1. THE ROLE OF AFFECT IN SUSTAINING “PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT” Jean Piaget Society Annual Meeting Lama Jaber - University of Maryland/Tufts Luke Conlin - University of Maryland David 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) 2

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) 3

4. In this talk… Foreground the role of affect The case of Cassandra Affect 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 4

5. Context 5  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 5 th grade science class taught by Mr. Myers discussing a three-week module on the water cycle  Data: Classroom videos and interviews

6. Puddle question 6 “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 7

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…” 8

9. Cassandra’s long-lasting passionate interest in science as being about engaging in inquiry in generative and enjoyable ways 9

10. 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 researchThis 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 11

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 12 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