Changing Lanes: Relational Dispositions That Fuel Community Science Learning

Abstract

Supporting youths’ STEM dispositions takes an entire community of adults, yet we must understand the dispositions that adults bring to such community efforts, ways they influence youths’ learning and are shaped by the community. In this paper, we examine a sociotechnical system called Science Everywhere, which invited the broader community to interact with science learning experiences youths shared across home, school, and community settings. Integrating frameworks for disposition and asset-based community development, we present a case study of four focal adults within Science Everywhere embedded in one neighborhood. We make the case for a relational perspective of disposition development that leverages community members’ science and relational assets to foster dynamic, community-specific learning opportunities for youths, particularly those from resource-constrained communities.

Keywords

case studies technology and learning in-depth interviewing parents and families qualitative research science education urban education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahn

Clegg

Yip

Bonsignore

Pauw

Cabrera

Hernly

Pitt

Mills

Salazar

Griffing

Rick

Marr

(2018). Science everywhere: Designing public, tangible displays to connect youth learning across settings. Proceedings of SIGCHI Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018), 2018-April, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173852

Aikenhead

G. S.

(2007). Expanding the research agenda for scientific literacy. Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, 64.

Altan

Lane

J. F.

Dottin

(2019). Using habits of mind, intelligent behaviors, and educational theories to create a conceptual framework for developing effective teaching dispositions. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 169–183.

Anyon

Bender

Kennedy

Dechants

(2018). A systematic review of youth participatory action research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, youth outcomes, and future directions. Health Education and Behavior, 45(6), 865–878.

Atwater

M. M.

(1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<821::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-Y

Bang

Faber

Gurneau

Marin

Soto

(2016). Community-based design research: Learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations toward axiological innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(1), 28–41.

Bang

Marin

(2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544.

Banks

Ball

A. F.

Bell

Gordon

Gutierrez

Brice-Heath

Lee

C. D.

Mahiri

Nasir

Valdes

Zhou

(2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. The LIFE Center (University of Washington, Stanford University and SRI) & the Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.

Barab

Squire

(2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

10.

Barron

(2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.

11.

Barron

Gomez

Pinkard

Martin

C. K.

(2014). The digital youth network: Cultivating digital media citizenship in urban communities. MIT Press.

12.

Barron

Martin

C. K.

Takeuchi

Fithian

(2009). Parents as learning partners in the development of technological fluency.

13.

Barton

A. C.

Drake

Perez

J. G.

St. Louis

George

(2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3–12.

14.

Barton

A. C.

Tan

(2010). We be burnin’! Agency, identity, and science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.

15.

Bell

Bricker

Reeve

Zimmerman

H.T.

Tzou

(2013). Discovering and supporting successful learning pathways of youth in and out of school: Accounting for the development of everyday expertise across settings. In Bevan

Bell

Stevens

Razfar

(eds) LOST opportunities. Explorations of educational purpose (Vol. 23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4304-5_9

16.

Bereiter

(1995). A dispositional view of transfer. In: Mckeugh

Lupard

J. L.

Marini

(eds) Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 21–34). LEA.

17.

Bevan

Calabrese Barton

Garibay

(2020). Broadening perspectives on broadening participation: Professional learning tools for more expansive and equitable science communication. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 52.

18.

Brickhouse

N. W.

(2007) Scientific Literates: What do they do? Who are they? Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary 2007 Symposium Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction May 28–29, 2007, Uppsala, Sweden.

19.

Brickhouse

N. W.

Lowery

Schultz

(2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458.

20.

Cabrera

Ahn

Yip

Clegg

Hernly

Bonsignore

Pitt

Pauw

(2018). Exploring practices on the move: Facilitating learning across a neighborhood. In Kay

Luckin

(Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS ’18). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

21.

Caine

(2016). Local standards for sample size at CHI. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858498

22.

Carreón

G. P.

Drake

Barton

A. C.

(2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498.

23.

Chinn

C. A.

Malhotra

B. A.

(2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.

24.

Clegg

Kolodner

(2014). Scientizing and cooking: Helping middle-school learners develop scientific dispositions. Science Education, 98(1), 36–63.

25.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.

26.

Feinstein

N. W.

Meshoulam

(2014). Science for what public? Addressing equity in American science museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 368–394.

27.

Fischer

Herrmann

(2011). Socio-technical systems: A meta-design perspective. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 3(1), 1–33.

28.

Forrester

Kurth

Vincent

Oliver

(2020). Schools as community assets: An exploration of the merits of an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach. Educational Review, 72(4), 443–458.

29.

Gresalfi

M. S.

(2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 327–369.

30.

Gresalfi

M. S.

Cobb

(2006). Cultivating students’ discipline-specific dispositions as a critical goal for pedagogy and equity. Pedagogies, 1(1), 49–57.

31.

Harrison

Blickem

Lamb

Kirk

Vassilev

(2019). Asset-based community development: Narratives, practice, and conditions of possibility—a qualitative study with community practitioners. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244018823081.

32.

Johnson Butterfield

A. K.

Yeneabat

Moxley

D. P.

(2016). “Now I know my ABCDs”: Asset-based community development with school children in Ethiopia. Children and Schools, 38(4), 199–208.

33.

Katz

L. G.

(1993). Dispositions as educational goals. ERIC EDO-PS-93-10. http://www.ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1993/katzdi93.html

34.

Kretzmann

McKnight

J. P.

(1996). Assets-based community development. National Civic Review, 85(4), 23–29.

35.

Lee

(2003). Equity for culturally and linguistically diverse students in science education: Recommendations for a research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 465–489.

36.

Logler

Pitt

Gao

Hishikawa

A. M.

Yip

Friedman

(2020). I feel like this is a bad thing: Investigating disassembly in action for novices [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing Systems (pp. 1–14).

37.

Luce

M. R.

Goldman

Vea

(2017). Designing for family science explorations anytime, anywhere. Science Education, 101(2), 251–277.

38.

Lyons

(2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments in physics and chemistry courses: Putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 285–311.

39.

Martin

C. K.

Pinkard

Erete

Sandherr

(2017). Connections at the family level: Supporting parents and caring adults to engage youth in learning about computers and technology. In Rankin

Thomas

(Eds.), Moving students of color from consumers to producers of technology (pp. 220–244). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2005-4.ch011

40.

Mathie

Cunningham

(2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice, 13(5), 474–486.

41.

Mills

Bonsignore

Clegg

Ahn

Yip

Pauw

Cabrera

Hernley

Pitt

(2019). Connecting children’s scientific funds of knowledge shared on social media to science concepts. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.003

42.

Mills

Bonsignore

Clegg

Ahn

Yip

Pauw

Cabrera

Hernley

Pitt

(2018). Designing to illuminate children’s scientific funds of knowledge through social media sharing. IDC 2018—Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202737

43.

Mills

Bonsignore

Clegg

Yip

Ahn

Pauw

Pitt

(2019). Social media in the science classroom: Bridging funds of knowledge to scientific concepts. In Hmelo-Silver

Baker

Gweon

(Eds.), A wide lens: Combining embodied, enactive, extended, and embedded learning in collaborative settings: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL ’19) pp. 705–712. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

44.

Misener

Schulenkorf

(2016). Rethinking the social value of sport events through an asset-based community development (ABCD) perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 30(3), 329–340.

45.

National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

46.

Osborne

(2007). Engaging young people with science: Thoughts about future direction of science education. Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, 105–112.

47.

Osborne

Collins

Ratcliffe

Millar

Duschl

(2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

48.

Papert

S. A.

(1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

49.

Penuel

W. R.

(2019). Infrastructuring as a practice of design-based research for supporting and studying equitable implementation and sustainability of innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 659–677.

50.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

51.

Scott

Medaugh

(2017). Axial Coding. In Matthes

Davis

C. S.

Potter

R. F.

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1–2). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

52.

Takeuchi

Vaala

Ahn

(2019). Learning across boundaries: How parents and teachers are bridging children’s interests. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

53.

Tour

(2019). Supporting primary school children’s learning in digital spaces at home: Migrant parents’ perspectives and practices. Children and Society, 33(6), 587–601.

54.

Usher

A. S.

(2019). Modeling resilient and adaptable work-integrated learning practice: The importance of learning dispositions in initial teacher education. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 113–126.

55.

West

Baker

Ehrich

J. F.

Woodcock

Bokosmaty

Howard

S. J.

Eady

M. J.

(2020). Teacher disposition scale (TDS): Construction and psychometric validation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(2), 185–200.

56.

Yip

Clegg

Ahn

Uchidiuno

Bonsignore

Beck

Pauw

Mills

(2016). The evolution of roles and social bonds during child-parent co-design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

57.

Bai

Roque

(2020). Considering parents in coding kit design: Understanding parents’ perspectives and roles. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–14.