Dynamics of Scientific Engagement in a Blended Online Learning Environment
- 40 Downloads
We investigate in-service teachers’ scientific engagement in a blended online science inquiry course. We analyze a shift from teachers following instructions to doing science themselves, and we characterize it at two levels: first, in how teachers engaged in individual sense-making; and second, in how they oriented to the online community as a space for collaboration and collective knowledge building. This progress, we show, was made possible by a shift in how the teachers framed the course—how they understood and interpreted the purpose of the activities—a shift that entailed both epistemological and affective dynamics. This shift in framing was supported by the instructors’ efforts to attend to and address participants’ epistemology and affect, both in face-to-face and in online interactions. A key implication of this study is the importance of instructional attention to epistemology and affect to create online learning environments that promote productive framings of scientific inquiry.
KeywordsEpistemology Affect Framing Scientific inquiry Engagement Online learning
The authors wish to thank David Hammer for invaluable feedback on the design of the course and the development of the manuscript, as well as Lily Withington who assisted with coding and transcription.
This work was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation under Grant No. GBMF 3475, “Dynamics of Learners’ Persistence and Engagement in Science,” and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL 1119321, “InterLACE: Interactive Learning and Collaboration Environment.” The views expressed here are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the foundations.
- Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (Vol. 29). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- Anderhag, P., Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. O. (2015). What can a teacher do to support students’ interest in science? A study of the constitution of taste in a science classroom. Research in Science Education, 45, 749–784.Google Scholar
- Atkins, L. J., & Frank, B. W. (2015). Examining the Products of Responsive Inquiry. In Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., and Hammer D. (Eds.), Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics (pp. 56–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
- Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2012). Epistemic complexity and the journeyman-expert transition. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010105.Google Scholar
- Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Davidson S. G., & Hughes R. (2018) Communities of practice as a framework to explain teachers’ experiences within the community of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 1287–1312. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21452.
- Dede, C., Eisenkraft, A., Frumin, K., & Hartley, A. (Eds.). (2016). Teacher learning in the digital age: online professional development in STEM education. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
- Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221(3), 349–382.Google Scholar
- Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, 4(1), 409–434.Google Scholar
- Elby, A., Macrander, C., & Hammer, D. (2016). Epistemic cognition in science. Handbook of Epistemic Cognition, 113–127.Google Scholar
- Finkelstein, C. Jaber, L., & Dini, V. (2018). “Do I feel threatened? No…I’m learning!”- Affective and relational dynamics in science PD. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21489
- Finkelstein, C. (2013). Relational dynamics in teacher professional development. (Doctoral Dissertation) retrieve from: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/13996.
- Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing abilities. In Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 138–156). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.Google Scholar
- Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.Google Scholar
- Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189–220.Google Scholar
- Jaber, L. Z., Dini, V., Hammer, D., & Danahy, E. (2018). Targeting disciplinary practices in an online learning environment. Science Education, 102(4), 228–292.Google Scholar
- Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition (pp. 1–50). The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
- Kwon, K., Han, D., Bang, E. J., & Armstrong, S. (2010). Feelings of isolation and coping mechanism in online learning environments: A case study of Asian international students. International Journal of Learning, 17, 343–356.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The development of scientific thinking. Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, 2(6), 1–44.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
- Levin, D. M. (2008). What secondary science teachers pay attention to in the classroom: situating teaching in institutional and social systems (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
- MacLachlan, G., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing and interpretation.Google Scholar
- Moon, J., Michaels, S., & Reiser, B. (2012). Science standards require a teacher – learning rethink. Education Week, Commentary, 11/20/2012.Google Scholar
- Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. New York City: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar
- Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018) The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465.
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Passmore, C. (2014). Implementing the next generation science standards: how your classroom is framed is as important as what you do in it. National Science Teacher Association Blog, 11/10/14.Google Scholar
- Radoff, J., Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2018). It’s scary but it’s also exciting: Evidence of meta-affective learning in science. Cognition and Instruction (in press).Google Scholar
- Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: modeling student thinking. arXiv preprint physics/0411149.Google Scholar
- Reiser, B. J. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment. Washington: K-12 Center at ETS.Google Scholar
- Reupert, A., Maybery, D., Patrick, K., & Chittleborough, P. (2009). The importance of being human: instructors’ personal presence in distance programs. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 47–56.Google Scholar
- Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.Google Scholar
- Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Sikorski, T. (2012). Developing an alternative perspective on coherence seeking in science classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
- Tannen, D. (1993). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. Framing in discourse, 14, 56.Google Scholar
- Watkins, J., Coffey, J., Maskiewicz, A., & Hammer, D. (2017). An account of progress in teachers’ epistemological framing of science inquiry. Teachers’ personal epistemologies: evolving models for transforming practice, 87.Google Scholar
- Watkins, J., Jaber, L., & Dini, V. (under review). Facilitating scientific inquiry online: Responsive teaching in a science professional development program.Google Scholar