Sengupta et al. (2021) explored how using different ways to present ideas in coding can improve science learning in elementary classrooms. The study focuses on Emma, an elementary teacher who integrates coding into her science curriculum through computational modelling, hands-on activities, and sociomathematical norms that develop mathematical thinking. The study emphasizes the importance of “heterogeneity in representational and epistemic work is key to understanding how coding can become an integral part of science as practice in the classroom” (p. 121). Emma’s flexible approach demonstrated how coding could serve as a scientific tool by enabling students to design mathematical measures and recognize their relevance beyond technical skills (Sengupta et al., 2021). By establishing classroom norms to evaluate the “goodness” of computational models, Emma connected coding with scientific inquiry, which allowed her students to develop mathematical reasoning through hands-on coding activities, as “learning to use loops made multiplicative reasoning explicit” (Sengupta et al., 2021, p. 134). Her unique method of introducing approximation as a value that is “kind of real” and “helpful” encourages students to adopt a practical mindset toward estimation (Sengupta et al., 2021, p. 144). This approach aligns with my research design, which focuses on inclusive practices and affective elements in professional development, aimed at helping instructors create dynamic, relatable, and meaningful learning environments. Emma’s iterative approach, which connects coding commands with scientific phenomena, creates “circulating references” that enrich their understanding (Sengupta et al., 2021, p. 123). The concept of “circulating references,” where different forms of modelling and representation, could guide my work in training instructors to leverage diverse modelling approaches and promote deeper student engagement and understanding.
Rahm (2024) highlighted the importance of integrating effect, materiality, and embodiment in science learning. One of the key findings noted that “[t]he science activities they experienced generated ‘feelings of mattering’ that were engaging” (p.181). This indicates when students feel valued and connected to the materials, it will affect their learning and willingness to engage. According to a participating teacher, science activities in traditional classrooms often “lack sensual and affective engagement” (p. 181), while the CO’s approach focuses on hands-on experiences that align with students’ interests and emotions, making science relevant and enjoyable for them. Through the Entanglements of Bodies, materials and Affect section of the article, Rahm (2024) argued that such practices allow students to engage with science in ways that “challenge normative pedagogical time, space, and content delivery” (p. 198). This highlighted the flexibility and inclusivity of CO’s methods, which prioritize hands-on, effectively engaging approaches to science education to foster a more dynamic and inclusive learning experience. For my research, these principles can inform the professional development programs I aim to design for instructors. By training instructors to create effectively engaging and flexible learning environments, I can help them move beyond traditional approaches that might feel disconnected or passive to students. Encouraging hands-on, embodied learning practices, as demonstrated by the CO’s approach in Rahm’s study, can offer instructors effective strategies for fostering inclusive and dynamic experiences in both face-to-face and online settings. My focus is on ensuring that instructors are equipped to design learning environments that not only teach content but also support students’ sense of mattering, relevance, and engagement elements that are particularly critical in asynchronous and online learning where physical presence is limited.
Hollett et al. (2022) examined ensemble learning by examining the influence of “invisible” forces focused on the learning experience of ballet dancers in a class setting. They also explored how learning in a ballet ensemble goes beyond individual movements, involving a shared energy that connects and guides the group. Hollett et al. (2022) described, “[m]obile architectures emerge when a performance… becomes charged as energy is evoked and circulated among bodies” (p. 45), highlighting that learning in these group settings is affected by the invisible, exchanged among participants. This perspective is relevant to online asynchronous courses, as it suggests the importance of creating spaces where students can connect on emotional and energetic levels, going beyond visible participation or discussion posts. Rather than being a fixed group, the authors noted that “ensemble is not a fixed entity or group but, rather, is always in the constant state of production” (Hollett et al., 2022, p. 44), meaning that the group is continuously forming and reshaping as the dancers interact. This idea challenges traditional pedagogies by shifting away from control towards an approach where dancers allow the energy of the group to guide them, prompting the question of what it means “not to dance, but to be danced” (Hollett et al., 2022, p. 50). This challenges traditional, control-focused teaching methods and instead advocates for a model in which learners are receptive to the collective energy of the group collective energy. This approach aligns well with the needs of asynchronous online courses. The study further illustrated how dancers “join and align their bodies…feeling the movements, together, as the ensemble grows” (Hollett et al., 2022, p. 59), showing the way, ensemble learning happens as a shared, evolving process. Hollett et al. (2022) also introduced the idea of a “forward force”, which allows “the ensemble to transform and persist” (p. 65), driven by the group’s shared energy. This study calls attention to the “more-than-representational” dimensions of learning, encouraging educators to create group learning environments that make use of this powerful, shared energy. This enables a more dynamic and transformative experience. By integrating these principles into my research, I aim to develop online learning environments that prioritize emotional connections and collective energy. Such environments would not only engage students but also adapt to their interactions, fostering inclusive, impactful, and dynamic learning experiences.
The three articles from this week share a common theme of exploring how learning is shaped through embodied, affective, and material dimensions, but each approaches this through distinct lenses and contexts. Sengupta et al. (2021) examined how “heterogeneity in representational and epistemic work” in a science classroom allows both teachers and students to develop their “computational voices” through the integration of coding and scientific modelling (p. 121). In contrast, Rahm (2024) highlighted how science learning is enriched through “entanglements of bodies, materials, and affect” (p.198) in community science activities that promote “dignifying forms of engagement with science” (p.180). Hollett et al. (2022) added a different perspective through the study of ballet, where “mobile architectures emerge” (p.45) as bodies coordinate and exchange energies in ensemble learning, producing a “relational complexity” (p.67) that is essential to performative learning settings. While these articles differ in educational contexts, from science classrooms to community activities and dance, they all argue for a move beyond traditional, static representations of learning toward dynamic, embodied, and socially interconnected experiences.
These articles provide valuable insights that support my research on ongoing professional development, particularly in assisting instructors to incorporate embodied and affective elements into their teaching. Sengupta et al. (2021) illustrated how professional development can help instructors in “establish[ing] and refin[ing] classroom norms” that embrace multiple forms of student representation and engagement. By emphasizing that “heterogeneity is inherent and essential” (p.123) in teaching modelling, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary learning and iterative practices. Similarly, Rahm (2024) emphasized affect and dignity in community-based science activities and speaks to the importance of creating “dignity-affirming science practices” (p.199) that promote belonging and respect. Finally, the relational and energetic dynamics described in Hollett’s article highlight how professional development can help instructors cultivate ensemble-based learning environments that leverage “invisible dimensions such as sensations, energy, or intensity” (p.44) to enrich collective learning experiences. In summary, these perspectives support the idea that ongoing professional development should encourage instructors to adopt diverse, embodied approaches that prioritize inclusivity, engagement, and responsive interaction with students.
References
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. V. (2021). Computational Heterogeneity and Teacher Voice. In Voicing Code in STEM. MIT Press. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.7551/mitpress/11668.003.0011
Rahm, J. (2024). ‘The strawberry in the pot that became something’ – entanglements of bodies, materials, and affect in science activities supported by a community organization. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(1), 180–201.https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2024.2304583
Hollett, T., Peng, X., & Land, S. (2022). Learning with and beyond the body: The production of mobile architectures in a ballet variations class. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 31(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.2003801
Leave a Reply