Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2157178
Leigh Patel
I tossed this ball to a small class of four graduate students enrolled in a 2022 Critical Policy Analysis class. It matters less which programs they were enrolled, what their specific attraction to policy were. It very much mattered that they had told me, “whatever the midterm is, we want to do it together.” It matters very much that these four people and I had been able to create a space in which “how are you?” was a question, not a fly-by greeting and exit. We came to know a good deal about each other, with a living syllabus whose readings and topics were informed by their specific interests in education policy. In essence, we had formed more of a community workshop than a graduate course. It seemed like an opportune place to offer an analog game for the midterm To my question, they answered in resounding “Yes!” One person said, “I don’t really know what that means, but I’m excited to try it!” After class and for a few days, I furrowed my brow, paced around house, and kept wondering what I was going to design. What does it mean do to “design” a game? What had I gotten myself into? I offered this rather unusual assignment soon after I was able to participate in an enlivening workshop led by outdoor educator and analog game designer, Jeeyon Shim. As part of a speculative education conference, organized by Nicole Mirra and Antero Garcia. Over the course of a short amount of time, Jeeyon guided roughly a dozen educators and educational researchers through how important games are to beings of all ages and forms and how they are also a place where world-making can happen. We all created tiny homes during the workshop with Jeeyon, sharing one by one, pieces of our world. In the sharing, we came to know so much about each other that likely would not have surfaced had we not had about 15 minutes to gather items, small enough to fit into a confined material space, and big enough to illustrate wishes, desires, worries, and essentials for our respective worlds. As Templeton (2020) lifts up in their work that troubles adult’s gaze of
{"title":"Critical policy analysis and gameplay","authors":"Leigh Patel","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2157178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2157178","url":null,"abstract":"I tossed this ball to a small class of four graduate students enrolled in a 2022 Critical Policy Analysis class. It matters less which programs they were enrolled, what their specific attraction to policy were. It very much mattered that they had told me, “whatever the midterm is, we want to do it together.” It matters very much that these four people and I had been able to create a space in which “how are you?” was a question, not a fly-by greeting and exit. We came to know a good deal about each other, with a living syllabus whose readings and topics were informed by their specific interests in education policy. In essence, we had formed more of a community workshop than a graduate course. It seemed like an opportune place to offer an analog game for the midterm To my question, they answered in resounding “Yes!” One person said, “I don’t really know what that means, but I’m excited to try it!” After class and for a few days, I furrowed my brow, paced around house, and kept wondering what I was going to design. What does it mean do to “design” a game? What had I gotten myself into? I offered this rather unusual assignment soon after I was able to participate in an enlivening workshop led by outdoor educator and analog game designer, Jeeyon Shim. As part of a speculative education conference, organized by Nicole Mirra and Antero Garcia. Over the course of a short amount of time, Jeeyon guided roughly a dozen educators and educational researchers through how important games are to beings of all ages and forms and how they are also a place where world-making can happen. We all created tiny homes during the workshop with Jeeyon, sharing one by one, pieces of our world. In the sharing, we came to know so much about each other that likely would not have surfaced had we not had about 15 minutes to gather items, small enough to fit into a confined material space, and big enough to illustrate wishes, desires, worries, and essentials for our respective worlds. As Templeton (2020) lifts up in their work that troubles adult’s gaze of","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"4 1","pages":"137 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88693490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-15DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2144736
Antti Rajala, M. Cole, M. Esteban-Guitart
ABSTRACT Background This article explores the methodological foundations for a utopian methodology as a form of Design-Based Intervention Research (DBR) that can guide the process of envisioning, implementing, sustaining, and critically evaluating the more radical forms of educational activity systems that prefigure the utopian goal of an equitable and humane education system. Methods We examine, guided by a utopian methodology lens, the examples from three national traditions for designing and implementing equitable educational activities. Each illuminates critical phases in the process of conducting DBR, combining social theory and cultural-historical activity theory. Findings We propose methodological principles for a utopian methodology as a form of DBR: a) Some conditions for sustaining and re-generating the utopian goal should be explicitly considered; b) Examine the recurring challenges to viability and achievability of the utopian design in its learning ecology that emerge for observation over multiple times scales; c) Self-critique and collaborative re-design for a new iteration. Contribution Taken as an ensemble, the cases analyzed here illustrate the broad usefulness of the utopian methodology that we propose in order to maintain the light of the utopian goal and challenge domestication process embedded in any process of change and transformation of the status quo.
{"title":"Utopian methodology: Researching educational interventions to promote equity over multiple timescales","authors":"Antti Rajala, M. Cole, M. Esteban-Guitart","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2144736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2144736","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background This article explores the methodological foundations for a utopian methodology as a form of Design-Based Intervention Research (DBR) that can guide the process of envisioning, implementing, sustaining, and critically evaluating the more radical forms of educational activity systems that prefigure the utopian goal of an equitable and humane education system. Methods We examine, guided by a utopian methodology lens, the examples from three national traditions for designing and implementing equitable educational activities. Each illuminates critical phases in the process of conducting DBR, combining social theory and cultural-historical activity theory. Findings We propose methodological principles for a utopian methodology as a form of DBR: a) Some conditions for sustaining and re-generating the utopian goal should be explicitly considered; b) Examine the recurring challenges to viability and achievability of the utopian design in its learning ecology that emerge for observation over multiple times scales; c) Self-critique and collaborative re-design for a new iteration. Contribution Taken as an ensemble, the cases analyzed here illustrate the broad usefulness of the utopian methodology that we propose in order to maintain the light of the utopian goal and challenge domestication process embedded in any process of change and transformation of the status quo.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"13 1","pages":"110 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78007918","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-10DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2114833
Tesha Sengupta-Irving, Lauren Vogelstein, C. Brady, Emily Phillips Galloway
ABSTRACT Background Makerspaces are proliferating U.S. public schools and libraries. Few studies, however, take an in situ view on the pedagogical moves of mentors, and fewer still engage with ideologies of race and class therein. Without this, principles of pedagogy or design that build toward expansive learning for racially minoritized youth will remain elusive. Methods Semi-structured interviews and fieldnotes of mentors in a U.S. public library makerspace were taken over six weeks (n = 12). The mentors were predominantly white and all were professional artists/creatives; teen patrons were predominantly racially minoritized. Findings Three recurring pedagogical moves surfaced through the interplay of prolepsis and telos as an interpretive lens. We identify how mentor history/memory and future imaginings of youth as adult creatives—both of which intersect with ideologies of race and class—shape their mediation of learning. Contributions 1) Documentation of specific pedagogical moves that extend efforts to name the work of mentors; 2) Presentation of prolepsis and telos as a lens to recover the power of imagination in pedagogy; and 3) Extension of how prolepsis is used to the study human learning and development by bringing it in contact with the study of ideologies among educators.
{"title":"Prolepsis & telos: Interpreting pedagogy and recovering imagination in the mediation of youth learning","authors":"Tesha Sengupta-Irving, Lauren Vogelstein, C. Brady, Emily Phillips Galloway","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2114833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2114833","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Makerspaces are proliferating U.S. public schools and libraries. Few studies, however, take an in situ view on the pedagogical moves of mentors, and fewer still engage with ideologies of race and class therein. Without this, principles of pedagogy or design that build toward expansive learning for racially minoritized youth will remain elusive. Methods Semi-structured interviews and fieldnotes of mentors in a U.S. public library makerspace were taken over six weeks (n = 12). The mentors were predominantly white and all were professional artists/creatives; teen patrons were predominantly racially minoritized. Findings Three recurring pedagogical moves surfaced through the interplay of prolepsis and telos as an interpretive lens. We identify how mentor history/memory and future imaginings of youth as adult creatives—both of which intersect with ideologies of race and class—shape their mediation of learning. Contributions 1) Documentation of specific pedagogical moves that extend efforts to name the work of mentors; 2) Presentation of prolepsis and telos as a lens to recover the power of imagination in pedagogy; and 3) Extension of how prolepsis is used to the study human learning and development by bringing it in contact with the study of ideologies among educators.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"1 1 1","pages":"211 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79640366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2120398
Antonia Larrain, V. Grau, María José Barrera, P. Freire, Patricia López, Sebastián Verdugo, Marisol Gómez, Francisca Ramírez, Gabriel Sánchez
ABSTRACT Empirical evidence demonstrates the effect of productive failure (Kapur, 2008) on disciplinary knowledge. However, there is no clear theoretical explanation for why this is the case. Empirical evidence on argumentation and education shows the impact of curricular embedded deliberative argumentation on learning. However, these two trends of research have been mainly isolated, with insufficient synergy. Through the analysis of a group of sixth-graders collaborating around problems of natural selection, the aim of this paper is the theoretical exploration of the process of learning in productive failure designs through a focus on argumentative peer dialogue. The paper proposes an articulation of these two fields of research (productive failure and argumentation), which sheds light on both the learning dynamics in productive failure settings and the relevant insights for argumentative designs. The new possibilities for empirical research on learning through peer interaction opened up by these interconnected fields of research are proposed and discussed.
{"title":"Productive failure and learning through argumentation: Building a bridge between two research traditions to understand the process of peer learning","authors":"Antonia Larrain, V. Grau, María José Barrera, P. Freire, Patricia López, Sebastián Verdugo, Marisol Gómez, Francisca Ramírez, Gabriel Sánchez","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2120398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2120398","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Empirical evidence demonstrates the effect of productive failure (Kapur, 2008) on disciplinary knowledge. However, there is no clear theoretical explanation for why this is the case. Empirical evidence on argumentation and education shows the impact of curricular embedded deliberative argumentation on learning. However, these two trends of research have been mainly isolated, with insufficient synergy. Through the analysis of a group of sixth-graders collaborating around problems of natural selection, the aim of this paper is the theoretical exploration of the process of learning in productive failure designs through a focus on argumentative peer dialogue. The paper proposes an articulation of these two fields of research (productive failure and argumentation), which sheds light on both the learning dynamics in productive failure settings and the relevant insights for argumentative designs. The new possibilities for empirical research on learning through peer interaction opened up by these interconnected fields of research are proposed and discussed.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"17 1","pages":"673 - 688"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87773453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-20DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2105649
Jihyun Chakrin, T. Campbell
ABSTRACT Background In the context of recent research in science education and continued struggles to understand how best to support science teachers, epistemological frames, made up of sets of epistemological resources teachers activate, have emerged as an important focus of research. However, at the time of this writing no research was available to identify the epistemological frames activated by preservice science teachers (PSTs). Methods In this research, using qualitative research methods, we studied and applied a coding scheme to identify 10 PSTs’ epistemological framing in their early teaching as part of a science teaching methods course. Three observations and three interviews of each PST served as primary data sources. Findings We found three main epistemological frames activated. Further, we identified the contexts in which these frames were activated, where contexts can be understood as situations characterized by different possible dimensions within which resources are activated. We also described dynamics noted by PSTs related to the activation of specific epistemological resources and identified frames. Contribution This research is a relatively new application of the epistemological framing framework that has potential to help science teacher educators better understand and support PST learning and practice.
{"title":"Preservice science teachers’ epistemological framing in their early teaching","authors":"Jihyun Chakrin, T. Campbell","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2105649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2105649","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background In the context of recent research in science education and continued struggles to understand how best to support science teachers, epistemological frames, made up of sets of epistemological resources teachers activate, have emerged as an important focus of research. However, at the time of this writing no research was available to identify the epistemological frames activated by preservice science teachers (PSTs). Methods In this research, using qualitative research methods, we studied and applied a coding scheme to identify 10 PSTs’ epistemological framing in their early teaching as part of a science teaching methods course. Three observations and three interviews of each PST served as primary data sources. Findings We found three main epistemological frames activated. Further, we identified the contexts in which these frames were activated, where contexts can be understood as situations characterized by different possible dimensions within which resources are activated. We also described dynamics noted by PSTs related to the activation of specific epistemological resources and identified frames. Contribution This research is a relatively new application of the epistemological framing framework that has potential to help science teacher educators better understand and support PST learning and practice.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"90 1","pages":"545 - 593"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81552958","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-18DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2100704
A. Keune
ABSTRACT Background Fiber crafts occupy a vital position in technology innovation and present a promising space for computer science education, which continues to face lopsided participation. It remains unclear whether and how fiber crafts can become a context for computational learning and what role different materials play with the risk to miss computational approaches that could broaden computational cultures. Methods Fusing constructionist and posthuman perspectives, this study analyzed how middle school students performed computational concepts while weaving and manipulating fabric and how the craft materials drove what could be learned computationally in these contexts. Findings Present the fiber crafts as a context for performing computational concepts (i.e., variables, conditionals, functions) and that the materials play a role in what can be learned computationally. While weaving drove computing as the performance of automation, fabric manipulation required speculative and physical three-dimensional modeling as computational. Contribution The paper presents fiber crafts as a promising context for computational learning and theorizes the ongoing material as material syntonicity, contributing a material direction to fostering more inclusive and sustainable computing cultures.
{"title":"Material syntonicity: Examining computational performance and its materiality through weaving and sewing crafts","authors":"A. Keune","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2100704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2100704","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Fiber crafts occupy a vital position in technology innovation and present a promising space for computer science education, which continues to face lopsided participation. It remains unclear whether and how fiber crafts can become a context for computational learning and what role different materials play with the risk to miss computational approaches that could broaden computational cultures. Methods Fusing constructionist and posthuman perspectives, this study analyzed how middle school students performed computational concepts while weaving and manipulating fabric and how the craft materials drove what could be learned computationally in these contexts. Findings Present the fiber crafts as a context for performing computational concepts (i.e., variables, conditionals, functions) and that the materials play a role in what can be learned computationally. While weaving drove computing as the performance of automation, fabric manipulation required speculative and physical three-dimensional modeling as computational. Contribution The paper presents fiber crafts as a promising context for computational learning and theorizes the ongoing material as material syntonicity, contributing a material direction to fostering more inclusive and sustainable computing cultures.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"3 1","pages":"477 - 508"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80163826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-12DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2100705
Victor R. Lee
ABSTRACT “Learning engineering” has gained popularity as a term connected to the work of learning sciences. However, the nature of that connection is not entirely clear. For some, learning engineering represents distinct, industry-inspired practices enabled by data abundance and digital platformization of learning technologies. That view is presented as one where learning engineers apply learning research that has resided in experimental studies. For others, learning engineering should refer to the use of the full breadth of knowledge developed within the learning sciences research community. This second view is more inclusive of the fundamentally situated, design-oriented, and real-world commitments that are the backbone of the learning sciences, as reflected in this journal. The two views differ even as far as whether the academic field is labeled “learning science” or “learning sciences”. This article examines and articulates these differences. It also argues that without course correction, many who identify with learning engineering will conduct technology-supported learning improvement work that, at its own risk, will neglect the full and necessary scope of what has already been and continues to be discovered in the learning sciences. Moreover, it behooves all to consider recently elevated, but deeply fundamental questions being asked in the learning sciences about what is important to learn and toward what ends. With some more clarity around what is actually encompassed by the learning sciences and how all interested in design and educational improvement can build upon that knowledge, we can make greater collective progress to understanding and supporting human learning.
{"title":"Learning sciences and learning engineering: A natural or artificial distinction?","authors":"Victor R. Lee","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2100705","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2100705","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT “Learning engineering” has gained popularity as a term connected to the work of learning sciences. However, the nature of that connection is not entirely clear. For some, learning engineering represents distinct, industry-inspired practices enabled by data abundance and digital platformization of learning technologies. That view is presented as one where learning engineers apply learning research that has resided in experimental studies. For others, learning engineering should refer to the use of the full breadth of knowledge developed within the learning sciences research community. This second view is more inclusive of the fundamentally situated, design-oriented, and real-world commitments that are the backbone of the learning sciences, as reflected in this journal. The two views differ even as far as whether the academic field is labeled “learning science” or “learning sciences”. This article examines and articulates these differences. It also argues that without course correction, many who identify with learning engineering will conduct technology-supported learning improvement work that, at its own risk, will neglect the full and necessary scope of what has already been and continues to be discovered in the learning sciences. Moreover, it behooves all to consider recently elevated, but deeply fundamental questions being asked in the learning sciences about what is important to learn and toward what ends. With some more clarity around what is actually encompassed by the learning sciences and how all interested in design and educational improvement can build upon that knowledge, we can make greater collective progress to understanding and supporting human learning.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"24 1","pages":"288 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90607341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-20DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2091442
M. Dahn
ABSTRACT Background Art making is a personal and social process in which learners make meaning for themselves and audiences through the production of artifacts. In classrooms, this personal and social process is made concrete through dialogue. Methods This paper presents an illustrative case study of how sixth-grade student, Jo, developed voice through interaction with peers in a classroom context while making art about social issues. Interaction analysis methods supported inquiry into Jo’s talk about art making as she talked with peers in designed conversation spaces (i.e., intentional structures and opportunities to talk about artwork while making it). Findings Jo’s voice development illustrates the collaborative nature of voice as an interactional accomplishment; having a unique voice is something students might strive to achieve as artists, yet that voice is co-constructed through collective social interaction as students take up, appropriate, and build on others’ ideas. Artistic and political dimensions of art making were generative. Contribution Pedagogical implications are discussed for designing socially supported learning experiences in arts classrooms. What Jo’s case makes evident is that voice can be supported in classrooms through intentional pedagogical choices that create the conditions for that voice to develop through interactions with peers and materials.
{"title":"Voice as an interactional accomplishment in art making about social issues","authors":"M. Dahn","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2091442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2091442","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Art making is a personal and social process in which learners make meaning for themselves and audiences through the production of artifacts. In classrooms, this personal and social process is made concrete through dialogue. Methods This paper presents an illustrative case study of how sixth-grade student, Jo, developed voice through interaction with peers in a classroom context while making art about social issues. Interaction analysis methods supported inquiry into Jo’s talk about art making as she talked with peers in designed conversation spaces (i.e., intentional structures and opportunities to talk about artwork while making it). Findings Jo’s voice development illustrates the collaborative nature of voice as an interactional accomplishment; having a unique voice is something students might strive to achieve as artists, yet that voice is co-constructed through collective social interaction as students take up, appropriate, and build on others’ ideas. Artistic and political dimensions of art making were generative. Contribution Pedagogical implications are discussed for designing socially supported learning experiences in arts classrooms. What Jo’s case makes evident is that voice can be supported in classrooms through intentional pedagogical choices that create the conditions for that voice to develop through interactions with peers and materials.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"57 1","pages":"594 - 629"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80224574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-24DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2073232
Anna F. DeJarnette
ABSTRACT Background Groupwork is a desirable activity in mathematics classrooms for the opportunity it creates for collaborative reasoning and interdependence. Correlations between group-level processes and outcomes have helped characterize the features of more successful groups, but group-level constructs can obscure how students negotiate ideas. This study investigated how students’ interactions, and the written work they produced, reflected their negotiations of authority and mathematics content during groupwork. Methods I used techniques from systemic functional linguistics to analyze transcripts from groups of 7th-grade students during work on an open-ended mathematics task, to document connections between groups’ interpersonal processes and their mathematical products. Findings Two groups who produced similar products did so through different processes. In one group students’ written work reflected consensus, evidenced by students’ verbal contributions. In the other group, the written product reflected two distinct lines of reasoning that were both verbalized but never integrated in conversation. Contribution While previous studies have documented differences in interactional patterns between more and, respectively, less successful groups, this study extends that line of research by describing differences between similarly successful groups. The use of SFL helps explain the path from group-level patterns and group outputs through individual students’ participation.
{"title":"What do correct answers reveal? The interpersonal and mathematical aspects of students’ interactions during groupwork in seventh grade mathematics","authors":"Anna F. DeJarnette","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2073232","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2073232","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Groupwork is a desirable activity in mathematics classrooms for the opportunity it creates for collaborative reasoning and interdependence. Correlations between group-level processes and outcomes have helped characterize the features of more successful groups, but group-level constructs can obscure how students negotiate ideas. This study investigated how students’ interactions, and the written work they produced, reflected their negotiations of authority and mathematics content during groupwork. Methods I used techniques from systemic functional linguistics to analyze transcripts from groups of 7th-grade students during work on an open-ended mathematics task, to document connections between groups’ interpersonal processes and their mathematical products. Findings Two groups who produced similar products did so through different processes. In one group students’ written work reflected consensus, evidenced by students’ verbal contributions. In the other group, the written product reflected two distinct lines of reasoning that were both verbalized but never integrated in conversation. Contribution While previous studies have documented differences in interactional patterns between more and, respectively, less successful groups, this study extends that line of research by describing differences between similarly successful groups. The use of SFL helps explain the path from group-level patterns and group outputs through individual students’ participation.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"99 1","pages":"509 - 544"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81402264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2022.2073233
R. McNeill, Luis A. Leyva, Brittany L. Marshall
ABSTRACT Background Calculus instruction is underexamined as a source of racialized and gendered inequity in higher education, despite research that documents minoritized students’ marginalizing experiences in undergraduate mathematics classes. This study fills this research gap by investigating mathematics faculty’s perceptions of the significance of race and gender to calculus instruction at a large, public, historically white research university. Methods Theories of colorblind racism and dysconsciousness guided a critical discourse analysis of seven undergraduate calculus faculty’s perceptions of instructional events. Findings Our analysis revealed two dominant discourses: (i) Race and gender are insignificant social markers in undergraduate calculus; and (ii) Instructional events can be objectively deemed race- and gender-neutral. We illustrate how calculus faculty varyingly engaged these colorblind discourses as well as discourses that challenged such conceptions of instruction. We also highlight how faculty dysconsciousness in reports of instructional practices reflect potential operationalization of dominant discourses that reinforce colorblind racism. Contribution With limited research on faculty perspectives on racial equity in mathematics, our study documents how color-evasive, gender-neutral discourses among mathematics faculty shape orientations to instruction that reinforce the gatekeeping role of calculus in STEM higher education. Implications are provided for race- and gender-conscious undergraduate mathematics instruction and faculty development.
{"title":"“They’re just students. There’s no clear distinction”: A critical discourse analysis of color-evasive, gender-neutral faculty discourses in undergraduate calculus instruction","authors":"R. McNeill, Luis A. Leyva, Brittany L. Marshall","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2073233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2073233","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Calculus instruction is underexamined as a source of racialized and gendered inequity in higher education, despite research that documents minoritized students’ marginalizing experiences in undergraduate mathematics classes. This study fills this research gap by investigating mathematics faculty’s perceptions of the significance of race and gender to calculus instruction at a large, public, historically white research university. Methods Theories of colorblind racism and dysconsciousness guided a critical discourse analysis of seven undergraduate calculus faculty’s perceptions of instructional events. Findings Our analysis revealed two dominant discourses: (i) Race and gender are insignificant social markers in undergraduate calculus; and (ii) Instructional events can be objectively deemed race- and gender-neutral. We illustrate how calculus faculty varyingly engaged these colorblind discourses as well as discourses that challenged such conceptions of instruction. We also highlight how faculty dysconsciousness in reports of instructional practices reflect potential operationalization of dominant discourses that reinforce colorblind racism. Contribution With limited research on faculty perspectives on racial equity in mathematics, our study documents how color-evasive, gender-neutral discourses among mathematics faculty shape orientations to instruction that reinforce the gatekeeping role of calculus in STEM higher education. Implications are provided for race- and gender-conscious undergraduate mathematics instruction and faculty development.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"33 1","pages":"630 - 672"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82903303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","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：