Pub Date : 2019-07-27DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1636797
S. Morra, E. Bisagno, S. Caviola, C. Delfante, I. Mammarella
Abstract This article reconsiders Case’s theory of central conceptual structures (CCS), examining the relation between working memory and the acquisition of quantitative CCS. The lead hypothesis is that the development of working memory capacity shapes the development of quantitative concepts (whole and rational numbers). Study I, with 779 children from preschool to grade 5, validated a measure of the whole number CCS and found that children’s understanding of whole number advances by one developmental level per additional unit of working memory capacity. Study II, with 92 sixth- and seventh-graders, found that a test of the rational number CCS was predicted by working memory capacity and, to a lesser extent, by intrusion errors in the listening span. We also identified 2 subsets of items that demand a capacity of 4 or 5 units, respectively. Overall, the results support Case’s CCS theory and clarify the role of working memory in the acquisition of numerical concepts. The relevance of these results in relation to the current debate is discussed, with extensive connections to other current theories of whole or rational number comprehension.
{"title":"Working Memory Capacity and the Development of Quantitative Central Conceptual Structures","authors":"S. Morra, E. Bisagno, S. Caviola, C. Delfante, I. Mammarella","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1636797","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1636797","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article reconsiders Case’s theory of central conceptual structures (CCS), examining the relation between working memory and the acquisition of quantitative CCS. The lead hypothesis is that the development of working memory capacity shapes the development of quantitative concepts (whole and rational numbers). Study I, with 779 children from preschool to grade 5, validated a measure of the whole number CCS and found that children’s understanding of whole number advances by one developmental level per additional unit of working memory capacity. Study II, with 92 sixth- and seventh-graders, found that a test of the rational number CCS was predicted by working memory capacity and, to a lesser extent, by intrusion errors in the listening span. We also identified 2 subsets of items that demand a capacity of 4 or 5 units, respectively. Overall, the results support Case’s CCS theory and clarify the role of working memory in the acquisition of numerical concepts. The relevance of these results in relation to the current debate is discussed, with extensive connections to other current theories of whole or rational number comprehension.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"483 - 511"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1636797","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47645220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-10DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1632861
Abby Reisman, Emily Brimsek, Claire Hollywood
Abstract A troubling gap exists between the current state of history assessment and the knowledge and skills deemed essential for students to thrive in the 21st century. We propose a new assessment of historical thinking that represents a promising alignment with extant cognitive research, as well as with the practices that undergird the discipline. In this article, we discuss the design of the Assessment of Historical Analysis and Argumentation (AHAA), as well as the accompanying scoring rubric, and report findings from our administration of multiple forms of the exam with secondary students (N = 618). Evidence indicates that the exam captured student historical thinking about documents and that the items prompted students to construct a cognitive representation of intertextual reasoning. Given the dearth of assessments that capture student historical thinking about documents and their understanding of content, we believe the AHAA has the potential to be an important instructional resource.
{"title":"Assessment of Historical Analysis and Argumentation (AHAA): A New Measure of Document-Based Historical Thinking","authors":"Abby Reisman, Emily Brimsek, Claire Hollywood","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1632861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1632861","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A troubling gap exists between the current state of history assessment and the knowledge and skills deemed essential for students to thrive in the 21st century. We propose a new assessment of historical thinking that represents a promising alignment with extant cognitive research, as well as with the practices that undergird the discipline. In this article, we discuss the design of the Assessment of Historical Analysis and Argumentation (AHAA), as well as the accompanying scoring rubric, and report findings from our administration of multiple forms of the exam with secondary students (N = 618). Evidence indicates that the exam captured student historical thinking about documents and that the items prompted students to construct a cognitive representation of intertextual reasoning. Given the dearth of assessments that capture student historical thinking about documents and their understanding of content, we believe the AHAA has the potential to be an important instructional resource.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"534 - 561"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1632861","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45184649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-10DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1631825
Niral Shah, Colleen M. Lewis
Abstract Research on collaborative learning has focused on its potential to foster successful problem solving. Less attention, though, has been given to issues of equity. In this article, we investigate how inequity can become amplified and attenuated within collaborative learning through small interactional moves that accumulate to produce broader patterns of equity or inequity. Our theoretical perspective utilizes Boaler’s notion of relational equity and introduces what we term participatory equity. Research was conducted in a computer science course co-taught by the authors and taken by upper-elementary students. Data sources include audio recordings of students’ collaborative interactions, ethnographic field notes, student work, and student surveys. This article focuses on a single student, Jason, and his dyadic interactions, and builds upon our previous analyses of his interactions with four higher-performing partners. Findings reveal how the interplay between classroom structures and student enactments shaped two types of inequity during collaborative learning. We conclude by discussing implications for theorizing and analyzing equity and inequity, as well as pedagogical considerations for structuring collaborative learning to attenuate inequity.
{"title":"Amplifying and Attenuating Inequity in Collaborative Learning: Toward an Analytical Framework","authors":"Niral Shah, Colleen M. Lewis","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1631825","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1631825","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research on collaborative learning has focused on its potential to foster successful problem solving. Less attention, though, has been given to issues of equity. In this article, we investigate how inequity can become amplified and attenuated within collaborative learning through small interactional moves that accumulate to produce broader patterns of equity or inequity. Our theoretical perspective utilizes Boaler’s notion of relational equity and introduces what we term participatory equity. Research was conducted in a computer science course co-taught by the authors and taken by upper-elementary students. Data sources include audio recordings of students’ collaborative interactions, ethnographic field notes, student work, and student surveys. This article focuses on a single student, Jason, and his dyadic interactions, and builds upon our previous analyses of his interactions with four higher-performing partners. Findings reveal how the interplay between classroom structures and student enactments shaped two types of inequity during collaborative learning. We conclude by discussing implications for theorizing and analyzing equity and inequity, as well as pedagogical considerations for structuring collaborative learning to attenuate inequity.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"423 - 452"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1631825","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48278717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1624551
Maisie L. Gholson
In this commentary, I highlight the importance of my role, your role, our role in engaging this special issue, “STEM Learning: For Whom and Toward what ends?,” as researchers, scholars, and, above all, as readers in the learning sciences. The guest editors, Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tesha Sengupta-Irving, assert a forceful question that is unrelenting in its two parts. The question pushes us past the ubiquitous and high-minded mantra, STEM for all (see, for example, Martin, 2003) and beyond the purported and played-out purpose of participation and access to the political economy as the sole means for learning (see, for example, Bullock, 2017). I read the guest editors’ questions, following Philip, Bang, and Jackson (2018) and The Politics of Learning Writing Collective (2017), as a demand for politically-salient knowledge production within the learning sciences at this particular political moment and an acknowledgement of STEM learning as a particular oppressive context. Equally demanding, the special issue approaches this question not only with theoretical and philosophical imaginings of what STEM learning can be, but resolves the question through praxis, e.g., inside of the unruly reality of classrooms, the world wide web, community centers, and, in one case, the kitchen table. Each article seeks to manage this ambitious call teetering at great heights within microand mesocontexts of learning to answer the most pressing question for those of us within STEM and deeply concerned about the growing artifices of social inequality and environmental neglect in our local and global communities. How, then, might we read this special issue in a way that maintains a measure of scholarly and activist accountability to the field of learning sciences and, simultaneously, engenders the necessary support, i.e., scholarly catchment, so that these authors are not holding up an edifice of social imaginaries and radically liberatory futures in STEM learning on their own? Further, what are the challenges in reading as a scholarly catchment? Such a question is not a matter of reading generously but responsibly and inside of our humanity.
在这篇评论中，我强调了我的角色、你的角色、我们在参与这期特刊《STEM学习：为了谁和为了什么目的？》中的角色的重要性，作为研究人员、学者，最重要的是，作为学习科学的读者。客座编辑Maxine McKinney de Royston和Tesha Sengupta Irving提出了一个强有力的问题，这个问题分为两部分。这个问题让我们超越了无处不在、思想高尚的咒语，即全民STEM（例如，见Martin，2003），超越了参与和利用政治经济作为唯一学习手段的所谓和实际目的（例如，参见Bullock，2017）。继Philip、Bang和Jackson（2018）和the Politics of Learning Writing Collective（2017）之后，我阅读了客座编辑的问题，认为这是在这个特殊的政治时刻对学习科学中政治突出知识生产的需求，也是对STEM学习作为一种特殊压迫背景的承认。同样要求很高的是，这本特刊不仅通过对STEM学习的理论和哲学想象来解决这个问题，而且通过实践解决了这个问题，例如，在教室、万维网、社区中心的不规则现实中，在一个案例中，还有餐桌。每一篇文章都试图在学习的微观和中等背景下处理这一雄心勃勃的呼吁，以回答我们这些STEM内部的人最紧迫的问题，并深切关注我们当地和全球社区日益严重的社会不平等和环境忽视。那么，我们如何阅读这本特刊，以保持对学习科学领域的学术和活动家问责制，同时产生必要的支持，即学术聚集，从而使这些作者不会在STEM学习中独自支撑一座社会想象的大厦和彻底解放的未来？此外，作为一个学术领域，阅读面临哪些挑战？这样的问题不是一个慷慨的阅读问题，而是一个负责任的、人性的问题。
{"title":"Read Me Last: Constructing a Scholarly Catchment Through a Black Feminist Reading","authors":"Maisie L. Gholson","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1624551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624551","url":null,"abstract":"In this commentary, I highlight the importance of my role, your role, our role in engaging this special issue, “STEM Learning: For Whom and Toward what ends?,” as researchers, scholars, and, above all, as readers in the learning sciences. The guest editors, Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tesha Sengupta-Irving, assert a forceful question that is unrelenting in its two parts. The question pushes us past the ubiquitous and high-minded mantra, STEM for all (see, for example, Martin, 2003) and beyond the purported and played-out purpose of participation and access to the political economy as the sole means for learning (see, for example, Bullock, 2017). I read the guest editors’ questions, following Philip, Bang, and Jackson (2018) and The Politics of Learning Writing Collective (2017), as a demand for politically-salient knowledge production within the learning sciences at this particular political moment and an acknowledgement of STEM learning as a particular oppressive context. Equally demanding, the special issue approaches this question not only with theoretical and philosophical imaginings of what STEM learning can be, but resolves the question through praxis, e.g., inside of the unruly reality of classrooms, the world wide web, community centers, and, in one case, the kitchen table. Each article seeks to manage this ambitious call teetering at great heights within microand mesocontexts of learning to answer the most pressing question for those of us within STEM and deeply concerned about the growing artifices of social inequality and environmental neglect in our local and global communities. How, then, might we read this special issue in a way that maintains a measure of scholarly and activist accountability to the field of learning sciences and, simultaneously, engenders the necessary support, i.e., scholarly catchment, so that these authors are not holding up an edifice of social imaginaries and radically liberatory futures in STEM learning on their own? Further, what are the challenges in reading as a scholarly catchment? Such a question is not a matter of reading generously but responsibly and inside of our humanity.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"414 - 421"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624551","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42161425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-01DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1624552
Maxine McKinney de Royston, Tesha Sengupta-Irving
to highlight three ideas that this special issue draws on in engaging the political in learning: (a) the seamlessness of learning, society, and social change; (b) the absurdity of neutrality; and (c) the inseparability of disciplinary learning and social life. We then describe future anticipa-tions for engaging the political in learning and for the ongoing development of the learning sciences.
{"title":"Another Step Forward: Engaging the Political in Learning","authors":"Maxine McKinney de Royston, Tesha Sengupta-Irving","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1624552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624552","url":null,"abstract":"to highlight three ideas that this special issue draws on in engaging the political in learning: (a) the seamlessness of learning, society, and social change; (b) the absurdity of neutrality; and (c) the inseparability of disciplinary learning and social life. We then describe future anticipa-tions for engaging the political in learning and for the ongoing development of the learning sciences.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"277 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624552","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44024625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-01DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360
Antonia Larrain, P. Freire, Patricia López, V. Grau
Abstract Peer argumentation, especially the discussion of contrary points of view, has experimentally been found to be effective in promoting science content knowledge, but how this occurs is still unknown. The available explanations are insufficient because they do not account for the evidence showing that gains in content knowledge are unrelated to group outcomes and are still evident weeks after collaboration occurs. The aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between peer-group argumentation and science content knowledge learning. A total of 187 students (aged 10 to 11 years) from 8 classrooms participated in the study, with the classrooms spread across 8 public schools, all located in Santiago, Chile. We conducted a quasi-experimental study randomized at school-class level. Four teachers delivered science lessons following a teaching program especially developed to foster dialogic and argumentative classroom talk (the intervention group), and four teachers delivered lessons in their usual way (the control group). Students were assessed individually using both immediate and delayed post-test measures of science content knowledge. The results showed no differences in pre- to post-immediate content knowledge between conditions. However, the intervention-group students increased their content knowledge significantly more than the control-group students between post-immediate and post-delayed tests. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that, after controlling for school-level variables, time working in groups, and scores in the pretest, the formulation of counter arguments, although occurring in both groups, significantly predicted delayed gains in the intervention group only. Moreover, the frequency of counterarguments heard by students during the group work did not make a difference. Focal analysis of one small-group work suggests that teachers’ instructional practice may have contributed to the consolidation of students’ knowledge at an individual level in a post-collaborative phase.
{"title":"Counter-Arguing During Curriculum-Supported Peer Interaction Facilitates Middle-School Students’ Science Content Knowledge","authors":"Antonia Larrain, P. Freire, Patricia López, V. Grau","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Peer argumentation, especially the discussion of contrary points of view, has experimentally been found to be effective in promoting science content knowledge, but how this occurs is still unknown. The available explanations are insufficient because they do not account for the evidence showing that gains in content knowledge are unrelated to group outcomes and are still evident weeks after collaboration occurs. The aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between peer-group argumentation and science content knowledge learning. A total of 187 students (aged 10 to 11 years) from 8 classrooms participated in the study, with the classrooms spread across 8 public schools, all located in Santiago, Chile. We conducted a quasi-experimental study randomized at school-class level. Four teachers delivered science lessons following a teaching program especially developed to foster dialogic and argumentative classroom talk (the intervention group), and four teachers delivered lessons in their usual way (the control group). Students were assessed individually using both immediate and delayed post-test measures of science content knowledge. The results showed no differences in pre- to post-immediate content knowledge between conditions. However, the intervention-group students increased their content knowledge significantly more than the control-group students between post-immediate and post-delayed tests. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that, after controlling for school-level variables, time working in groups, and scores in the pretest, the formulation of counter arguments, although occurring in both groups, significantly predicted delayed gains in the intervention group only. Moreover, the frequency of counterarguments heard by students during the group work did not make a difference. Focal analysis of one small-group work suggests that teachers’ instructional practice may have contributed to the consolidation of students’ knowledge at an individual level in a post-collaborative phase.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"453 - 482"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44119400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-27DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547
C. Tzou, Enrique Suárez, P. Bell, Don LaBonte, Elizabeth Starks, Megan Bang
Abstract This article presents findings from TechTales, a participatory design research (PDR) project where learning scientists, public library staff members, informal science educators, and staff members from Native-American-serving organizations collaborated to design a family-based robotics workshop that was grounded in storytelling. We approach this by engaging Indigenous ways of knowing and being from a sociocultural learning theory perspective. Through analyzing families-in-interaction as they constructed dioramas with robotics that told their family stories, we explore how cultivating consequential learning environments in STEM is intimately intertwined with historicity, knowledge systems, and the agentic positioning of learners to design new technologies. We find that using storywork as the design focus of building dioramas created learning environments where computer programing and robotics became dynamic tools toward family-making, collaboration, and the active presencing of Indigenous knowledge systems and cultural practices. Living and interrelating with story and its knowledge systems through making were enactments of Indigenous resurgence in everyday ways. From a structure of social practices perspective, this opens up learning spaces for engagement in STEM-Art practices and in relation to other social practices of consequence, such as cultural flourishing and affiliation, collaboration and family-making, and societal repositioning.
{"title":"Storywork in STEM-Art: Making, Materiality and Robotics within Everyday Acts of Indigenous Presence and Resurgence","authors":"C. Tzou, Enrique Suárez, P. Bell, Don LaBonte, Elizabeth Starks, Megan Bang","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article presents findings from TechTales, a participatory design research (PDR) project where learning scientists, public library staff members, informal science educators, and staff members from Native-American-serving organizations collaborated to design a family-based robotics workshop that was grounded in storytelling. We approach this by engaging Indigenous ways of knowing and being from a sociocultural learning theory perspective. Through analyzing families-in-interaction as they constructed dioramas with robotics that told their family stories, we explore how cultivating consequential learning environments in STEM is intimately intertwined with historicity, knowledge systems, and the agentic positioning of learners to design new technologies. We find that using storywork as the design focus of building dioramas created learning environments where computer programing and robotics became dynamic tools toward family-making, collaboration, and the active presencing of Indigenous knowledge systems and cultural practices. Living and interrelating with story and its knowledge systems through making were enactments of Indigenous resurgence in everyday ways. From a structure of social practices perspective, this opens up learning spaces for engagement in STEM-Art practices and in relation to other social practices of consequence, such as cultural flourishing and affiliation, collaboration and family-making, and societal repositioning.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"306 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48335960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-27DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1624548
Natalie R. Davis, J. Schaeffer
Abstract The study of water as a K–12 science idea often divorces its properties from its deeply politicized history as a resource that has been limited, compromised, and intentionally withheld from nondominant communities. Although a robust body of scholarship has aptly critiqued decontextualized and depoliticized pedagogies and called for critical science-learning environments designed through the lens of equity, historicity, and power, more insight is needed into how children develop in relation to these design imperatives and within sociopolitical contexts where environmental issues pose a direct threat. We report select findings from a 2-year ethnographic project that investigated Black student agency in a school with a place-based design. Specifically, we hone in on the themes of water and water justice, which inspired the development of a socio-scientific unit enacted in two 4th-/5th-grade classrooms. This unit coincided with the initial spike in public awareness around the still unresolved water crisis in Flint, MI. For this article, we situate the “Flint” module as an illustrative case of justice-centered science pedagogy and analyze Black students’ disciplinary, affective, and sociopolitical understandings. We found that children’s meaning-making shifted from individualized accounts to critical, systemic explanations of environmental justice issues. The saliency of children's affective understandings throughout the unit was also captured. We expound on these findings and conclude with a discussion of implications, particularly as it relates to the ethics and politics of developing critical scientific capacity in young children to confront lived environmental human rights issues.
{"title":"Troubling Troubled Waters in Elementary Science Education: Politics, Ethics & Black Children’s Conceptions of Water [Justice] in the Era of Flint","authors":"Natalie R. Davis, J. Schaeffer","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1624548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624548","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The study of water as a K–12 science idea often divorces its properties from its deeply politicized history as a resource that has been limited, compromised, and intentionally withheld from nondominant communities. Although a robust body of scholarship has aptly critiqued decontextualized and depoliticized pedagogies and called for critical science-learning environments designed through the lens of equity, historicity, and power, more insight is needed into how children develop in relation to these design imperatives and within sociopolitical contexts where environmental issues pose a direct threat. We report select findings from a 2-year ethnographic project that investigated Black student agency in a school with a place-based design. Specifically, we hone in on the themes of water and water justice, which inspired the development of a socio-scientific unit enacted in two 4th-/5th-grade classrooms. This unit coincided with the initial spike in public awareness around the still unresolved water crisis in Flint, MI. For this article, we situate the “Flint” module as an illustrative case of justice-centered science pedagogy and analyze Black students’ disciplinary, affective, and sociopolitical understandings. We found that children’s meaning-making shifted from individualized accounts to critical, systemic explanations of environmental justice issues. The saliency of children's affective understandings throughout the unit was also captured. We expound on these findings and conclude with a discussion of implications, particularly as it relates to the ethics and politics of developing critical scientific capacity in young children to confront lived environmental human rights issues.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"367 - 389"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624548","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44088269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-27DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1624549
Leslie R. Herrenkohl, Jiyoung Lee, Fan Kong, Susie Nakamura, Kimia Imani, Kari Nasu, A. Hartman, Benjamin Pennant, Elisa T. Tran, Everet Wang, Noushyar Panahpour Eslami, Daniel Whittlesey, David Whittlesey, T. Huynh, Allen Jung, Chris Batalon, A. Bell, Katie Headrick Taylor
Abstract Previous research demonstrates that social and interpersonal factors, more than academic preparation, affect decisions by under-represented students to stay in or to leave STEM fields. Yet, much of the theorizing about STEM learning in higher education begins with conceptual and epistemological dimensions. We make the case for a new theoretical framework, a learning humanities, that begins with relationships. From this relational starting point, we locate STEM knowers as actors in relationships who become answerable for their STEM knowledge and take wise actions from this place. We then use this framework to analyze learning for STEM undergraduates involved in the STUDIO: Build Our World program, an afterschool mentoring program for low-income, immigrant, and refugee youth of color. Drawing on narrative and ethnographic analyses of data from 12 focal mentors, we found that mentors developed 3 focal practices identified by Edwards, relational expertise, common knowledge, and relational agency through their efforts to create the best possible program for youth. This built mentors’ sense of answerability and a capacity for wise action within and outside of STUDIO. We argue that this theoretical stance provides new ways to conceptualize the nature, purpose, and outcomes of STEM learning for historically non-dominant STEM undergraduates’ learning.
{"title":"Learning in Community for STEM Undergraduates: Connecting a Learning Sciences and a Learning Humanities Approach in Higher Education","authors":"Leslie R. Herrenkohl, Jiyoung Lee, Fan Kong, Susie Nakamura, Kimia Imani, Kari Nasu, A. Hartman, Benjamin Pennant, Elisa T. Tran, Everet Wang, Noushyar Panahpour Eslami, Daniel Whittlesey, David Whittlesey, T. Huynh, Allen Jung, Chris Batalon, A. Bell, Katie Headrick Taylor","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1624549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624549","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Previous research demonstrates that social and interpersonal factors, more than academic preparation, affect decisions by under-represented students to stay in or to leave STEM fields. Yet, much of the theorizing about STEM learning in higher education begins with conceptual and epistemological dimensions. We make the case for a new theoretical framework, a learning humanities, that begins with relationships. From this relational starting point, we locate STEM knowers as actors in relationships who become answerable for their STEM knowledge and take wise actions from this place. We then use this framework to analyze learning for STEM undergraduates involved in the STUDIO: Build Our World program, an afterschool mentoring program for low-income, immigrant, and refugee youth of color. Drawing on narrative and ethnographic analyses of data from 12 focal mentors, we found that mentors developed 3 focal practices identified by Edwards, relational expertise, common knowledge, and relational agency through their efforts to create the best possible program for youth. This built mentors’ sense of answerability and a capacity for wise action within and outside of STUDIO. We argue that this theoretical stance provides new ways to conceptualize the nature, purpose, and outcomes of STEM learning for historically non-dominant STEM undergraduates’ learning.","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"327 - 348"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624549","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45420244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-24DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1624550
Jrène Rahm
What is behind the current narrative “more STEM in schools and societies” that this special issue aims to address? If, indeed, we are committed to more STEM in schools and societies, what does this...
{"title":"The Restorying of STEM Learning Through the Lens of Multiples","authors":"Jrène Rahm","doi":"10.1080/07370008.2019.1624550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624550","url":null,"abstract":"What is behind the current narrative “more STEM in schools and societies” that this special issue aims to address? If, indeed, we are committed to more STEM in schools and societies, what does this...","PeriodicalId":47945,"journal":{"name":"Cognition and Instruction","volume":"37 1","pages":"408 - 413"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2019-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624550","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43127212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：