SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

The Delisi paper seems to be strongly leaning towards situated/sociocultural learning. Science fairs themselves have many sociocultural aspects such as the presentation to judges, outsider observation, presentation standards, and even the topic studied might be more liked based on a communal situation that is relatable to those in that school district. Of course the study of science fairs and its effects on student understanding of Science and engineering practices is not immediately advocating for situated learning but there are some specific excerpts from the paper that I think show where the authors stand. On page 493 the authors talk about what inspires their research by saying, “Our research is shaped by prior work on inquiry-based instruction and learning theories
that highlight factors important for developing students’ understandings of science concepts and practices”. Based on multiple definitions of what inquiry based learning is this is a pretty clear indication of where these researchers stand on how it is best for students to understand Science and engineering practices. This is also apparent based on the the actual goal of the study which is to show the relationship between different schools execution of science fairs and the students understanding of SEPs. And more specifically teacher scaffolding in this process and understanding of SEPs. To me this shows the assumption of the authors that science fairs (a situated sociocultural setting) is already a great way for students to learn scientific practices but they would like to know to what degree is teacher involvement in this process beneficial. I am not making a claim for the authors stance overall but I do claim that the authors believe situated learning is better for learning scientific practices. 

DeLisi et al. (2021) say their research is shaped by constructivist and sociocultural frameworks because they believe that “science learning is a social process”. They suggest that active thinking, authentic science investigation, and engaging in evidence based argument are predictors of student learning and interest in science.  In some ways, this is similar to the AST approach.  The authors also suggest a relationship between using these teaching and learning practices and student understanding of science and engineering practices.  The first part of the study, in which they survey student understanding of SEPs, is a cognitive approach because it focuses on understanding of individual students.  In the second part of the study, the researchers collected qualitative data that was coded by the researchers.  One element of sociocultural theory that the researchers explored was “correlations in high levels of support and enactment of SEPs, including opportunities for students to engage in critiquing practices such as communicating and evaluating findings”.  They indicate that the social aspects of critiquing practices may help students understand SEPs and that this knowledge is “more transferrable”.  The case studies show that some schools are using elements of socio cultural learning theory when students are working on, and especially when they are presenting, their work but that’s more an element of the schools’ atmosphere than a foundation of the research study.  Overall, the DeLisi et al paper seems to be a mix of cognitive and sociocultural theories.  

In Huang (2020), the research is also based on surveys which Scott said is almost always an indication of a cognitive approach.  In this study, Huang looks at changes in individual learning over time and notes that factors like prior knowledge have an impact on student learning as outlined in the cognitive change approach.  Although the study takes a cognitive approach, it investigates the impact of socioculturally based learning (teamwork) on student learning. I thought it was interesting that Huang suggests using inquiry-based classes to narrow achievement gaps early on in college.  I think it’s important to remember that the label “inquiry-based” is applied to a wide array of instructional practices that may or may not be valuable.

Isaacson et al. (2016) demonstrates that accessibility in hands-on labs can impact the self esteem and long term plans of students with BLV.  Again, the study employs a survey to reach its conclusions, and because of the focus on individual experience, it seems to fall in the cognitive camp.  

Learning science through hands-on experiences is one of the essential aspects of science education because it not only challenges individual understanding of science but it also allows students to experience some of the practices of scientific disciplines, which can build confidence and encourage entry into STEM fields.  This week’s articles look at different aspects of hands-on learning.

Isaacson et al, investigated the impact of using accessible lab equipment (synthetic voice LabQuest software that allowed BLV students to complete the lab without teacher help) on BLV students’ STEM identity and interest in STEM.  They found that after participating in accessible hands on labs, the students were more likely to agree with statements that they were considering entering STEM programs.

Huang looked at how intro level inquiry based labs impact different groups of students in different ways.  The study indicated that novice learners experience more growth and more positive experience with team based learning than experienced learners.  So the gap between the two groups narrows; however, the more experienced group indicated that they were developing negative attitudes toward both teamwork and problems solving.

DeLisi et al studied the impact of middle school science fairs on students’ understandings of science and engineering practices.  In the case studies, the students highlighted the differences between the mode of instruction/learning in regular science class vs the method during the science fair portion of the class. Even when teachers narrowed potential science fair topics to a few that were aligned with grade level standards, students still commented on the difference in learning experiences.

These articles underscore both individual, cognitive aspects of learning science and group level dynamics.  Isaacson is concerned with STEM identity, which in this case appears to be very individual based on what students perceive is possible for themselves.  The introduction of accessibility software changed their notions of what was plausible and therefore changed how they viewed themselves in relation to STEM.  Huang used individual surveys about group learning experiences and found that the group learning experiences differed depending on where the students were before the course began.  DeLisi et al used a variety of methods to look at how science fairs were implemented and what impact they had on student understanding of SEPs.

All three studies investigate the relationship between hands on experiences in STEM and individual learning, while Huang and DeLisi also touch on the intersection of situated group practices and individual cognitive development in STEM.

First, I read Isaacson et al. (2016). This study used likert-scale surveys as the only form of data collection. The surveys were administered to the students before and after they complete a lab to see how the lab’s accessibility is related to students’ beliefs and motivations surrounding science. Huang (2021) also used a likert-scale survey to determine how inquiry-based science labs impacted students, with different experience levels, problem-solving and teamwork attitudes. Considering these researchers only used surveys, I think these studies fall into the cognitive theory category. I think if the researchers had, say in Huang, gone to the different labs and recorded what the students were saying and how they were working together through observation notes or video recording and then used this as the data to analyze to base their conclusions about problem-solving and attitudes off of then I think this would have made the studies more sociocultural. I don’t know, what do you all think?

I feel like that was a good segue to the DeLisi et al. (2021) article about science fairs and their support of students’ understanding of science and engineering practices. This study used pre and post science fair assessments as one form of data. If this was the only form of data, even though the theoretical framework seems very situated, I would have to say this is a cognitive study. However, the researchers also observed the science fairs and looked at how the teachers scaffolded the students’ development of questions and investigation, sense-making and reflection of each other’s work. The researchers also completed interviews. I think because there were other forms of data besides the assessment, especially the observations where the researchers could see the interactions of the students and teachers, makes this study fall into the situated category.

It seemed like surveys were the dish of the week with these articles. All of them had some strong survey component and one had a post-pre survey which I’d actually never heard of. To be honest, I had a bit of trouble parsing the results of the Huang article because I’m just not familiar with the kind of statistical analysis implemented there.

Otherwise, I thought the results of the two longer articles were interesting. With only my personal limited science fair experience, I didn’t realize that implementation of these sorts of fairs varied so wildly, and would have never considered how these implementations would affect learning outcomes. I really enjoyed reading the case studies in this paper and the teacher reasoning for why they chose one method or another to use. It seems almost always there was an issue with the time that such a fair takes out of typical class instruction time and I always wonder about this element when trying to implement more open-ended science lessons, labs, etc.

The other article I found surprising was the one by Huang. I wouldn’t have thought about how lessons can actually negatively impact the attitude of students who may have a bit of a headstart over their peers. I would have thought that this may be a universal feeling in group work when one member doesn’t put in the time/effort that others do, but didn’t think to link it specifically to students who have more background knowledge in the subject. I’m curious to learn more too about their different DEEP levels and hopefully get some help parsing them in class. I’ve never heard of such a ranking systems and it seems bizarre to me.

The last article didn’t really hold any surprises for me. If science practices are inaccessible for whatever reason, then naturally someone wouldn’t be able to picture themself pursuing a career in science. I feel like this is likely true for more than students with disabilities, but also those in schools without funding for science equipment, e.g.

The article talking about LGBQ major retention in. stem seemed like a well executed study. The most telling part of this study is that heterosexual students who aspired to be STEM in their first year retained their major more frequently than LGBQ students even though a much larger portion of LGBQ students took on undergraduate projects. I am wondering if this has something to do with treatment during the undergraduate research as during this type of research the student would deal with the STEM community more frequently than if they were to just take classes and get their credits.

I am interested in seeing what others in the class have taken from this article or if they were able to notice anything else that was concerning to them.

This week’s articles center around sense of belonging/STEM identity within different communities of STEM practice.  Cohen et al (2021) investigated the effects of early STEM experiences, disaggregated by gender, on STEM identity.  Hughes (2018) investigated the retention of students who identify as sexual minorities in undergraduate STEM programs.  Barton et al (2020) examined how co-production of knowledge in a middle school science classroom allowed students to be “powerful experts in science and engineering.”

All three articles primarily focus on situated aspects of  being STEM students, i.e. how interacting with both near peers and experts impact students’ desire to engage in science learning.  Barton et al takes the closest look at what individuals in the classroom were experiencing and how that experience intersects with the approach that the teacher uses.  They provide interview examples of how the group of three girls that they focus on found the engineering task, particularly with its goal of solving a real world problem and the community interaction aspects, to be the first science experience that they felt engaged in and that that desire to be engaged along with the supportive structure created by Mrs. L increased their confidence that they could contribute to the class project.

Cohen et al (2020) and Hughes (2018) both take quantitative approaches to examine the impact of personal identity on STEM involvement and identity through interaction with the community of practice.  Both find that environmental/group factors that impact “belonging” (not sure this is the most accurate word, but I can’t think of a better one right now)  effect whether or not individuals will join and stay in scientific communities of practice.  Cohen et al (2021) found that certain activities in elementary school predicted STEM identity in later life and that participation in those activities was stratified by sex, with activities that females traditionally participate in being less likely to form STEM identity.  In this case, it seems like the pressure to belong to a particular community (gendered activity norms) might keep females from participating in activities that predict formation of strong STEM identities, particularly amongst white females (the only race category found to be a significant predictor in the study).

Hughes (2018) concludes that since sexual minority students are more likely than other students to switch out of STEM majors, more research needs to be done to understand how the LGBQ climate in undergraduate STEM communities of practice may cause non-retention of students.  This points to an exclusion effect where a non-welcoming/hostile climate towards LGBQ students within the  STEM community of practice causes these students to leave the community for a different, more welcoming community.  In this case, the need to become part of a particular community of practice that is hostile towards an individual’s identity creates a barrier to entry in STEM for students who identify as sexual minorities.

All three cases are examples of the importance of the community of practice in the formation of desire to participate in STEM and how individual cognition, on its own, is not enough to make STEM accessible to everyone.  Being aware of the impact of particular community practices and how those practices either help or hinder individuals from entering the practice is particularly important.  These articles illustrate three aspects of the interaction between community of practice and the individual: exclusion; inclusion in one group precluding participation in developing the STEM identity needed to enter another group; and the navigation of building inclusion of students on the STEM periphery by a teacher – thus helping those students build STEM identity.  These articles are examples of how the situated, group practices that people experience impact what types of learning/knowledge they relate to and want to pursue.

Although not all of the articles this week explicitly utilized an educational framework, except for maybe the Barton article, it was really interesting to switch things up and read about other current topics being looked at regarding STEM education. The articles by Cohen and Hughes both highlighted the importance of community in learning as well as the impact of social interactions as well. Although the articles by Cohen and Hughes don’t necessarily undertake an educational framework, I believe they still are immersed in the world of situative learning and would advocate for those educational practices.

Starting with the Cohen article, I would have never expected them to produce the results that they did. I would have expected their results to show that girls learn the stereotypes attributed to STEM at an early age (which they do prove), but when they specifically got into the early STEM experiences that shape their STEM identities, I would have assumed things like baking would increase their interest in analytics and food science which exist in STEM (pg. 6). Sadly, their opposing results do make sense to me though seeing as cooking/baking is branded as a feminine activity that doesn’t align with a supposed masculine discipline like STEM. I feel as this result can be used to highlight the importance of educators realizing the implicit social/gender structures that undergird every domain in education. In contrast to girls having lesser STEM identities, it makes me wonder if boys have lesser literature identities being that it is a subject that is typically deemed feminine? I think this awareness is a great takeaway from this research. I think a similar message can be taken from the Hughes article as well though. Even though it is an empirical study discussing how LGBQ students are retained in STEM, the researcher’s methods of excluding prior preparation in STEM help prove that there are non-scholastic factors that influence students’ STEM identities. Once again, I feel as if this awareness should be used to emphasize the need for teachers to understand the social underpinnings of students’ self-efficacy and identities in different domains of education in order to better support their growth into practitioners.

The last article by Barton and her colleagues does fit within the situated learning framework in my opinion. The entire focus of the paper was how social collaboration and empathy can be worked into engineering education, but the results focused on 3 new discourse types that the observed teacher cocreated with her students, which in my opinion screams situated learning. Not only did the teacher foster a very diverse learning community, but she also made discourse a tenet of her curriculum. She even went further than just classroom discourse but had students discussing their ideas with the community at large and the school community. Through these discourse methods, students were able to create new understandings of things like “sustainability” and “empathy” that were then displayed in their project artifacts. I really enjoyed the teacher’s new method of empathy discourse though, as that seems to be something that doesn’t get discussed much in fact-laden STEM fields that historically don’t place much value on socioemotional practices within the domain.

This week’s readings were really interesting and a different way to look at what we have been talking about in class. The articles (aside from maybe the Barton et al. article) were not specifically about how students learn but I still think ideas of the sociocultural learning theory are embedded in the articles and these articles can be used to support the theory.

Cohen et al.’s article about STEM experiences and STEM capital talks a lot about identity and aquired “resources, skills, and knowledge through engagement with members of society.” That is basically how they define capital. From this definition it seems to me that even though they do not specifically talk about how people learn they still talk about how all the students’ resources come from their social experiences and; therefore, I think it would be an easy jump to say that you need these resources to learn (aka you need social interactions to learn).

Hughes’ article about sexual miniority students in STEM was also really interesting in that it did not mention learning that recall but in order for students to learn they need to be present in the learning environments. This article discussed important measures in the retention of LGBQ students in STEM. It seemed that the most important thing is that they feel safe and accepted and the best way they found of doing this was through research experience in their field. This is social and reminds me of apprentiship and LPP. The research experience gives them a faculty member and other students in the lab to work closely with creating a community of learners.

The Last article is Barton et al’s article about collaboratively engineering for justice. First, this article was super interesting to me just to see specific examples of how we can orient a STEM class to be justice focused. Barton et al.’s article discussed learning the most explicitly of the three readings this week but still not really in terms of theory like we have been exploring this semester. However, I think the curriculum and the choices the researchers made position this in the sociocultural realm. As far as the curriculum, the students worked in groups to co-produce a solution to an issue in the school community. I don’t think the teacher would have them do this if they didn’t think they were going to learn from it and this is clearly a very social/community based project so I think the teacher alligns with sociocultural learning theory. Also, I think the researchers probably align with sociocultural theory for multiple reasons but if I look specifically at their data collection and analysis they take field notes to look at students intereactions and discussions, they do interviews where one of the things they focus on is participation and engagement, and they capture videos to analyze class interaction and discussions etc. Their focus on co-production, community interactions and discourse seems to be hinting to me that they fall into sociocultural theory.

I didn’t really pull out much of the cognitive theory from these articles. I am interested to see if others did during our class discussion.

Cohen et al. (2020) explores the impact of early STEM experiences on the development of STEM identity capital in girls and women.  They find that encouragement from elementary teachers, interaction with STEM toys and kits, watching STEM-themed television and movies, and playing STEM-themed computer and video games all had significant impacts on development of STEM identity capital.  The paper does not examine ways in which students learn science; rather it focuses on how various activities can influence long-term self-concept and participation in STEM fields.  Some of the activities found to be significant (encouragement from elementary teachers, playing with STEM toys and kits, and playing STEM-themed computer/video games) could all have sociocultural theoretical foundations, depending on how the activities were presented to the students.   Watching STEM-themed movies and television shows seems like it would be more based in cognitive change.  Based on these inferences, both sociocultural and cognitive approaches may have a significant impact on the development of self-concept and capital of female students in STEM education.  I was not in the least surprised to earn that early experience with cooking/baking/kitchen science has a negative impact on the development of STEM identity capital in girls.  This type of activity reinforces the idea that, even in science, women belong in the kitchen.

Hughes (2018) states that a key component to LGBTQ+ student retention in undergrad STEM courses and majors hinges on better recruitment and mentoring of this student population by STEM faculty—especially mentoring of the student within the faculty’s lab environments.  This indicates that legitimate peripheral participation within the lab environment is critical to the retention of LGBTQ+ students in STEM fields.  However, faculty need to be trained in offering effective recruitment and mentoring to LGBTQ+ students.  I would go so far as to say that all faculty would benefit from professional development in how to interact with LGBTQ+ students—perhaps especially faculty within STEM fields.

Barton et al. (2020) explores how a sixth-grade science class and their teacher collaborate throughout engineering unit to explore sustainability, justice, and the development of self-concept of students as engineers.  The class constructs the meaning and parameters of the engineering project together alongside the teacher.  They arrive at their understanding of sustainability, for example, through discussion and brainstorming.  The teacher and the researchers are aware that “youth, especially from nondominant communities, experience structural inequities daily in the classroom—not only through expectations for what valued participation in engineering looks like…” and that “legitimized patterns of participation in science are generally tied to who ant what areas of expertise are recognized and valued by the dominant culture.”  I would say that the classroom structure is based in sociocultural theory—i.e. that the learning happens as a result of participation in a social context—and that the classroom teacher and authors believe that the field of engineering is also based in a sociocultural approach, but that the typical sociocultural approach found in engineering excludes people who do not belong to the dominant culture.  They, and their students, are working to change that. Finally,  they have a RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ROOM–like all schools should…