Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Bae, Christine Lee; Hogan, Erin; Hayes, Kathryn N.

doi: 10.1002/tea.70056pmid: N/A

Recent reforms in science education emphasize engaging students in authentic sensemaking practices. Central to this vision is positioning students as epistemic agents who generate questions, negotiate ideas, and co‐construct scientific understanding. Yet, classroom realities reveal persistent tensions in implementing these ideals, particularly in elementary settings. This multiple case study draws on classroom video and post‐lesson debriefs of five elementary teachers identified as instructional innovators in a multi‐year professional development project. Using a framework of four opportunities for epistemic agency as an analytic frame, moments of student‐driven sensemaking in phenomena‐based science activities were analyzed. Findings showed the following tensions in shifting epistemic agency to students: (1) honoring student contributions versus steering discourse toward canonical science, (2) providing scaffolds and roles that clarify participation versus unintentionally constraining sensemaking, (3) supporting student‐driven knowledge products that reflect everyday reasoning versus aligning with disciplinary ideas and principles, and (4) creating space to renegotiate classroom norms versus maintaining order. These tensions reveal the dynamic negotiation of epistemic agency in classrooms, and underscore that supporting students' epistemic agency is a continual balancing act shaped by time, curricular mandates, and classroom culture. Implications for teacher professional learning, emphasizing the need to cultivate equitable classroom norms, plan for productive trade‐offs, and design systemic supports that expand opportunities for all students to engage as epistemic agents in science learning are discussed.

Zambrano, Jeanette; Thoman, Dustin B.; Jones, Aiko

doi: 10.1002/tea.70055pmid: N/A

Science identity is a key predictor of persistence in STEM. Although prior research has established the importance of social recognition for identity development, less is known about how recognition operates within informal, everyday interactions. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study investigated whether and how social recognition during informal science talk contributes to science identity and STEM persistence, particularly for undergraduate women who often encounter gendered barriers within scientific environments. The quantitative strand included a longitudinal survey of 211 undergraduate STEM majors. Results showed that social recognition during conversations about science predicted increases in science identity and indirectly predicted STEM persistence through increases in science identity, but only for women. The qualitative strand consisted of semi‐structured interviews with 22 undergraduate women in STEM and elaborated the mechanisms underlying these relationships. Women described recognition as occurring through specific conversational behaviors, including attentive listening, follow‐up questions, remembered interests, encouragement, and being treated as knowledgeable by others. These interactions helped women reappraise doubts about their competence, validate their legitimacy as “science people,” and strengthen motivation to persist in STEM pathways. Interview data also revealed that recognition was shaped by relational context and social comparison. Recognition from professors often signaled legitimacy within scientific spaces, recognition from family members often communicated encouragement and support for students' interests and aspirations, and recognition from peers often shaped students' visibility and sense of belonging within science‐oriented social groups. Women further described how racialized and gendered microaggressions undermined recognition and required them to repeatedly prove their competence, particularly for Black and Latina participants. Together, the findings suggest that informal social recognition functions as a relational mechanism through which women develop science identities and sustain persistence in STEM. Fostering recognition in everyday interactions and educational contexts may therefore represent an important pathway for advancing equity in STEM.

Hsi, Sherry; Harris, Emily; Snowden, Jeffrey; Mohan, Lindsey

doi: 10.1002/tea.70059pmid: N/A

Pierson, Ashlyn E.; Johnson, Heather J.; Henrie, Andrea W.; Keifert, D. Teo; Jeong, Sophia; Daniel, Bethany; Dankwa, Yaa

doi: 10.1002/tea.70057pmid: N/A

Science education has shifted from a focus on canonical correctness toward students and their sensemaking. In response, teacher educators have explored video analysis as an activity for helping teacher candidates (TCs) notice students and their resources. Framing (e.g., facilitator prompts, protocols) influences what TCs learn through video analysis. Here, we analyze the influence of framing on one feature of an undergraduate elementary science methods course: video clubs that were intended to support TCs in noticing students' resources. Our data come from a larger study that designed, implemented, and evaluated an elementary science methods course at two universities: A large public university in the midwestern US and a small private university in the southeastern US. In this paper, using a case study approach, we compare two structures for framing TCs' noticing of students' resources during video clubs: open‐ended prompts and a protocol. Specifically, we analyze data from two contrasting cases: (a) one facilitator‐led video club using guiding prompts and an open‐ended structure (Year 1) and (b) one TC‐led video club that relied on a protocol (adapted from Jilk [2016]) with targeted sentence frames to focus TCs' noticing on students' resources (Year 2). We found that in both cases TCs attended to students' resources. The TCs in the prompt‐facilitated discussion focused more often on students' non‐canonical strengths (e.g., cultural knowledge) and on teaching, yet use of a facilitator limited TCs' opportunities for participation. In comparison, the TCs in the protocol‐guided discussion focused more often on students' canonical assets (e.g., understandings of force and motion) and non‐canonical strengths (e.g., interactional resources), and the TCs had more opportunities for participation without a facilitator. These findings offer implications for teacher educators aiming to support equitable science teaching through courses and professional development.