School of Educational Studies, University of Washington, Bothell, Bothell, WA 98011-8246.
Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA 98195.
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022 Jun;21(2):es2. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-05-0130.
The term "achievement gap" has a negative and racialized history, and using the term reinforces a deficit mindset that is ingrained in U.S. educational systems. In this essay, we review the literature that demonstrates why "achievement gap" reflects deficit thinking. We explain why biology education researchers should avoid using the phrase and also caution that changing vocabulary alone will not suffice. Instead, we suggest that researchers explicitly apply frameworks that are supportive, name racially systemic inequities and embrace student identity. We review four such frameworks-opportunity gaps, educational debt, community cultural wealth, and ethics of care-and reinterpret salient examples from biology education research as an example of each framework. Although not exhaustive, these descriptions form a starting place for biology education researchers to explicitly name systems-level and asset-based frameworks as they work to end educational inequities.
“成就差距”一词具有消极和种族主义的历史，使用该术语强化了美国教育系统中根深蒂固的缺陷思维。在本文中，我们回顾了文献，证明了为什么“成就差距”反映了缺陷思维。我们解释了为什么生物学教育研究人员应该避免使用这个短语，并警告说仅仅改变词汇是不够的。相反，我们建议研究人员明确应用支持性框架，指出种族系统性不平等，并接受学生身份。我们回顾了四个这样的框架——机会差距、教育债务、社区文化财富和关怀伦理，并重新解释了生物学教育研究中的相关例子，作为每个框架的一个示例。虽然不详尽，但这些描述为生物学教育研究人员提供了一个起点，使他们能够在努力消除教育不平等的过程中明确提出系统层面和基于资产的框架。
