skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Examining How Ideologies Mediate Reasoning About and Modeling Spatial Phenomena in Preservice Teacher Education
This dissertation is organized around three articles concerned with ideologies and how they are reproduced or contested when preservice teachers model complex spatial phenomena. Each article is designed to stand alone, but when taken together, they trace how ideologies are reproduced within objects (ex. maps, models, and physical spaces) and through social and technical interactions (ex. talk between participants or talk between participants and an objects) as preservice teachers reason about spatial phenomena like racial segregation and urban heat island effect.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2149356
PAR ID:
10575484
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Publisher / Repository:
The University of Texas at Austin
Date Published:
Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
Modeling, Teacher Education, technology
Format(s):
Medium: X
Institution:
The University of Texas at Austin
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; (, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences)
    Gresalfi, M.; Horn, I. S. (Ed.)
    Sociologists and historians of science have documented the salience of meritocracy and technocracy in engineering (Cech, 2014; Slaton, 2015; Riley, 2008). Meritocracy is often paired with a technocratic ideology, which distinguishes technical and “soft” skills and assigns more worth to the technical. Scholars have shown how technocracy and meritocracy contribute to marginalization within engineering education (Slaton, 2015; Foor et al., 2007; Secules et al., 2018). Our team has been iteratively redesigning a pedagogy seminar for engineering peer educators to disrupt such forces of marginalization. We study peer educators because they can do harm if these ideologies aren't challenged, and they have the potential to disrupt these ideologies. Using tools from discourse analysis and the ideology-in-pieces framework (Philip, 2011), we analyze how technocratic stances are reproduced or challenged in engineering peer educators’ talk. Such analyses can help others to recognize technocratic reasoning and see some of its negative consequences. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; (, ACM)
    New frontiers in simulation-based teacher training have been unveiled with the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). Integrating AI into virtual student agents increases the accessibility and affordability of teacher training simulations, but little is known about how preservice teachers interact with AI-powered student agents. This study analyzed the discourse behavior of 15 preservice teachers who undertook simulation-based training with AI-powered student agents. Using a framework of ambitious science teaching, we conducted a pattern analysis of teacher and student talk moves, looking for evidence of academically productive discourse. Comparisons are made with patterns found in real classrooms with professionally trained science teachers. Results indicated that preservice teachers generated academically productive discourse with AI-powered students by using ambitious talk moves. The pattern analysis also revealed coachable moments where preservice teachers succumbed to cycles of unproductive discourse. This study highlights the utility of analyzing classroom discourse to understand human-AI communication in simulation-based teacher training. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society)
    T. Fitch; C. Lamm; H. Leder; K. Tessmar (Ed.)
    The physical properties of space may be universal, but the way people conceptualize space is not. In some groups, people tend to use egocentric space (e.g. left, right) to encode the loca- tions of objects, while in other groups, people encode the same spatial scene using allocentric space (e.g. upriver, downriver). These different spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) character- ize the way people talk about spatial relations and the way they think about them, even when they are not using language. Al- though spatial language and spatial thinking tend to covary, the root causes of this variation are unclear. Here we propose that this variation in FoR use reflects the spatial discriminability of the relevant spatial continua. In an initial test of this proposal in a group of indigenous Bolivians, we compared FoR use across spatial axes that are known to differ in discriminabil- ity. In two non-verbal tests, participants spontaneously used different FoRs on different spatial axes: On the lateral axis, where egocentric (left-right) discrimination is difficult, their behavior was predominantly allocentric; on the sagittal axis, where egocentric (front-back) discrimination is relatively easy, their behavior was predominantly egocentric. These findings support the spatial discriminability hypothesis, which may ex- plain variation in spatial concepts not only across axes, but also across groups, between individuals, and over development. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; (, ASEE annual conference & exposition)
    Sociologists and historians of science/engineering have documented the salience of meritocracy and technocracy in engineering and engineering education (Cech, 2014; Slaton, 2015; Riley, 2008). Some engineering education scholars have begun to document how technocracy and meritocracy have been mechanisms of marginalization within engineering education (Slaton, 2015; Foor, Walden, & Trytten, 2007; Secules, Gupta, Elby, & Turpen, 2018). Our team has been engaged in the iterative redesign of a pedagogy seminar for engineering peer educators working within a college-level introduction to engineering design course. Using tools of discourse analysis, we analyze how technocratic stances are reproduced or challenged in engineering peer educators’ talk during pedagogy seminar discussions. We study peer educators, in particular, because they are in a unique position to do harm if the ideologies of meritocracy and technocracy aren't challenged. Likewise, they are in a unique position to do good if they actively disrupt these ideologies in the introductory engineering design course. We present empirical examples of engineering peer educators both reproducing and contesting technocratic (and, at times, meritocratic) stances in reasoning about engineering education. We believe that such empirical examples can help engineering educators hone their attention to student thinking in the classroom and help us understand what it might look like to see evidence of growth in students’ reasoning. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Journal of Research in Science Teaching)
    Phenomena‐based approaches have become popular for elementary school teachers to engage children's innate curiosity in the natural world. However, integrating such phenomena‐based approaches in existing science courses within teacher education programs present potential challenges for both preservice elementary teachers (PSETs) and for laboratory instructors, both of whom may have had limited opportunities to learn or teach science within the student and instructor roles inherent within these approaches. This study uses a convergent parallel mixed‐methods approach to investigate PSETs' perceptions of their laboratory instructor's role within a Physical Science phenomena‐based laboratory curriculum and how it impacts their conceptual development (2 instructors/121 students). We also examine how the two laboratory instructors' discursive moves within the laboratory align with their's and PSETs' perceptions of the instructor role. Qualitative data includes triangulation between a student questionnaire, an instructor questionnaire, and video classroom observations, while quantitative data includes a nine‐item open response pre‐/post‐semester conceptual test. Guided by Mortimer's and Scott's analytic framework, our findings show that students primarily perceive their instructors as a guide/facilitator or an authoritarian/evaluator. Using Linn's knowledge integration framework, analysis of pre‐/post‐tests indicates that student outcomes align with students' perceptions of their instructors, with students who perceive their instructor as a guide/facilitator having significantly better pre‐/post‐outcomes. Additional analysis of scientific discourse from the classroom observations illustrates how one instructor primarily supports PSETs' perspectives on authentic science learning through dialogic–interactive talk moves whereas the other instructor epistemologically stifles personally relevant investigations with authoritative–interactive or authoritative–noninteractive discourse moves. Overall, this study concludes by discussing challenges facing laboratory instructors that need careful consideration for phenomena‐based approaches. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email