Abstract
Well-designed, dialogic, and interdisciplinary learning opportunities in science related disciplines can promote many educational goals. The difficulty lies in providing these opportunities in schools. Can out-of-school focus days fill the void? Here, we performed a mixed methods study to discover how middle school learners perceive focus days that included dialogic, interdisciplinary activities in mathematics, science, and philosophy, all around socio-scientific dilemmas. We also sought to understand the experiences’ impact on learners’ self-perceived dialogic engagement in the school classroom. We focused on (1) learners’ perceptions and recollections of the dialogic climate during the focus days; (2) the perceived contribution of the three disciplines (mathematics, science and philosophy) to the interdisciplinary focus days; and (3) the focus days’ effects on the dialogic climate in the everyday school environment. Our findings suggest that (1) learners generally considered the focus days as enjoyable and different than their everyday school experience; (2) students did not consider each discipline equally relevant to the focus days’ main topics; and (3) the effects of the focus days were localized, that is, no impact was found on the dialogic climate at school. We discuss implications for promoting interdisciplinary, dialogic science related learning in secondary schools.
References
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Willis, B. (2014). Adolescent boys’ science aspirations: Masculinity, capital, and power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21122
Blanca, M. J., Alarcón, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383
Chen, G., Zhang, J., Chan, C. K. K., Michaels, S., Resnick, L. B., & Huang, X. (2020). The link between student-perceived teacher talk and student enjoyment, anxiety and discursive engagement in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3600
Chettiparamb, A. (2007). Interdisciplinarity: A literature review. The Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, School of Humanities, University of Southampton.
Clarke, S. N. (2015). The right to speak. In Socializing intelligence zhrough academic talk and dialogue (pp. 167–180). American Educational Research Association.
Clarke, S. N., Resnick, L. B., & Penstein Rosé, C. (2016). Dialogic instruction: A new frontier. In L. Corno, & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 378–389). Routledge.
Eronen, L., Kokko, S., & Sormunen, K. (2019). Escaping the subject-based class: A Finnish case study of developing transversal competencies in a transdisciplinary course. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 264–278.
Gero, A., Essami, H., Danino, O., & Kornblum, L. (2022). Students’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary learning: A high-school course on solar cells. International Journal of Engineering Education, 38(4), 1130–1140.
Gero, A., & Zach, E. (2014). High school programme in electro-optics: A case study on interdisciplinary learning and systems thinking. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(5), 1190–1199.
Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Do girls really experience more anxiety in mathematics? Psychological Science, 24(10), 2079–2087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486989
Hardman, F. (2019). Embedding a dialogic pedagogy in the classroom: What is the research telling us? In The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 139–151). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-13
Jiang, S., Shen, J., & Smith, B. E. (2019). Designing discipline-specific roles for interdisciplinary learning: two comparative cases in an afterschool STEM+L programme. International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1581958
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Kiemer, K., Gröschner, A., Pehmer, A. K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003
Kohen, Z., & Orenstein, D. (2021). Mathematical modeling of tech-related real-world problems for secondary school-level mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107, 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10020-1
Koichu, B., Schwarz, B. B., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Tabach, M., & Yarden, A. (2022). Design practices and principles for promoting dialogic argumentation via interdisciplinarity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 37(July 2021), 100657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100657
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
Nakagawa, S., Poulin, R., Mengersen, K., Reinhold, K., Engqvist, L., Lagisz, M., & Senior, A. M. (2014). Meta-analysis of variation: Ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12309
Nikitina, S. (2005). Pathways of interdisciplinary cognition. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 389–425. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2303 3
Nowacek, R. S. (2005). A discourse-based theory of interdisciplinary connections. The Journal of General Education, 54(3), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2006.0006
Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H.W., Murayama, K., & Goetz, T. (2017). Achievement emotions and academic performance: Longitudinal models of reciprocal effects. Child Development, 88(5), 1653–1670. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12704
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Rop, C. J. (2003). Spontaneous inquiry questions in high school chemistry classrooms: Perceptions of a group of motivated learners. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126496
Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2016). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory, and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Sharon, A. J., Ben-Dor, N., & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (in process). Conceptualizing and measuring dialogic climate: The Dialogic Climate Inventory (DCI) [Manuscript in preparation]. Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.
Skidmore, D. (2019). Dialogism and education. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 27–37). Routledge.
Song, G., & Wang, Z. (2021). Factors influencing middle school students’ interdisciplinary competence in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58, 1041–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21692
Spalding, E. (2002). Of organelles and octagons: What do preservice secondary teachers learn from interdisciplinary teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00029-X
Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z
Tsemach, E., Schwarz, B. B., Israeli, M., & Keynan, O. (2023). Advancing group epistemic practices in the resolution of interdisciplinary societal dilemmas. Dialogic Pedagogy, 11(3), A119–A147. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.551
Warwick, P., & Cook, V. (2019). Classroom dialogue. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 121–124). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-11
Wegerif, R. (2006). Dialogic education: What is it and why do we need it? Education Review, 19(2), 58–66. Wegerif, R. (2019). Towards a dialogic theory of education for the internet age. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 14–26). Routledge.
Zafrani, E., & Yarden, A. (2022). Dialog-constraining institutional logics and their interactional manifestation in the science classroom. Science Education, 106(1), 142–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21687