Coding Classroom Interactions for Collective and Individual Engagement

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 70-83

  Ryu, Suna ^a   Lombardi, Doug ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924153438     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.1001891     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement with literature in urban classrooms: A multi-layered perspective. Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 177–212.
2. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S.L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
3. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–23.
4. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210–223. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.515934
5. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3
6. Bender-deMoll, S., & McFarland, D. A. (2003). Sonia-social network image animator (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
7. Chaiklin, S. (1993). Understanding the social scientific practice of understanding practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 377–401). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530036
9. Crick, R. D. (2012). Deep engagement as a complex system: Identity, learning power and authentic enquiry. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 675–694). New York, NY: Springer.
10. Dockter, J., Haug, D., & Lewis, C. (2010). Redefining rigor: Critical engagement, digital media, and the new english/language arts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 418–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.5.7
11. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, Y. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
13. Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., Faris, R., Foshee, V. A., Cai, L., & DuRant, R. H. (2006). The peer context of adolescent substance use: Findings from social network analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 159–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00127.
14. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, England: Routledge.
15. Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: A multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 50, 327–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.607401
16. 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(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
17. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, England: Falmer.
18. Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
20. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169. doi:10.3102/0091732X023001119
21. Gobert, J. D., Baker, R. S., & Wixon, M. B. (this issue). Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science microworlds. Educational Psychologist, 50.
22. Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
23. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2013). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
24. Greene, B. A. (this issue). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50.
25. Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170–218.
26. Gresalfi, M.S. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 327–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013470
27. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3
28. Holland, D. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1–15.
30. Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in cscl. Educational Psychologist, 48, 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006
31. Järvelä, S., Volet, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive–situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45, 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433539
32. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
33. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653266
34. Lam, S.-F., Wong, B. P., Yang, H., & Liu, Y. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a contextual model. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reaschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 403–419). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_19
35. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891
37. Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow, Russia: Progress.
38. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 44, 137–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832384
41. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 17–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_3
42. Minner, D., & DeLisi, J. (2012). Inquiring into science instruction on observation on protocol (ISIOP). Waltham, MA: Education Development Center.
43. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics: Kindergarten introduction.Washington, DC: Author.
44. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
45. Nolen, S. B., & Ward, C. J. (2008). Sociocultural and situative approaches to studying motivation. In M. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Social psychological perspective on motivation and achievement. Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 15, pp. 425–460). London, England: Emerald Group.
46. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
47. Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 33–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20128
48. Olitsky, S., & Milne, C. (2012). Understanding engagement in science education: The psychological and the social. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 19–33). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
49. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers' communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58.
50. Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers' professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. The Teachers College Record, 111, 124–163.
51. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher–student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reaschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
52. Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002.
53. Putney, L. G. (2007). Discursive practices as cultural resources: Formulating identities for individual and collective in an inclusive classroom setting. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 129–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.09.007
54. Putney, L. G., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Developing collective classroom efficacy: The teacher's role as community organizer. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 93–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487110381760.
55. Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
56. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
57. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky's neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77, 186–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273
58. Rumberger, R. W., & Rotermund, S. (2012). The relationship between engagement and high school dropout. Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 491–513). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
59. Ryu, S. (2014). The appropriation of argumentation norms in an elementary science classroom over the span of one year. Manuscript submitted for publication.
60. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
61. Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G.N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., & Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0013
62. Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (this issue). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50.
63. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
64. Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does motivation develop and why does it change? Reframing motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 119–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178441
65. Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
66. Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44, 215–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584
67. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69. Wasserman, S. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
70. Wertsch, J. (1993). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.517150
72. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909