Advertisement

Sociomaterial Relations in Asynchronous Learning Environments

  • Shannon M. BurcksEmail author
  • Marcelle A. Siegel
  • Christopher D. Murakami
  • Rose M. Marra
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 18)

Abstract

In this research study, we engaged in experimentation with materiality in an attempt to explore how sociomaterial perspectives can inform theory and practice in equitable science education. This study took place in a biological science-focused asynchronous learning environment which consisted of a collection of technological tools designed for students to fully participate in science practices outside of a face-to-face or laboratory setting. We explored the data using theoretical perspectives that were new to us and helped us shed light on the intertwined roles of materials and humans in online learning in terms of equitable science assessment practices. Our work provided an opportunity for researchers and instructional designers to examine the social and material dimensions that affect learners in technology-enhanced science learning environments and address potentially oppressive sociomaterial assemblages.

References

  1. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Committee on Innovation and Technology. (2014). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.  https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.  https://doi.org/10.1086/345321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning (Vol. 24, p. 212). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.00013_10.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, R., Maeng, J., & Binns, I. (2013). Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348–379.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105–121.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910303047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenwick, T., & Landri, P. (2012). Materialities, textures and pedagogies: Socio-material assemblages in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.649421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.Google Scholar
  11. Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Johri, A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Journal of Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 207–217.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelly, M. A. (2014). Bridging digital and cultural divides: TPCK for equity of access to technology. In American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) (pp. 31–58). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  14. Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (2004). Nonhumans. In S. Harrison, S. Pile, & N. J. Thrift (Eds.), Patterned ground: Entanglements of nature and culture (pp. 224–226). London: Reaktion Books LTD.Google Scholar
  16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leonardi, P., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664054.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? how are they related? do we need them? In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664054.003.0002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milne, C., Siry, C., & Mueller, M. (2015). Reflection on the challenges and possibilities of journal publication in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 1063–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9719-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller, M. (2015). Assemblages and actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and space. Geography and Compass, 9(1), 27–41.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murakami, C. D., & Siegel, M. A. (2017). Becoming Bermuda grass: Mapping and tracing rhizomes to practice reflexivity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13, 733.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9803-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249–273.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Annals of the Academy of Management, 2(1), 433–474.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment (KWSK). Available: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309072727
  26. Scantlebury, K., & Baker, D. (2007). Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 257–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between us: Group metacognition during problem solving in a secondary education course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 325–341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9326-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegel, M. A. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers’ expertise in equitable assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegel, M. A., Wissehr, C., & Halverson, K. L. (2008). Sounds like success: A framework for equitable assessment. The Science Teacher, 75(3), 43–46.Google Scholar
  30. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.  https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suller, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.  https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Guavain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 79–91). New York: Scientific American Books.Google Scholar
  33. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shannon M. Burcks
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marcelle A. Siegel
    • 1
  • Christopher D. Murakami
    • 1
  • Rose M. Marra
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations