Critical relationships in managing students’ emotional responses to science (and evolution) instruction

Background If an instructional environment that is conducive to learning generally requires the development of good student–teacher relationships, then a classroom atmosphere of trust is an especially important consideration when we engage students in the teaching and learning of evolution. Emotional scaffolding, therefore, is crucial to the successful teaching and learning of evolution. Quinlan (Coll Teach 64:101–111, 2016) refers to four key relationships necessary to construct this scaffolding—students with teachers being merely one of the four key relationships comprising a comprehensive emotional scaffolding—the others being students with subject matter, students with other students, and students with their developing selves. Our purpose here is to examine the types of student emotional responses that secondary science teachers reported as emerging in their science classes and categorize students’ behavioral responses as being representative of the four key relationships, identified by Quinlan (Coll Teach 64:101–111, 2016), as necessary for promoting both enhanced learning and individual student growth. Results The results of this current study are highly encouraging in that respect. Each of the eight teachers were able to identify the development of each of the four key relationships identified by Quinlan as crucial for instructional success. In addition, where individual teacher profiles were statistically different than the aggregate profile across all eight teachers, it was due to a trade-off in emphasis of the development of one relationship in preference to another. Conclusion The most salient recommendations to manage emotional responses to evolution instruction are to: (1) Foster relationships that engage students in positive conversations; (2) Construct relationships in an appropriate sequence—Teacher–Student and Subject–Student first, followed by student–student and finally nurturing students with developing selves; (3) Use non-threatening assessments; and (4) Allow students to privately express their honest feelings about the science being learned

Secondary science teachers’ use of the affective domain in science education

Doctor of PhilosophyDepartment of Curriculum and InstructionMichael F. Perl and Kay Ann TaylorThe purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore (a) the types of student affective responses that secondary science teachers reported emerged in science classes, (b) how those teachers worked with student affective responses, and (c) what interactions were present in the classroom when they worked with student affective responses. The study was motivated by research indicating that student interest and motivation for learning science is low. Eight secondary science teachers participated in the case study. The participants were selected from a pool of teachers who graduated from the same teacher education program at a large Midwest university. The primary sources of data were individual semi-structured interviews with the participants. Krathwohl’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain served as the research framework for the study. Student affective behavior reported by participants was classified within the five levels of Krathwohl’s Affective Taxonomy: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization. Participants in the study reported student behavior representing all levels of the Affective Taxonomy. The types of behavior most frequently reported by participants were identified with the receiving and responding levels of the Affective Taxonomy. Organization behavior emerged during the study of perceived controversial science topics such as evolution. Participants in the study used student affective behavior to provide feedback on their lesson activities and instructional practices. Classroom interactions identified as collaboration and conversation contributed to the development of responding behavior. The researcher identified a process of affective progression in which teachers encouraged and developed student affective behavior changes from receiving to responding levels of the Affective Taxonomy

Engineering Education Experience, E3, for teachers: a professional development workshop for 6-12 engineering education

This paper describes a professional development program developed for middle and high school teachers, counselors, and administrators designed to provide information about grades 6–12 engineering curricula, engineering career paths, the Kansas State University College of Engineering, and student preparation for the study of engineering. The program, Engineering Education Experience (E3) was developed at Kansas State University, a midwestern university with a comprehensive engineering college. The program was created to support the University Engineering Initiative Act (UEIA). The UEIA, approved by the Kansas Legislature in 2011, provides funding for the state’s three engineering colleges to increase the number of engineering graduates in the state. In support of this plan, Kansas State University College of Engineering created E3 to inform 6–12 teachers, administrators and counselors of engineering as a topic of study and career path with the intent of reaching middle and high school students. The program was offered to teachers as a summer professional development workshop. During the summer of 2012, the Kansas State University College of Engineering hosted two 3- day engineering education workshops for teachers. Topics of lessons and activities included (a) engineering design, (b) problem-solving, (c) biological and environmental engineering, (d) nanomaterials, and (e) wind power. Activities and discussions allowed teachers to extend their knowledge of STEM topics and to meet with College of Engineering administrators, faculty, and students. Sixty-six teachers, counselors, and administrators participated in the E3 workshops. Participants included middle and high school math, physical science, biological science, and gifted teachers, along with counselors and administrators. Participants received 20 hours of professional development credit. A pre-workshop survey assessed their existing knowledge of engineering and what they hoped to learn from the workshop. Participants also completed a post workshop evaluation survey. A majority of the responses were favorable to the E3 workshop, with 98.5% of participants rating overall quality of the presenters/sessions as very good or excellent. Participants indicated satisfaction in presentations of the many areas and applications of engineering, variety of programs, and careers associated with engineering, and engineeringrelated activities for the classroom. This paper includes discussion topics and lesson plans developed for the E3 program and used during the workshop, including hands on and collaborative activities related to biological and environmental engineering, nanomaterials, and wind power