Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 713–740 | Cite as

Emotional engagement, social interactions, and the development of an afterschool game design curriculum

  • Helen Kwah
  • Catherine Milne
  • Tzuchi Tsai
  • Ricki Goldman
  • Jan L. Plass
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This formative design study examines how a program curriculum and implementation was emergently (re)designed in dynamic relation to the expressed emotions of teachers and students. The context was a yearlong afterschool game design program for STEM learning at an urban and public all-girls middle school. Using Randall Collins’ (Interaction ritual chains, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004) sociology of emotions framework, our analysis of field notes and video data reveal how the original intended curriculum hindered the generation of positive emotions, mutual foci of attention, and feelings of group solidarity—factors important in the generation of successful group interactions. In response to teacher and student expressed emotions, we took these factors as a guide for redesigning the program curriculum and implementation in order to foster a more positive emotional climate and redirect students’ positive emotions toward engagement in learning goals. This study’s implications point to the possibilities for designing curricula and program implementations to engender more emotionally responsive environments for STEM learning.

Keywords

Emotional engagement Curriculum development Mathematics Middle school Afterschool Design study Games 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work reported in this paper was in part supported by grants from the Motorola Foundation and from the Motorola Solutions Foundation. Any opinions expressed within the manuscript are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect opinions of our funders.

References

  1. Bellocchi, A., Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., Sandhu, M., & Sandhu, S. (2013). Exploring emotional climate in preservice science teacher education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8, 529–552. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9526-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, R. B., & Brooks, I. (2002). Emotion at work: Identifying the emotional climate of night nursing. Journal of Management in Medicine, 16, 327–344. doi: 10.1108/02689230210446517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural–historical approaches to designing for development. In The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611162.026.
  4. Collins, R. (1987). Interaction ritual chains, power and property: The micro–macro connection as an empirically based theoretical problem. In J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro–macro link (pp. 193–206). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), The handbook of research and curriculum (pp. 216–247). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eisner, E. (1984). Can educational research inform educational practice? Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 447–452.Google Scholar
  10. Eisner, E. (2002). The three curricula that all schools teach. In E. W. Eisner (Ed.), The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (pp. 87–107). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. E-line media and Institute of Play (2010). Gamestar mechanic. http://elinemedia.com/product/gamestar-mechanic/.
  12. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21, 598–628. doi: 10.1177/0959354311419252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11, 225–250. doi: 10.2307/798722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldman, R. (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Grining, C., Raver, C. C., Champion, K., Sardin, L., Metzger, M., & Jones, S. M. (2010). Understanding and improving classroom emotional climate and behavior management in the “real world”: The role of Head Start teachers’ psychosocial stressors. Early Education & Development, 21, 65–94. doi: 10.1080/10409280902783509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 796–824. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, S., Milne, C., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). Eye rollers, risk-takers, and turn sharks: Target students in a professional science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 819–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mesquita, B. (2010). Emoting: A contextualized process. In B. Mesquita, L. F. Barrett, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 83–104). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and emotional energy. Science Education, 91, 523–553. doi: 10.1002/sce.20203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NYC Department of Education. (2011). School Progress Report. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2010-11/Progress_Report_2011_EMS_K527.
  23. Olitsky, S., & Milne, C. (2012). Understanding engagement in science education: The psychological and the social. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 19–33). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orlander, A. A., & Wickman, P.-O. (2010). Bodily experiences in secondary school biology. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 569–594. doi: 10.1007/s11422-010-9292-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park, B., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2014). Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 125–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pekrun, R. (2002). Positive emotions in education. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions, and challenges (pp. 149–173). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberts, D., & Östman, L. (1998). Problems of meaning in science curriculum. London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101. doi: 10.2307/2786745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. (pp. 150–171). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:16705/psycinfo/1991-98452-007.
  30. Schleef, E. (2008). The “Lecturer’s OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83, 62–84. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2008-003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seiler, G. (2006). Student interest-focused curricula. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Teaching and learning science: A handbook (pp. 337–344). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  32. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  33. Tobin, K. G., Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2005). Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, and researchers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Tobin, K., Ritchie, S. M., Oakley, J. L., Mergard, V., & Hudson, P. (2013). Relationships between emotional climate and the fluency of classroom interactions. Learning Environments Research, 16, 71–89. doi: 10.1007/s10984-013-9125-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turner, J. H. (2002). Face to face: Toward a sociological theory of interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1–14). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_1.
  37. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Zembylas, M. (2004). Emotional issues in teaching science: A case study of a teacher’s views. Research in Science Education, 34, 343–364. doi: 10.1007/s11165-004-0287-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Kwah
    • 1
  • Catherine Milne
    • 2
  • Tzuchi Tsai
    • 3
  • Ricki Goldman
    • 3
  • Jan L. Plass
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of EducationSt. John’s UniversityStaten IslandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching and Learning, Steinhardt SchoolNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Administration, Leadership and Technology, Steinhardt SchoolNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options