THE ROLE OF AFFECT IN SUSTAINING “PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT”

Jean Piaget Society Annual Meeting

Lama Jaber - University of Maryland/Tufts Luke Conlin - University of MarylandDavid Hammer- Tufts University

6/3/2011

2

“Productive disciplinary engagement” as a goal…

Centrality of ideas and wonderings Argumentation practices: generation and

critique of claims Pursuit of sense-making, clarity,

causality, and coherence Discursive and representational practices

(Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000, Engle & Conant, 2002; Ford, 2005, 2006; Hammer, 2004; Kuhn, 1993)

3

… in the classroom and beyond

What sustains productive disciplinary engagement?

A working hypothesis Disciplinary engagement involves an interplay of affective, epistemological and conceptual dynamics

From empirical evidence: Mr. Myers’ class From research in various domains:

mathematicians’ practices (Burton, 1999, 2001), social cognition, decision-making and judgment (Forgas, 1994) neuroscience (Damasio, 1994)

science education (Alsop & Watts, 2003; Conlin, Gupta, & Elby, 2010) math education (Boaler & Greeno, 2000; Hackenberg, 2010) educational psychology (Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Pekrun, 2011)

4

In this talk…Foreground the role of affect

The case of CassandraAffect as a stabilizing factor in Cassandra’s experience and framing of her scientific engagement

At the local scale: in stabilizing her interaction with Daniel

At a broader time scale: in her established sense of what science is

Context5

3-year NSF-funded research project to develop learning progressions for scientific inquiry Focus on responsive curriculum: attending and

responding to students’ ideas “The whole of science is nothing more than a

refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein.

A 5th grade science class taught by Mr. Myers discussing a three-week module on the water cycle

Data: Classroom videos and interviews

Puddle question6

“Suppose that one night it rains. When you arrive at school, you notice that there are puddles of rainwater in the parking lot. But at the end of the school day, the puddles are gone. What happened to the rainwater?”

7

Cassandra’s experience in the science class: an example

8

The role of affect in stabilizing Cassandra and Daniel’s interaction Cassandra’s affective engagement in this interaction:

Her affective need to pursue his idea so that it makes sense to her:

“I don't really understand what you're saying…”

“If it goes, no ah ah if some of it goes into the clouds,..”

… more than a cold intellectual exchange: Physical displays such as body positioning and hand gestures, tone of voice, and gaze

Her attention and responsiveness to Daniel’s affective experience as they engage in the science together

“May- maybe I'm not hearing this right but to me you’re saying”

“I mean that doesn't really make sense to me, I’m not trying to hurt you but I'm just saying that if, um, if some of it goes…”

9

Cassandra’s long-lasting passionate interest in science

as being about engaging in inquiry in generative and enjoyable ways

What does this evidence say?10

• Understanding the emergence and stability of Cassandra’s disciplinary engagement requires attending to the role of affect in her experiences with the doing of science.

But also…• Central to these experiences is the

role of affect as constitutive of Cassandra’s formation of a sense of what science is, and what disciplinary engagement entails, at a meta-level, that stabilizes over time.

11

Broader research agenda

Role of conceptual and epistemological

dimensions in productive scientific

engagement

Scientific engagement

entails an intertwinement of

conceptual, epistemic, and

affective experiences

- Unpacking the interplay between conceptual,

epistemic, and affective dynamics in

science classes

- Coordinating and linking multiple time-scales: local dynamics to broader time scales

Previous research

This work Looking forward

(e.g., Engle & Conant, 2002; Ford, 2006; Hammer, 1997)

rather than thinking of affect as “adds-on”-catalyst or nuisance-to processes of learning

12

Acknowledgements

Thank you: Jen Richards, Ayush Gupta,

Jen Radoff, Janet Coffey, Jessica Watkins, Ann Edwards, Andy Elby, and the members of the Science Education Research Group at the University of Maryland

Mr. Myers and his wonderful students

Thanks go to NSF for funding

Reference List

Alsop & Watts, 2003

Boaler & Greeno, 2000

Burton, 1999, 2001

Conlin, Gupta & Elby, 2010

Damasio, 1994

Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000

Engle & Conant, 2002

Ford, 2005, 2006

Forgas, 1994

Hackenberg, 2010

Hammer, 1997, 2004

Kuhn, 1993

Linnenbrink-Garcia & Pekrun, 2011

Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993