Science & Education最新文献

This essay responds to Kirchgasler's (2026) analysis of affective hierarchies in post-Brown science education as part of the special issue Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education. Drawing on prior work on racialized deviance in mathematics education, I argue that both science and mathematics education reforms have positioned Black children as emotionally and cognitively deficient, requiring pedagogical intervention to attain citizenship and dignity. I use Kirchgasler's argument for the three ways that science education enacted racialized hierarchies of affect post-Brown to extend my prior argument about the operation of the genre function in equity-oriented mathematics education research to science education. I connect Kirchgasler's first—dividing students into tiered emotional regimes—and second—making dignity conditional on developing a depoliticized scientific self—analytical points to the two rules of equity research in mathematics education. This analysis highlights the necessary social function of mathematics and limiting the focus on equity to the descriptive.

In this response to Herrick, Lawson, and Matewos's “‘How Do These Data Make You Feel?’ The Emergence of Emotional Pathways in Community Science Data Talks About Climate Justice Issues” as part of the special issue “Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education,” I discuss the usefulness of their Community Science Data Talks (CSDTs) and offer four questions and additional wonderings for consideration. The authors present Community Science Data Talks (CSDTs) as a small-scale discourse routine exploring local data that operates both as a pedagogical framework and theoretical foundation to investigate teacher- and student-led emotional pathways. I ask questions about the salience of race and racism, with curiosities about how systemic oppression (e.g., white supremacy, capitalism, cisheteropatriarchy, imperialism, ableism, etc.) influence students' reactions and well-being. I also define contextually relevant affective pedagogical goals and culturally relevant affective pedagogical goals. I use Herrick, Lawson, and Matewos's descriptions of episodes in Ms. Viola and Mr. Nathan's classrooms to articulate contextually and culturally relevant affective pedagogical goals. This commentary aims to support goals for offering students opportunities to learn dominant content, analyze and take action to repair social injustices fueled by systemic oppression, while caring for students' and community members' emotions and well-being.

Engineering design provides students with unique opportunities to engage with disciplinary knowledge and practices by engaging with technologies and each other through the design process. In this paper, we identify how the co-construction of an engineering afterschool club culture supported students’ engagement in epistemic practices of engineering. This study draws from educational ethnography and discourse analysis to examine the interactional accomplishment of engineering by upper elementary (age 10–12), bilingual students in Puerto Rico as they designed and tested rescue shuttle technologies. Findings describe the emergence of a culture that values bilingualism and caring for others as central to the engineering practices, which were supported by key discourse moves. Collectively, the components of the engineering club provided opportunities to open up engineering in ways that valued students’ agency and identities as they engaged with epistemic practices of engineering. The local, academic culture valuing language diversity, kindness, and learning worked against epistemic injustices often found in educational settings.

Engineering design provides students with unique opportunities to engage with disciplinary knowledge and practices by engaging with technologies and each other through the design process. In this paper, we identify how the co-construction of an engineering afterschool club culture supported students’ engagement in epistemic practices of engineering. This study draws from educational ethnography and discourse analysis to examine the interactional accomplishment of engineering by upper elementary (age 10–12), bilingual students in Puerto Rico as they designed and tested rescue shuttle technologies. Findings describe the emergence of a culture that values bilingualism and caring for others as central to the engineering practices, which were supported by key discourse moves. Collectively, the components of the engineering club provided opportunities to open up engineering in ways that valued students’ agency and identities as they engaged with epistemic practices of engineering. The local, academic culture valuing language diversity, kindness, and learning worked against epistemic injustices often found in educational settings.

In this response to Krishnamoorthy, Duncan, and Tan's article as part of the special issue of Science Education on “Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education,” I argue that by bringing together rightful presence with epistemic affect and epistemic dimensions of science work to construct the politicized emotion of care, the authors complexify the emotion of care in valuable ways when it comes to science practice. I also bring in the conversation some additional framings in both the affect literature and the equity and justice centered literature to further nuance our collective understanding of the role affect, interwoven with cognition and interaction, plays in expanding what it means to do science, by whom, and for whom. I show how the class the authors focused on had embraced not only epistemic heterogeneity but onto-epistemic heterogeneity, and how the affective and cognitive empathy that the class was contemplating complemented each other, transforming into care. Moreover, embedded in both forms of empathy, which were externalized during the classroom discourse, were power differentials linked to both liable and empowering affect of the youth and the teachers. I also argue that racialized, gendered, and classed affect is deeply related to the ways in which structures (social, affective, semiotic, physical, educational, cultural, political, epistemic, etc.) shape and are shaped by the people interacting with these structures, and that it is in the action of the larger assemblance of the classroom, which is intertwined with emotions, where agency resides that leads to transforming epistemic ideals. These points support the movement towards leveraging more framings in and out of science education scholarship as a useful research practice that may allow us to identify at the micro to the macro levels the complexity of the phenomena we study.