Emotional intelligence in science [electronic resource] : pathway to improving equitable groupwork and enhancing engagement in scientific practices?

As a result of reforms like the Common Core Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and its framework, science instruction is transitioning from traditional forms of science to reformist curriculum. Classrooms committed to an epistemological approach to science education will have students engaging in a co-construction of scientific knowledge and a process of inquiry. Students will be expected to assess alternative perspectives by weighing the evidence and assessing the viability of the scientific claims and accordingly construct an argument for the chosen viewpoint. Learning, in this case is, dialogic in nature and is an essential element to student learning. This dialogue may take the form of constructing explanations (McNeill, 2011; Reiser, Berland, & Kenyon, 2012) and argumentation (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Sandoval, 2003; Kuhn, Iordanou, Pease, Wirkala, 2008). By nature, these tasks are not only more dialogic than traditional science instruction, but generally occur between students in small student-led groups (Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003). Reform-based science curriculum is more dialogic and generally takes place in small student-led groups so students can debate and critique each other's scientific findings. Because the literature in education and science education regarding groupwork have highlighted that students can struggle to work collaboratively without the proper supports, I argue that science educators should consider whether or not students are prepared to engage in dialogic classroom activities like groupwork and how emotional intelligence (EI) might factor into these types of interactions. I use a range of methods to explore the role of EI in groupwork in science. The three studies within this dissertation offer empirical evidence to support this assertion. In studies one and three, I use a linguistic discourse analysis to study students' interactions in small groups, while students are interviewed in study two. The first study considers whether or not students use social emotional skills in small group discussion. Do these science students talk and interact equitably during groupwork? What factors facilitate or hinder equitable interactions between these small groups of students? A discourse analysis of the groups revealed that early interactions set the tone for positive or negative collaboration between students. Students perceived as "smart" or "popular" by their peers dominated most interactions and determined the group's course of action. However, shifts in the task created opportunities for less dominant students to increase their engagement throughout the activity. Implications from this study include the illumination of the need to provide students with social and emotional training in order to promote positive interactions. The second study considers whether equity is a goal for students when they engage in groupwork. What are students' perceptions of groupwork? Are equitable interactions a goal for students, as they work in heterogeneous groups? What behaviors do students perceive as problematic or as barriers to "good" groupwork? When issues or conflict arise in groupwork who do students believe is responsible for addressing the conflict? The analysis revealed that the majority of students believed that during good groupwork all students should participate and work together productively. Students mentioned exclusionary and off task behavior as key inhibitors to productive groupwork, and also discuss their role in addressing challenging behavior and the impact of race in influencing group interactions. Finally, the third study considers what role emotional intelligence may play in how students address challenges that arise during groupwork. Specifically, how do students engage in group discussions in a high school science class? What challenges do students face in groupwork? Which students address the challenges that arise during groupwork in science? Do students with higher social emotional competency address challenges more than those with lower social emotional competency? Results revealed that students perceived as "smart" and "popular" dominated on task talk while students that were perceived as less smart and popular were largely off task. Similarly, students with higher social emotional skills were less likely to engage in off task behavior and more likely to refocus the group. Implications from this study include the illumination of the need to reconsider how we measure social emotional skills in order to more accurately assess students' emotional intelligence and better support students' engagement in groupwork. While each of these studies has a unique set of questions, methods, and implications; overall this dissertation informs science educators and science teachers about what is needed to best prepare students for group interactions with a particular eye to the potential role emotional intelligence may play in supporting productive groupwork.

Keywords: Education.
Advisor: Osborne Jonathan primary advisor. Thesis advisor
Brown Bryan Anthony advisor. Thesis advisor
Darling-Hammond Linda
Lotan Rachel A. advisor. Thesis advisor