study is a content
analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), in which the a priori category system guides the
information grouping.

Identification of emerging trends for inductive analysis

The subsequent procedure is an inductive analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). It consists of
identifying trends or variations in the teacher’s performance. Consequently, these pat­
terns present in the information already grouped under the categories form emergent
groups.

Results
Version of the epistemological bridge enacted by the teacher
The teacher enacted a version of epistemological bridge, using the ITPSE, which is close to
the theoretical framework, in terms of a) balancing the students’ participation in both
epistemologies and the use of these epistemologies in producing explanations; b) imple­
menting both epistemological independence and epistemological similarity (predomi­
nantly implicit) during the planning and enactment; c) engaging students in the
participation in all the contents (ideas, and production and legitimisation practices); and
d) engaging students in proposing explanations, implementing the epistemological
independence and epistemological similarity. However, this version of epistemological
bridge misses a greater integration of the explanations’ constitutive parts (claims, evi­
dence, and reasoning).

The teacher balanced the students’ participation in both epistemologies through

their use in the explanations
The teacher balanced the students’ participation in both epistemologies through the use
of ideas, production practices and legitimisation practices of both epistemologies. She
guaranteed the equity described by the epistemological bridge. During the first sessions,
she and the students prioritised the development of the traditional idea. However, during
the teacher and researcher’s permanent reflection process, the teacher identified the
need to address both ideas with the same relevance. Likewise, she emphasised the
planning and equitable enactment of both epistemologies’ production and legitimisation
practices. Finally, she engaged students in proposing explanations from both traditional
and scientific epistemology.
The planning was a relevant factor in achieving such a balance between epistemolo­
gies. In the beginning, the teacher did not plan in writing how to enact both
10 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

epistemologies’ ideas and practices. However, later she recognised the need to plan and
redirect the process.
The following is an example of the teacher addressing with students the ideas of each
epistemology equally:
We have two approaches or two perspectives for knowledge production: one of those is
cultural knowledge [she means ‘traditional’]. What drawing did cultural knowledge represent
there on the map? [Pointing out the blackboard] [Student says: a farmer]. We say that the
farmers’ community produces this knowledge. Next to the farmer, what drawing was there?
[Student says: a Tusa – corncob]. Tusa, no, it is corn. Right? It represents us the kind of local
knowledge, which is the drink we will prepare, in this case, the Chicha. On the part of scientific
knowledge, what drawing did represent it on the map? [Student says: the drawing which has
the lab coat, a scientist]. Very well. A community of specialists produces that kind of knowl­
edge. [Originally in Spanish]

The teacher made use of epistemological independence and epistemological

similarity (predominantly implicit) during planning and enactment
The teacher implemented epistemological independence and epistemological similarity
principles through the planning and enacting of the contents. As the epistemological
bridge describes, she guaranteed the recognition and validation of the multiple kinds of
knowledge and ways of knowing and the possibility of establishing dialogues between
them. In general, the epistemological independence enactment predominated compared
to the epistemological similarity (more implicitly). In the epistemological independence
case, the teacher planned and engaged students in all the contents, mainly respecting
each epistemology’s domain. In the epistemological similarity case, the teacher empha­
sised the independent specialised languages as a common element between commu­
nities. Both communities have in common that everyone uses a specific language. The
teacher did not make explicit the similarities between each epistemology’s production
and legitimisation practices. The students experienced the similarity because the teacher
developed with them these practices parallel and comparatively.
The following is an example of the teacher addressing with students the traditional
idea using epistemological independence:
Chicha: we should not chemically describe it as we would do it with other substances because
it is a cultural production product. We are working from the cultural side [she means
‘traditional from indigenous and farmers’], where the description we make is by using
a common language, the language used [by indigenous/farmers] to describe this drink’s
properties. They say that it is strong, sour, and so ‘picha’ [similar to ‘rotten’ in English] as you
told me minutes ago. Those words or language is characteristic of a specific cultural knowl­
edge [she means ‘traditional’]. [Originally in Spanish]

The teacher engaged students in the use and participation of all the contents
The teacher planned ideas, production practices, legitimisation practices and explana­
tions from each epistemology and engaged students in them. She guaranteed that the
students participated in and used knowledge and ways of knowing corresponding to
science and tradition equitably, as described by the epistemological bridge. The teacher
placed less emphasis on legitimisation practices than production practices, coinciding
with her request for help to better understand these practices.
 TEACHING EDUCATION 11

The following is an example of the teacher engaging students in the contents of both
epistemologies:
The purpose of today’s lesson is to identify two ways of producing knowledge. From the
beginning of the year, we are working on a project to analyse two visions or forms of
knowledge: cultural knowledge [she means traditional] and scientific knowledge. Cultural
knowledge is seen as all the knowledge our ancestors have left us [she means indigenous].
Scientific knowledge is seen as everything that science has built over time and contributes to
our class [. . .]. We are going to analyse our sacred drink, our cultural drink, which is Chicha. We
will do the chemical analysis of some fermented juices or products, which students prepared
in their homes. [Originally in Spanish]

The teacher engaged students in the production of explanations, using

epistemological independence and epistemological similarity
The data make evident that the teacher used the epistemological independence and
epistemological similarity to plan and engage students in proposing explanations about
a given phenomenon. However, the process failed to articulate the explanations’ consti­
tuent parts. During the planning, the teacher proposed a situation for students to explain
using both epistemologies. Nonetheless, during the development of the contents, she did
not refer explicitly to using each epistemology’s ideas and practices for the explanations’
construction. In the last session, the teacher and students collectively constructed expla­
nations of a situation using a guiding tool. In this exercise of proposing the collective
explanation, they put epistemological independence and epistemological similarity into
practice. Nevertheless, the students did not use the evidence obtained during practice to
support the claims. Likewise, students failed to use the ideas of each epistemology to
produce reasoning when interpreting the evidence.
The next is an example when the teacher engages students in proposing explanations:
Let us fill in the data table for chemical culture. Do you remember what chemical tests we did
for the juices? [Student: with the indicator?]. Yes, with an indicator to see if it was basic or
acidic. We did chemical tests to see the colour changes [. . .]. That day, we did the Lucas test
for alcohol presence, the iodine test for identifying the presence of sugars, and the Fehling
test. Now lets’ fill in the second section [. . .] and write the evidence from the popular ancestral
culture. Do you remember what properties in Chicha were analysed? [Students: taste . . .
colour . . . smell, and nothing else], please go on writing those tests we did on Chicha.
[Originally in Spanish]

Teacher’s reflection on the practice and feedback on the ITPSE

The teacher’s reflection and feedback were relevant to identifying the design limitation.
Thereby, she communicated the need to understand the structure of the explanations
better. A possible way to solve this is by refining the guiding tool for explanations.

Design limitations to guide teachers

The teacher’s reflection on her practice and feedback on the design reveals her primary
needs. She expressed limitations to enacting the epistemological similarity principle and
specification of the explanations. The evidence demonstrates that the students could
propose claims and collect information emerging from the practices but could not
12 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

connect everything. For this reason, the guidance tools need better indications to connect
the parts of the explanations.
The following is an example of the teacher reflecting on her practice:
I did not make any changes, but I fell very short in tasks II and III of ITPSE II, one due to
confusion of the terms with which I should make the explanation from each phenomenon
and their specific language, and another due to deficiency of time.[Originally in Spanish]

Opportunities to refine guidance tools

The processes of reflection and feedback provided evidence to refine guidance tools. For
example, the planning tool must help teachers consider how each epistemology’s idea
and practices contribute to building the phenomenon’s explanations. In addition, the
explanations tool needs more straightforward language to be more understandable.
Additional prompts would guide teachers and students to establish relationships
between the parts of the explanation.

Discussion and conclusions

Regarding the evidence that will guide the ITPSE re-design
The evidence demonstrates that the most relevant change in the ITPSE design is related to
articulating the constitutive elements of the explanations. Therefore, as a plausible solu­
tion, the ITPSE of planning will count on a new task. This task provides teachers with
instructions to formulate a situation connected to the ideas and practices from every
epistemology, which students would explain. Further, this modification in the planning
will improve the tools of planning and explanations for the enactment.
Data from empirical studies endorse adding a new task to focus the planning practice
on the students’ learning output – the explanations. McNeill et al. (2005) and McNeill and
Krajcik (2008) obtained data demonstrating the effect of teachers’ instructional practices
on the students’ ability to construct explanations. When teachers explicitly address the
rationale of explanations and model their construction, students propose better explana­
tions. Rendering to these results, the ITPSE need better support teachers to plan and enact
according to the rationale and construction of explanations. Before, the ITPSE guided
teachers to identify content (ideas and practices) from each epistemology to engage
students in such content. Now, the ITPSE also will ground the planning and enactment in
the students’ expected learning output – explanations from the epistemological bridge.
Connecting content and students’ learning is a way to support teachers in the for­
mulation of situations which students would explain. According to Wartha et al.’s (2013)
frame, a situation is a contextualised phenomenon. These situations should describe
experiences, events, anecdotes or happenings of the students’ day-to-day life to solicit
their attention. The situations to explain should not be only anecdotal or passing exam­
ples but rather the centre of the whole teaching experience. Before, the ITPSE led teachers
to identify phenomena as ‘changes in a drink’s properties’, and now they must recom­
mend placing such phenomena in clear and motivating contexts for students.
Additionally, the ITPSE must be more explicit in guiding the relationship between situa­
tion, content and explanations. Teachers’ new task will consist of defining a situation and
 TEACHING EDUCATION 13

planning the contents and activities necessary to engage students in using such epis­
temologies to propose explanations.
Teachers might motivate students and be more precise when they ask questions about
the situation to explain. Eder and Adúriz-Bravo (2008) describe the connection between
situations and types of questions (what, how, why, what for) to motivate the students’
explanations. The questions are helpful for teachers to lead students to use all the
contents to produce the explanations. For this reason, the teachers’ new task suggests
defining the most appropriate question to conduct students according to their context
and possibilities.

ITPSE re-design by adding a new planning task

The initial design in the theoretical framework changes by adding a task to the planning
ITPSE, as the following description and the summary in Table 2 displays:
Planning task 1. Propose a daily situation that motivates students to use the different
epistemologies to explain it. The learning objective is for students to participate in both
epistemologies. Thus, students’ learning output is the explanation of the same situation
from each epistemology.
Prompt: the situation to explain is an event, experience, happening, anecdote or
activity of the daily context, as a simple narration accessible for students understanding.
The situation describes a phenomenon that students cannot initially explain from any
epistemologies. A guiding question motivates students to produce explanations using
each of the epistemologies. The contents and teaching activities focus on explaining the
situation.

From the empirical study and design to the literature

The introduction of this paper problematises around the social justice and hierarchical
relationships between cultures, relationships between epistemologies in the science
lessons, and science learning. The empirical findings suggest that the ITPSE have the
potential to support teachers in facing those challenges.
The ITPSE help reinforce the look for a peaceful understanding and coexistence
between cultures that is a concern of international agendas (Council of Europe, 2008;
OECD, 2010). Through the ITPSE, the case study teacher could include knowledge, values,
and experiences from Colombian indigenous and farmers’ communities in the chemistry
curriculum. In this case, the teacher started to contribute to the inclusion of non-
hegemonic communities in the school curriculum.

Table 2. ITPSE re-design summarised.

ITPSE of planning
Planning task 1. Propose a situation to motivate the explanations
Planning task 2. Organise domains (ideas, production and legitimisation practices)
Planning task 3. Identify similarities between domains
ITPSE of enactment
Enactment task 1. Engage students in production practices
Enactment task 2. Engage students in legitimisation practices
Enactment task 3. Engage students in producing explanations
14 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

The ITPSE are one opportunity to change the hierarchical relationships between
cultures in educational settings. Tubino (2005) and Walsh (2009) manifest that the
inequalities emerge because the society recognises and validates a mainstream culture
and uses it as curriculum content while marginalising other cultures. The teacher who
participated in this designing cycle recognised the existence of culturally diverse students
and families and validated their epistemologies as a frame to explain phenomena. During
the lessons, the teacher used the ITPSE to avoid the imposition of one culture over the
other, as Collste (2019) warns.
Regarding the specific relationship between the epistemology of science and tradi­
tional epistemologies, the ITPSE led the teacher to inclusion according to the literature.
Thus, the teacher approximated the relationship of epistemological recognition in terms
of Ludwig and El-Hani (2020). This inclusive relationship emerged because the teacher
was aware of the knowledge and way of knowing from local Colombian communities in
addition to the scientific knowledge and way of knowing. Moreover, the case study
teacher was close to the convergent integration described by Mpofu et al. (2014). Thus,
the teacher guided the students to participate in the two epistemologies and use them to
propose explanations for everyday situations collectively.
Additionally, the ITPSE contribute to relational and comparative learning of science, as
Meyer and Crawford (2011) and Namy and Clepper (2010) recommend. The teacher with
students addressed ideas, carried out practices and proposed explanations from each
epistemology simultaneously. Additionally, the teacher emphasised to students about
differentiating the specific language of every community. This awareness regarding the
language is an opportunity for students to learn more clearly the scientific domain in
contrast to other epistemology.

The ITPSE as better way to guide teachers to the epistemological inclusion

In the introduction of this paper, the subtitle about science teaching supports states that
many proposals lead teachers to partially inclusive practices. Thus, those approaches
assume the traditional epistemologies as a context to teach science, a continuation of
science or an ethnic version of science. Consequently, teachers recognise the epistemol­
ogies of the communities to which students belong but do not validate them as a referent
to explain phenomena. They do not use them as independent content. This acting is an
asymmetrical relationship. Instead, teachers may put into practice the inclusion relation­
ship described by the epistemological bridge through the ITPSE.
First, when teachers use the ITPSE, they have the opportunity to practise epistemolo­
gical independence. This performance happens in two moments. Initially, during the
planning, teachers identify and organise the domain of every epistemology using the
same categories – ideas, production practices and legitimisation practices. When teachers
identify the domains, they have a reference to respect them, distinguishing what belongs
to each one. Moreover, teachers confer the same relevance to the different epistemolo­
gies by using the same way of organisation. Then, during the enactment, teachers engage
students in the practices of each epistemology and in proposing explanations from
everyone. When students participate in every epistemology, they have the opportunity
of identifying the independent domains.
 TEACHING EDUCATION 15

Second, when teachers use the ITPSE, they have the opportunity to practise the
epistemological similarity. Teachers materialise this possibility during the planning
when they identify common practices (or other elements) between the epistemologies.
Those similar practices are a motivation to lead a dialogue among the epistemologies and
cultures. This process can be a dialogue because subjects interchange information and
experiences from different cultures. In addition, teachers engage students in practices
that resemble each other during the enactment. When students participate in common­
alities between epistemologies, they have an experience that brings them closer to
understanding among cultures.

Implications for teacher education and practice

The ITPSE subscribe to a practice-based teacher education approach and a research-based
teaching practices design approach. Forzani (2014) encompasses arguments and research
advances to outline a ‘practice-based’ teacher education approach. The author states that,
from this point of view, educators do not teach teachers only about theories and related
methodologies. Practice-based teacher education aims at teaching what teachers need to
know and do in real educational contexts. Therefore, this approach involves specific
teaching practices that teachers learn in authentic contexts and which they adapt. The
ITPSE contribute to a practice-based teacher education because they describe teachers’
performances on planning, teaching and learning assessment. The ITPSE are a practical
embodiment of the epistemological bridge because they consist of tasks for teachers to
enact cultural inclusion in the science classroom.
Additionally, the practices that Forzani points out for teacher education emerge from
research processes. The teaching practices come from a) use of educational theory for
their design, b) implementation to test the prospects, and c) use of empirical evidence to
inform the practices designed. Windschitl et al. (2012) report on teaching practices’ design
and refinement for science teacher education. The authors describe how they use educa­
tional theory to design, then the implementation made by pre-service teachers and finally
the re-design based on the evidence. The ITPSE emerge from a design-based research
process, using the epistemological bridge and auxiliary theories, obtaining experimental
data from real educational contexts and re-designing accordingly to the evidence.
However, this study not only provides a new set of teaching practices that researchers,
educators, and teachers can use as part of the practice-based teacher education
approach. In this report, it is also possible to find information about the teacher’s
performance. This information is helpful to strengthen the corpus about teachers’ learn­
ing, practice, reflections and contribution to educational design. Moreover, this article
delivers specific data about a culturally diverse educational context, teacher practice
facing such diversity and teaching science from a culturally inclusive view. This speciality
helps lead processes of migrating from exclusionary teaching and thought to other
inclusive ones.

Acknowledgement
I am very grateful to the teacher who actively participated in this study. Also, I thank the students
and the school.
16 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
The work was supported by the Fundación para el Futuro de Colombia German Academic Exchange
Service.

ORCID
Julio César Tovar-Gálvez http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7008-5140

References
Aikenhead, G. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in
Science Education, 27(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560077
Aikenhead, G., & Michell, H. (2011). Bridging cultures: Indigenous and scientific ways of knowing
nature. Pearson Education.
Becker, C., & Ghimire, K. (2003). Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation
science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.5751/ES-00582-080101
Castaño, N. (2009). Construcción Social de Universidad para la Inclusión: la formación de maestros
con pertinencia y en contexto, desde una perspectiva intercultural. In En D. Mato (coord.),
Educación Superior, Colaboración Intercultural y Desarrollo Sostenible/Buen Vivir. Experiencias en
América Latina(pp. 183–206). IESALC-UNESCO.
Castaño, N. (2011). De la Epistemología constructivista piagetiana, el reconocimiento de la cultura
y de la diversidad para la formación en escenarios culturalmente diversos. Revista Colombiana de
Educación, 60(60), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.17227/01203916.844
Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2001). Defining ‘‘science’’ in a multicultural world: Implications for science
education. Science Education, 85(1), 50–67. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<50:AID-SCE5>3.
0.CO;2-G
Collste, G. (2019). Cultural pluralism and epistemic injustice. Journal of Nationalism, Memory &
Language Politics, 13(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/jnmlp-2019-0008
Council of Europe. (2008). White paper on intercultural dialogue. “Living together as equals in dignity”.
Council of Europe.
Edelson, D. (2006). What we learn when we engage in design: Implications for assessing design
research. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, & S. McKenney y N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational
design research (pp. 56–165). Routledge.
Eder, M. L., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2008). Explanation in science and science teaching: Philosophical and
instructional approaches. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos (Colombia), 4(2),
101–133.
El-Hani, C., & Mortimer, E. (2007). Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science
teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 657–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-
9064-y
Forzani, F. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning
from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022487114533800
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. https://
doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002
 TEACHING EDUCATION 17

Guédez, V. (2005). La diversidad y la inclusión: implicaciones para la cultura y la educación. Sapiens.

Revista Universitaria de Investigación, 6(1), 107–132. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/410/41060107.
pdf
Guido, S., & Bonilla, H. (2010). Interculturalidad y política educativa en Colombia [Interculturality and
educational policy in Colombia]. Revista Internacional Magisterio, 46, 32–35. https://bit.ly/2DqtqSL
Hsieh, H. -F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
López, L., & Küper, W. (1999). La educación intercultural bilingüe en América Latina: balance
y perspectivas. Revista iberoamericana de educación, 20, 17–85. https://doi.org/10.35362/
rie2001041
Lowan, G. (2012). Expanding the conversation: Further explorations into Indigenous environmental
science education theory, research, and practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 71–81.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9379-1
Ludwig, D., & El-Hani, C. (2020). Philosophy of Ethnobiology: Understanding knowledge integration
and its limitations. Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.1.3
Mckenny, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of
teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45
(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science:
The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Identifying teacher practices that support students’
explanation in science. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Meyer, X., & Crawford, B. A. (2011). Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: Merging authentic
inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(3),
525–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9318-6
Mpofu, V., Otulaja, F., & Mushayikwa, E. (2014). Towards culturally relevant classroom science:
A theoretical framework focusing on traditional plant healing. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 9(1), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9508-5
Namy, L., & Clepper, L. (2010). The differing roles of comparison and contrast in children’s categor­
ization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.
2010.05.013
OECD. (2010). Educating teachers for diversity. Meeting the challenge. OECD publications.
O’Flaherty, R., Davidson-Hunt, I., & Manseau, M. (2008). Indigenous knowledge and values in
planning for sustainable forestry: Pikangikum first nation and the whitefeather forest initiative.
Ecology and Society, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02284-130106
Piqueras, J., Wickman, P. -O., & Hamza, K. (2012). Student teachers’ moment-to-moment reasoning and
the development of discursive themes – an analysis of practical epistemologies in a natural history
museum exhibit (E. Davidsson & A. Jakobsson, Eds.). Understanding Interactions at Science
Centers and Museums. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-725-7_6
Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). What about a dimension of equity, engagement and diversity practices?
A critique of the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7),
1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21232
Rodriguez, A. J., & Morrison, D. (2019). Expanding and enacting transformative meanings of equity,
diversity and social justice in science education. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 14(2),
265–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09938-7
Santos, B. S., Nunes, J. A., & Meneses, M. P. 2008. Introduction: Opening up the canon of knowledge
and recognition of difference. In B. S. Santos, Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern
epistemologies (pp. XIX–LXII). Verso Books
Sedano, W. (2013). La enseñanza de la química orgánica desde la perspectiva de la interculturalidad.
Nousitz: Revista de investigación científica y tecnológica, 54(junio), 821–831.
18 J. C. TOVAR-GÁLVEZ

Sulimma, M. (2009). Relations between epistemological beliefs and culture classifications.

Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 3(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17504970910951165
Tarozzi, M. (2012). Intercultural or multicultural education in Europe and the United States. In
B. Della Chiesa, J. Scott, & C. Hinton (Eds.), Languages in a global world: Learning for better cultural
understanding. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264123557-28-en
Teo, T. (2013). Different perspectives of cultural mediation: Implications for the research design on
studies examining its effect on students’ cognition. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(2),
295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9437-8
Tovar-Gálvez, J. C. (2021). The epistemological bridge as a framework to guide teachers to design
culturally inclusive practices. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 760–776. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1883203
Tovar-Gálvez, J. C., & Acher, A. (2019). Relaciones entre la epistemología de las ciencias y las
epistemologías tradicionales: contribuciones a la práctica didáctica. CIMIE19 (pp. 1–7). AMIE.
Tovar-Gálvez, J. C., & Acher, A. (2021). Design of intercultural teaching practices for science educa­
tion based on evidence. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 39(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/
ensciencias.2891
Tubino, F. (2005). La praxis de la interculturalidad en los Estados Nacionales Latinoamericanos.
Cuadernos Interculturales, 3(5), 83–96. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/552/55200506.pdf
UNESCO. (2008). Inclusive education: The way of the future. UNESCO.
Valladares, L. (2011a). Hacia una educación científica comprehensiva e intercultural: las espirales de
enseñanza-aprendizaje de las ciencias. Horizontes educacionales, 16(1), 31–48. http://www.reda
lyc.org/articulo.oa?id=97922274004
Valladares, L. (2011b). Un modelo dialógico intercultural de educación científica. Cuadernos
Interculturales, 9(16), 119–134. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/552/55218731008.pdf
van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introduction to educational
design research. In J. van den Akker (Ed.), Educational design research (pp. 1–8). Routledge.
Walsh, C. (2009). Interculturalidad, Estado, Sociedad Luchas (De) Coloniales de Nuestra Época.
Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.
Wartha, E. J., Silva, E. L. D., & Bejarano, N. R. R. (2013). Cotidiano e contextualização no ensino de
química. Química nova na escola, 35(2), 84–91.
Wickman, P. -O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work.
Science Education, 88(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10129
Wickman, P. -O. (2012). Using pragmatism to develop didactics in Sweden. Zeitschrift für
Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3), 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-012-0287-7
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional
practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.
1002/sce.21027