Research:
Theoretical and Methodological tools for studying group productive disciplinary engagement
Student Group Engagement Rubric
Citation:
Rogat, T.K., Cheng, B.H., Traynor, A., Adeoye, T.F., Gomoll, A., Hmelo-Silver, C.E. & Lundh, P. (2019). Examining group productive disciplinary engagement. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2019) – Volume 2, (pp. 775 – 782), Lyon, France: ISLS.
Conferences and Events
The team presented this work at the following conferences:
EARLI 2019 - Aachen, Germany
CSCL 2019 - Lyon, France
About the Project
In a project funded by NSF, MenloEDU and a team of researchers from Purdue University and Indiana University will look at how students in group settings become engaged in learning the core ideas and practices specific to STEM disciplines.
This research project drew on recent theoretical advances concerning the construct of productive disciplinary engagement (PDE). PDE applies to learning that is (1) joint, (2) dynamic, and (3) inextricable from its context, including key STEM concepts and disciplinary practices. The project team will develop a detailed model to guide the subsequent development of observational tools using an evidence-centered design approach and then execute a validation plan to support interpretation of group scores from a rubric designed to measure PDE. The project team developed theory and operationalize PDE in a rubric grounded in extant measures and theoretical advances. Initial trials of a paper-format rubric will be conducted using extant video data. To evaluate the rubric ratings as group engagement measures, pre-specified validity evidence will be collected and analyzed during trials of the rubric. Statistical models of engagement as evolving within and across activities will be tested, as well as used to predict occurrences of PDE. This research will address foundational theoretical questions about how PDE progresses during disciplinary practices.
This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (DGE-1661266, 1661234).
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.