Search for: All records

ABSTRACT There is a growing body of scholarship in science education that attends to the role of affect as shaping youths' negotiation of and experiences with disciplinary science practices. As part of the special issue Centering Affect and Emotion Toward Justice and Dignity in Science Education, in this paper we examine how power and affect shape epistemic negotiations as youth and adults designed a community survey during a 7th grade biology unit on stress. We used interaction analysis methods to examine how care for the survey takers co‐operatively emerged as an epistemic ideal when creating a community ethnography. The epistemic ideal was shaped by disrupting disciplinary practices, negotiating multidirectional powered adult‐youth relations in the classroom, and youths' positionings in relation with macro‐sociopolitical worlds. How youth characterized care was not neutral but involved youth experiencing politicized empathy towards survey takers coupled with them taking action against survey takers potentially experiencing harm through a tool of Eurocentric science (i.e., the survey). Overall, this work contributes to a critically nuanced understanding of how affect is entangled with and visible through the complex powered dynamics that youth and adults negotiate when engaging in sociopolitical allyship towards more just ways of knowing, examined through the emergence of epistemic ideals within an explicitly justice‐oriented middle school science curriculum. 

Disagreement is often perceived negatively, yet it can be beneficial for learning and scientific inquiry. However, students tend to avoid engaging in disagreement. Peer critique activities offer a promising way to encourage students to embrace disagreement, which supports learning as students articulate their ideas, making them available for discussion, revision, and refinement. This study aims to better understand how students express disagreement during peer critique within small groups and how that affects moving their inquiry forward. It explores 5th-grade students’ management of disagreement within a computer-supported collaborative modeling environment. Using conversation analysis, we identified various forms of disagreements employed by students when engaging with different audiences. We observed a tendency for students to disagree softly; that is, disagreement was implied and/or mitigated. Students’ resolution of both direct and soft disagreements effectively promoted their collective knowledge advancement, including building shared scientific understanding and improving their models, while maintaining a positive socio-emotional climate. These findings have implications for designing CSCL environments with respect to supporting students in providing and responding to peer critiques at the group level.