Affective Engagement During Science Argumentation

• In Event: Promoting Productive Disciplinary Engagement Through Textual Practices

Abstract

Objective
In the present study, we used the PDE perspective to examine students’ epistemic discourse, and specifically focus on the affective engagement component (Sinatra et al., 2015). Shifts in affective states may relate to the learner interactions and textual practices of engaging with co-constructed knowledge, the content, and the perceived productivity of that learning (Sinatra et al., 2014).
Theoretical Framework
Learners may encounter multiple conflicting explanatory models when trying to understand socio-scientific phenomena (e.g., causes of current climate change). Critique and evaluation of connections between evidence and explanations via argumentation are also important epistemic practices that students should engage in during classroom science instruction (Ford, 2015; NRC, 2012). Teachers may need to provide a learning environment conducive to productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) to facilitate such epistemic practices (Engle & Conant, 2002), where students can effectively problematize the subject matter, have agency to address content issues, are accountable to their peers, and have access to necessary learning resources. Lombardi and colleagues (2018a,b) designed instructional scaffolds—called the Model-Evidence Link (MEL) diagrams—to facilitate science PDE and deepen students evaluation between scientific evidence and alternative explanations of socio-scientific phenomena. Each MEL presents students with four lines of evidence texts and two explanatory models (one scientific and one a plausible, but non-scientific alternative; Figure 2). In collaborative groups, students draw different types of arrows representing their evaluations of how well each evidence line supports each model, and write explanations justifying their evaluations.
Previous research on engagement emotions, (Feldman Barrett & Russel, 1999; Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012), showed that academic emotions can be classified by their level of activation (activated/aroused or deactivated/unaroused) and valence (positive or negative).
“Given the close proximity of epistemic and social emotions to the learning activity itself, studying emotions at this level may be especially fruitful” (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014, p. 278). In our study we examined emotions as closely tied to the task as possible and asked, “In what ways does the discourse between students reflect their affective engagement and varying emotions throughout the scientific practice of argumentation?”
Method
We conducted a case study bounded to a single group of middle school Earth Science students (Stake, 1995). We captured and transcribed audio and video recordings of the student group across the three MEL activity lessons, and used conversation analysis to code for indications of emotive language or behavior.
Results
Our findings indicated that students engaging in the argumentation process experienced both positive activating and negative activating emotions, indicating that the process of argumentation activated students’ affective engagement, regardless of emotional valence. However, the most meaningful of these emotions that emerged thematically are that of learner emotions: (i.e., surprise, curiosity, confusion), or activating emotions that motivate individuals to seek or make sense of knowledge in an agentic way (See Table 4).
Significance
These findings indicate that the emotional component of scientific argumentation may provide more opportunity for PDE and deeper connection to the area of study. Furthermore, this research expands the methodological approaches of studying emotions and affect directly in the situated context of classrooms.

Authors

• Ananya Matewos, St. Norbert College

• Doug Lombardi, University of Maryland - College Park

• Alexis Gates, Temple University