Journal of Research in Science Teaching最新文献

This study explored a middle school science teacher's curricular sensemaking in interaction with their use of an educative storyline curriculum, aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards, that was intentionally designed for more opportunities for students' scientific sensemaking. Using a phenomenological case study methodology, we examined how the focal teacher perceived and resolved (un)certainties in their understanding that emerged in their interaction with the curriculum (i.e., their curricular sensemaking), and how the teachers' curricular sensemaking impacted opportunities for students' scientific sensemaking. Findings served to expand our notions of how teachers engage in curricular sensemaking, when this sensemaking occurs, and what teachers make sense of as they experience a new, reform-oriented curriculum for the first time. In particular, the focal teacher found two types of (un)certainty to be salient at various time points during his curriculum use: (un)certainty around students' scientific sensemaking through particular science practices and (un)certainty about how to navigate the storyline curriculum using students' ideas to drive learning forward. Cutting across these types of (un)certainty, our findings suggest the need to (1) support teachers in problematizing their own understandings about particular science practices and the extent to which their previous instruction aligns with reform-oriented conceptualizations of those practices, (2) build teachers' capacity to differentiate between various causes of student discomfort and uncertainty so that students' needs and scientific sensemaking goals can be attended to simultaneously, and (3) provide teachers with opportunities to consider how they might use a variety of participation structures to move learning forward while preserving students' rights and responsibilities for the scientific sensemaking.

Systemic equity challenges in K-12 STEM education place students from minoritized groups on an uneven footing, restricting access and opportunity for the diverse students who make up the majority population in US public schools. Teachers play a key role in advocating for equity and justice in STEM education. In positioning themselves as agents of change, they have the power to impact their classrooms, schools, and communities. Using a collaborative coding process informed by dominant and critical framings of equity in STEM education, we analyzed equity research presentations and final written reflections from a graduate course for practicing teachers (n = 23) focused on STEM integration. Teacher participants demonstrated one of four advocacy orientations: (a) equity in classroom teaching, (b) STEM education, (c) equity in STEM education, or (d) neither equity nor STEM. Our analysis of teachers' final course reflections led us to develop a rubric using principles of grammar to evaluate the levels of agency evident in teachers' statements. Most teachers were at least minimally agentic for STEM, but fewer teachers were agentic for equity. Only four of 23 teachers were highly agentic for equity in STEM education. We identify a need for more purposeful scaffolding in professional learning to build teacher advocacy and agency for equity in STEM education. Future research should explore the high-leverage practices in STEM teacher education that foster advocacy and agency.

Collaborative argumentation has been recognized as a powerful means to facilitate conceptual change of scientific concepts for which students have robust misconceptions. However, eliciting and maintaining collaborative argumentation that yields such productive outcomes is known to be difficult. Specifically, social-motivational antecedents have not yet been explored. Over 13 weeks, we conducted a controlled experiment to examine the role of achievement goals in productive collaborative argumentation in the context of scientific concept learning while fully considering the effects on conceptual change, argumentative discourse, and perceptions of conflicts. Three types of achievement goals were identified among 94 undergraduates: mastery goal-dominant (a focus on developing competence and task mastery), two goals-balanced (pursuing mastery and performance goals simultaneously) and performance goal-dominant (a focus on demonstrating competence relative to others). Eighteen homogeneous groups participated in four collaborative argumentation activities concerning four scientific topics of varying controversy levels. The results showed that for highly controversial topics, mastery goal-dominant students and two goals-balanced students exhibited greater conceptual change than performance goal-dominant students over a longer period. Dialogue protocol analysis further revealed a combined pattern of argumentative discourse (i.e., both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred) among mastery goal-dominant students and two goals-balanced students concerning highly controversial topics. Responses to stimulated recall interviews also indicated that perceptions of conflicts among the three types of students differed in terms of five aspects: their first impression of disagreements, their feelings in response to peer disagreement, their reasons for changing or maintaining to their original ideas, the meaning of group consensus, and the degrees to which they accepted group consensus. This study sheds light on the role of social-motivational antecedents, deepening our understanding of whether different achievement goals might orient students to different perceptions of conflicts, triggering different argumentative discourse, producing different conceptual change.

Articulating the rules, roles, and values that are expected of undergraduate researchers is important as we strive to create a more accessible path into the scientific community. Rules refer to skills required of scientists, roles refer to behaviors consistent with the expectations of a scientist, and values refer to beliefs of the scientific community. Doctoral student mentors have great potential to serve as agents of influence for undergraduate researchers as undergraduates engage in the process of learning to be a scientist through legitimate peripheral participation. As such, we argue that doctoral students are partially responsible for identifying and promoting the rules, roles, and values that undergraduate researchers develop in scientific research. However, few studies have examined what rules, roles, and values are appreciated, or perceived as desirable, by doctoral students and thus expected of undergraduate research mentees. To address this gap, we surveyed 835 life sciences doctoral students who had mentored or would eventually mentor undergraduate researchers. We assessed what qualities and beliefs they appreciate in undergraduate researchers and what advice they would give to undergraduates to maximize their experiences in research. We analyzed their open-ended responses using inductive coding and identified specific rules (e.g., effectively communicate), roles (e.g., demonstrate a strong work ethic), and values (e.g., be driven by intrinsic passion) that doctoral students wrote about. We used logistic regression to determine whether demographics predicted differences among doctoral student responses. We found that gender, race/ethnicity, and college generation status predicted what rules, roles, and values doctoral students appreciated and advised undergraduates to adopt. This research illuminates what rules, roles, and values undergraduate researchers are expected to uphold and identifies relationships between mentor identities and the advice they pass on to students.

National governments are concerned about the disconnection of young people from science, which hampers the development of a scientifically literate society promoting sustainable development, wellbeing, equity, and a green economy. Introduced in 2015 alongside Agenda 2030, the “open schooling” approach aims at enhancing students' science connections through real-life problem solving with families and scientists, necessitating solid evidence for scalability and sustainability. This study conceptualizes “science connection,” a term yet underexplored, as the integration of science's meaning and purpose into personal, social, and global actions informed by socioscientific thinking. It details a novel 32-item self-report questionnaire developed and validated from insights of 85 teachers into “science connection”-enhanced learning. A new consensual qualitative analysis method with visual and textual snapshots enabled developing quantitative measures from the qualitative findings with rigor. The multilanguage instrument provided just-in-time actionable data, enhancing the immediacy and applicability of the feedback to 2082 underserved students aged 11–18 across five countries participating in open schooling activities using the CARE-KNOW-DO model. This innovative feature supports open science and responsible open research, offering real-time insights and fostering immediate educational impact. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed five components of science connection: Confidence and aspiration in science; Fun participatory science with teachers, family, and experts; Active learning approaches; Involvement in-and-outside school science activities; and Valuing science's role to life-and-society. Many students felt connected to science— Brazil: 80%, Spain: 79%, Romania: 73%, Greece: 70%, UK: 57%— with boys: 75%, girls: 73%, nonbinary students: 56%. These differences need in-depth research. Results suggest that science connections decline from the primary to secondary education, but the CARE-KNOW-DO model may reengage older students. A robust science connection enhances scientific literacy and builds science capital. This instrument aids policymakers, educators, and learners in identifying factors that facilitate or impede students' engagement with science for sustainable development efforts.

The purpose of this article is to introduce a methodology for analyzing the complex configurations emerging in students' speech and drawing activities, having consequences for how and what students learn and make meaning of in science. Accordingly, we launch a methodology to unfold the multidimensional communication as to deepen the analysis of the science epistemic discourse. We present an empirical account of students' explorations through different signs to demonstrate the construction of the methodology step-by-step. This methodology, a “seven-concept-assemblage,” is rooted in Dewey's pragmatism and Deleuze's experimentalism broadening teachers' and researchers' possibility to target students' science explorations and meaning-making crosscutting different domains. The methodology diminishes the risk of interpretation when grasping unspoken messages and meanings. Empirical data were collected in an elementary school exemplifying the methodology and consist of audio recordings, photographs, fieldnotes, and students' drawings. The result reveals that the methodology in use exposed what and how students explored and learned cognitively and aesthetically. Imagination fertilized the process throughout. Learning then is suggested as a transductive meaning-making process shaped through oral and pictorial relations—always from a purpose.