 Award ID(s):
 1758823
 NSFPAR ID:
 10274770
 Editor(s):
 Sacristán, A.I.; CortésZavala, J.C.; RuizArias, P.M.
 Date Published:
 Journal Name:
 Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
 Format(s):
 Medium: X
 Sponsoring Org:
 National Science Foundation
More Like this

Sacristán, A.I. ; CortésZavala, J.C. ; RuizArias, P.M. (Ed.)Teachers in the elementary grades often teach all subjects and are expected to have appropriate content knowledge of a wide range of disciplines. Current recommendations suggest teachers should integrate multiple disciplines into the same lesson, for instance, when teaching integrated STEM lessons. Although there are many similarities between STEM fields, there are also epistemological differences to be understood by students and teachers. This study investigated teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics and science using argumentation and the epistemological and contextual factors that may have influenced these beliefs. Teachers’ beliefs about different epistemological underpinnings of mathematics and science, along with contextual constraints, led to different beliefs and intentions for practice with respect to argumentation in these disciplines. The contextual constraint of testing and the amount of curriculum the teachers perceived as essential focused more attention on the teaching of mathematics, which could be seen as benefiting student learning of mathematics. On the other hand, the perception of science as involving wonder, curiosity, and inherently positive and interesting ideas may lead to the creation of a more positive learning environment for the teaching of science. These questions remain open and need to be studied further: What are the consequences of perceiving argumentation in mathematics as limited to concepts already wellunderstood? Can integrating the teaching of mathematics and science lead to more exploratory and inquirybased teaching of mathematical ideas alongside scientific ones?more » « less

The Next Generation Science Standards [1] recognized evidencebased argumentation as one of the essential skills for students to develop throughout their science and engineering education. Argumentation focuses students on the need for quality evidence, which helps to develop their deep understanding of content [2]. Argumentation has been studied extensively, both in mathematics and science education but also to some extent in engineering education (see for example [3], [4], [5], [6]). After a thorough search of the literature, we found few studies that have considered how teachers support collective argumentation during engineering learning activities. The purpose of this program of research was to support teachers in viewing argumentation as an important way to promote critical thinking and to provide teachers with tools to implement argumentation in their lessons integrating coding into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (which we refer to as integrative STEM). We applied a framework developed for secondary mathematics [7] to understand how teachers support collective argumentation in integrative STEM lessons. This framework used Toulmin’s [8] conceptualization of argumentation, which includes three core components of arguments: a claim (or hypothesis) that is based on data (or evidence) accompanied by a warrant (or reasoning) that relates the data to the claim [9], [8]. To adapt the framework, video data were coded using previously established methods for analyzing argumentation [7]. In this paper, we consider how the framework can be applied to an elementary school teacher’s classroom interactions and present examples of how the teacher implements various questioning strategies to facilitate more productive argumentation and deeper student engagement. We aim to understand the nature of the teacher’s support for argumentation—contributions and actions from the teacher that prompt or respond to parts of arguments. In particular, we look at examples of how the teacher supports students to move beyond unstructured tinkering (e.g., trialanderror) to think logically about coding and develop reasoning for the choices that they make in programming. We also look at the components of arguments that students provide, with and without teacher support. Through the use of the framework, we are able to articulate important aspects of collective argumentation that would otherwise be in the background. The framework gives both eyes to see and language to describe how teachers support collective argumentation in integrative STEM classrooms.more » « less

Professional fields face persistent challenges in connecting practice and theory. In particular, tensions exist as to how theory and knowledge are developed, as well as what constitutes authority for practice. Together the articles in this issue explore three elements of the turn toward ”practicebased” research and professional education in mathematics education: designing teaching and learning in and for practice, learning mathematics teaching as a practice, and collaborating across professional roles and identities. In this commentary, we interrogate meanings of practicebased research on teaching and discuss themes across this collection of articles. We then argue for three imperatives for future efforts: (i) working on shared understandings of what the term ”practicebased” might mean; (ii) developing more nuanced conceptualizations of ”teaching”; and (iii) attending explicitly to justice in practice.more » « less

Abstract Research Highlights Field‐specific ability beliefs (FABs) are beliefs about the extent to which intellectual talent (or “brilliance”) is required for success in a particular field or context.
Among adults, brilliance‐oriented FABs are an obstacle to diversity in science and technology, but the childhood antecedents of these beliefs are not well understood.
The present study (
N = 174) found that FABs that associate success in math (vs. reading/writing) with brilliance were already present in Grades 1−4.Brilliance‐oriented FABs about math were negatively associated with elementary school students’ (and particularly girls’) math motivation—specifically, their math self‐efficacy and interest.

Abstract Integrated approaches to teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are increasingly being implemented in elementary and middle school classrooms, and despite a variety of conceptions of integrated STEM, researchers agree that small group activities and teamwork play a central role in STEM learning. However, little is known about how students participate in the small group portions of integrated STEM curricular units. In this study, a microvideo ethnography framed within activity theory was used to examine small group interactions among sixth‐grade students completing integrated STEM activities related to the properties of light. Students working in three different small groups (all‐girl, all‐boy, and mixed‐gender) were included in the analysis. Findings highlight differences in the activity systems across activity type (science vs. engineering) and across small groups, with students focusing on different objectives for completing STEM activities, utilizing different tools as they sought to reach their objectives, and dividing labor differently. Findings from this study suggest that these students, and girls in particular, were less prepared to navigate open‐ended engineering activities than highly structured science activities. Theoretical and practical implications for curriculum development and pedagogical strategies are discussed.