Science & Education最新文献

As part of the special issue Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education, this paper responds to Robertson and colleagues' article: “Exposing and Challenging ‘Grit’ in Physics Education.” It examines affect theory and its connections to science identity formation. However, the paper critiques the body-mind split inherent in affect theory, arguing it stems from colonial epistemologies. Through a decolonial analysis, the paper proposes an integrative framework informed by nondominant epistemologies. It argues that racism and colonization hinder learning possibilities and scientific advancement. The paper emphasizes shared responsibility for dismantling oppressive structures, including the “grit” discourse identified in the original paper. It aims to facilitate individual reflection and encourage collective action, fostering positive change within physics spaces.

In this response to Zhang and Kuo as part of the special issue Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education, I argue that to truly care for the well-being of our students, we need to go beyond research: we will need to abolish harmful systems and replace them with systems in which students would not need to “cope”. I argue that the phenomenon of hierarchical status construction amongst students is connected to racism, sexism, ableism, and other dominant systems of oppression. Centering affect and emotion toward justice and dignity in science education would require dismantling and reassembling educational systems with a view towards the thriving of those historically denied access. For that, I argue, we need a major redistribution of decision-making power.

We live in times of crises, genocides, and massive destruction of both the natural and social habitat, where justice-centered socio-political visions of the future enacted in the present are urgently needed. Hence, the special issue Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education could not be more timely and needed. In this commentary we first provide a brief synthesis of the empirical findings and conceptual ideas presented, and then we discuss absences and constraints. Our response is grounded within the fact that engaging with affect is crucial in addressing justice-oriented goals in and through science education. Building on the authors’ work, we argue that to re-imagine science education, we need to engage more thoroughly with critical pedagogies, invest in humanizing science education, decolonize our research methodologies, and consider the diversity of geographies of injustices. The manuscripts hosted in this issue present a range of examples of work carried out in different places and showcase how this is possible in ways that resist hegemonic ways of being and doing science. We end our commentary with an invitation to our community to move from the politics of affect to the politics of allowing ourselves to be affected by and with others for the purpose of resisting, repairing, and acting otherwise in science education.

Immersive learning environments, such as serious educational games (SEGs), offer promising opportunities for enhancing elementary students' science learning outcomes and fostering their interest in science. These environments allow learners to explore scientific phenomena in ways traditional instruction cannot replicate. While prior research supports the potential of SEGs, questions remain about the specific mechanisms that support learning within these contexts. This article presents findings from a 6-year research project centered on designing, testing, and refining a SEG focused on three-dimensional science learning through the exploration of human body systems, where players engage in essential science practices critical for game progression. We first establish the SEG's efficacy through a quasi-experimental study comparing its learning outcomes to those of a quality nongaming instructional condition. Next, we identify key game mechanics linked to significant learning gains, which were intrinsically integrated into the gameplay. These include: (1) requiring players to apply science practices to advance through each game level; (2) embedding disciplinary literacy supports to strengthen mathematical reasoning and written communication; and (3) delivering in-the-moment feedback based on player responses to create additional learning opportunities. Finally, we propose a conceptual model derived from these findings to guide future serious science game design. This study contributes to the research on immersive learning environments and offers actionable insights for educators, researchers, and developers committed to creating ambitious science learning experiences for elementary learners.

Immersive learning environments, such as serious educational games (SEGs), offer promising opportunities for enhancing elementary students' science learning outcomes and fostering their interest in science. These environments allow learners to explore scientific phenomena in ways traditional instruction cannot replicate. While prior research supports the potential of SEGs, questions remain about the specific mechanisms that support learning within these contexts. This article presents findings from a 6-year research project centered on designing, testing, and refining a SEG focused on three-dimensional science learning through the exploration of human body systems, where players engage in essential science practices critical for game progression. We first establish the SEG's efficacy through a quasi-experimental study comparing its learning outcomes to those of a quality nongaming instructional condition. Next, we identify key game mechanics linked to significant learning gains, which were intrinsically integrated into the gameplay. These include: (1) requiring players to apply science practices to advance through each game level; (2) embedding disciplinary literacy supports to strengthen mathematical reasoning and written communication; and (3) delivering in-the-moment feedback based on player responses to create additional learning opportunities. Finally, we propose a conceptual model derived from these findings to guide future serious science game design. This study contributes to the research on immersive learning environments and offers actionable insights for educators, researchers, and developers committed to creating ambitious science learning experiences for elementary learners.

In this response to Silvis, Clarke-Midura, Lee and Shumway as part of the special issue Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education, I discuss some of the key openings and complexities involved in interpreting the affective, powered, embodied, historical, and cultural layers present within the learning processes of young children in a computer science setting. I consider 1) methodology as a process of learning to see and revise our conceptions of embodied learning; 2) the importance of attuning to both power and agency in STEM learning settings; and 3) analytic openings that can draw together the historicized and relational details of learning. I highlight key strengths and contributions of the paper while wrestling with important field-level challenges raised by the analysis of embodied learning among Theresa and her small group. These include the affordances and constraints of comfort as a construct, and the powered dimensions of intercorporeal dynamics among children. I reflect on the ways rendering the complexity of students’ ingenuity in navigating marginalization and finding comfort alongside attention to power is important both for developing multi-dimensional views of embodied learning among children in STEM environments and for helping surface possibilities for intervention and change.

Uncertainty has drawn substantial attention because of its potential to support conceptual progress and meaningful science work in science classrooms. Uncertainty has been conceptualized in a variety of ways: as central to scientific activity, as a design principle for science learning environments, and as an experience that supports individual and collective sensemaking. We argue that realizing uncertainty as a resource in learning environments requires working across multiple conceptions of uncertainty, specifically connecting uncertainty as designed for and uncertainty as experienced in the learning environment. We use an elementary school landforms investigation to apply design conjectures and develop an analytic method for following uncertainty from design through collective classroom engagement. We explore whether and how uncertainty was realized, made public, and taken up in classroom conversations. We highlight key findings that have continued to guide our work designing for productive uncertainty in classroom science. These include the interconnected nature of uncertainties in various parts of student investigations, the supportive role of consequential differences in helping students make uncertainty public, and teacher practices that impact how students make public and work with uncertainty.