Description
Length: 15 pagesin length (double spaced, Times New Roman 12 point font or Arial 11 point font).The due of this final paper is on 12/20/2023, 5PM. Your final grade will be posted by 01/02/2024.The final project will be a project in which you use what you have learned throughout the course to develop an educational plan to achieve an educational goal that is of interest to you. For most of you, this will probably be an educational goal for an out-of-school setting for youth. Drawing on everything you have learned in the course, you will propose and develop an educational program for youth. Using the articles i attached below write this and don’t use too high of a writing level . A high school writing level is good enough.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Canadian Psychology
2008, Vol. 49, No. 3, 182–185
Copyright 2008 by the Canadian Psychological Association
0708-5591/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012801
Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation,
Development, and Health
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan
University of Rochester
Self-determination theory (SDT) is an empirically based theory of human motivation, development, and
wellness. The theory focuses on types, rather than just amount, of motivation, paying particular attention
to autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation as predictors of performance, relational, and well-being outcomes. It also addresses the social conditions that enhance versus diminish
these types of motivation, proposing and finding that the degrees to which basic psychological needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported versus thwarted affect both the type and strength
of motivation. SDT also examines people’s life goals or aspirations, showing differential relations of
intrinsic versus extrinsic life goals to performance and psychological health. In this introduction we also
briefly discuss recent developments within SDT concerning mindfulness and vitality, and highlight the
applicability of SDT within applied domains, including work, relationships, parenting, education, virtual
environments, sport, sustainability, health care, and psychotherapy.
Keywords: self-determination theory, autonomous motivation, personality development, wellness
As a macrotheory of human motivation, self-determination
theory (SDT) addresses such basic issues as personality development, self-regulation, universal psychological needs, life
goals and aspirations, energy and vitality, nonconscious processes, the relations of culture to motivation, and the impact of
social environments on motivation, affect, behavior, and wellbeing. Further, the theory has been applied to issues within a
wide range of life domains.
Although the initial work leading to SDT dates back to the
1970s and the first relatively comprehensive statement of SDT
appeared in the mid-1980s (Deci & Ryan, 1985), it has been during
the past decade that research on SDT has truly mushroomed. Basic
research expanding and refining motivational principles has continued at a vigorous pace, but the huge increase in the volume of
published SDT studies has been most apparent in the applied
fields—in sport, education, and health care, for example. Indeed,
the diversity of topics covered in the papers of this special issue,
along with the amount of research cited in each paper, make clear
how extensive the literature has become.
Earlier this year we published an article in Canadian Psychology presenting an overview of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Here we
present a much briefer introduction to the theory that will provide
a structure to help focus readers as they begin the series of papers.
It is particularly appropriate that this special issue appears in
Canadian Psychology insofar as a substantial portion of the contributions to SDT has been accomplished by Canadian scholars,
beginning with the work of Vallerand (e.g., Vallerand, 1983).
Since then SDT has been extended and applied by scholars across
Canada, to which the papers in the current volume clearly attest.
Differentiating Motivation
Whereas many historical and contemporary theories of motivation have treated motivation primarily as a unitary concept, focussing on the overall amount of motivation that people have for
particular behaviours or activities, SDT began by differentiating
types of motivation. The initial idea was that the type or quality of
a person’s motivation would be more important than the total
amount of motivation for predicting many important outcomes
such as psychological health and well-being, effective performance, creative problem solving, and deep or conceptual learning.
Indeed, an abundance of research has now confirmed that the
initial idea was sound.
The most central distinction in SDT is between autonomous
motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation
comprises both intrinsic motivation and the types of extrinsic
motivation in which people have identified with an activity’s value
and ideally will have integrated it into their sense of self. When
people are autonomously motivated, they experience volition, or a
self-endorsement of their actions. Controlled motivation, in contrast, consists of both external regulation, in which one’s behavior
is a function of external contingencies of reward or punishment,
and introjected regulation, in which the regulation of action has
been partially internalized and is energized by factors such as an
approval motive, avoidance of shame, contingent self-esteem, and
ego-involvements. When people are controlled, they experience
pressure to think, feel, or behave in particular ways. Both autonomous and controlled motivation energize and direct behavior, and
they stand in contrast to amotivation, which refers to a lack of
intention and motivation.
An enormous amount of research, some of which is reviewed in
the papers of this special issue, has confirmed that, across domains,
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, Department of Psychology,
University of Rochester.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edward
L. Deci, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, P.O. Box
270266, Rochester, NY 14627. E-mail: [email protected]
182
SPECIAL ISSUE: SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY: A MACROTHEORY
autonomous motivation and controlled motivation lead to very
different outcomes, with autonomous motivation tending to yield
greater psychological health and more effective performance on
heuristic types of activities. It also leads to greater long-term
persistence, for example, maintained change toward healthier behaviors.
In recent years, research on autonomous versus controlled motivation has been extended to examinations of nonconscious processes. Studies using priming methodologies and implicit assessment methods have begun to show how the motivational processes
and principles of SDT operate at both the conscious and nonconscious levels, and at both levels the advantages of autonomous
motivation for many important outcomes have become apparent.
The paper in this issue by Levesque, Copeland, and Sutcliffe
(2008) reviews some of the research on nonconscious processes.
Basic Psychological Needs
Based on years of research on intrinsic motivation and internalization we found that a satisfactory account of the various empirical results required the hypothesis that there is a set of universal
psychological needs that must be satisfied for effective functioning
and psychological health. Subsequent research in a variety of
countries, including some cultures with collectivist, traditional
values and others with individualist, equalitarian values, have
confirmed that satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness do indeed predict psychological well-being
in all cultures. Thus, although some cultural relativists have maintained, for example, that the need for autonomy is important only
in cultures that value individualism and is essentially irrelevant in
cultures that value collectivism, that turns out not to be the case.
Feelings of autonomy, like competence and relatedness, are essential for optimal functioning in a broad range of highly varied
cultures.
The concept of human needs turns out to be extremely useful
because it provides a means of understanding how various social
forces and interpersonal environments affect autonomous versus
controlled motivation. More specifically, by considering whether a
particular contextual factor such as a monetary reward, an opportunity for choice, or a performance evaluation is likely to support
versus thwart satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, people
are able to predict the effects of that factor on such outcomes as
motivation, behavior, affect, and well-being. In addition the postulation of basic needs helps explain why only some efficacious
behaviors actually enhance well-being, whereas others do not.
Individual Differences
Many theories of motivation have as their primary individual
difference the strength of one or more psychological needs—for
example, the need for achievement, for intimacy, or for control.
The idea is that needs are learned, and some people develop
stronger needs than others. Because SDT maintains that the needs
for competence, relatedness, and autonomy are basic and universal, the individual differences within the theory do not focus on the
varying strength of needs but instead focus on concepts resulting
from the degree to which the needs have been satisfied versus
thwarted. Specifically, within SDT there are two general individual difference concepts, causality orientations and life goals.
183
Causality Orientations
Causality orientation are general motivational orientations that
refer to (a) the way people orient to the environment concerning
information related to the initiation and regulation of behavior, and
thus (b) the extent to which they are self-determined in general,
across situations and domains. There are three orientations: autonomous, controlled, and impersonal. Development of a strong autonomous orientation results from ongoing satisfaction of all three
basic needs. Development of a strong controlled orientation results
from some satisfaction of the competence and relatedness needs
but a thwarting of the need for autonomy. And development of the
impersonal orientation results from a general thwarting of all three
needs. According to SDT, people have some level of each of the
three orientations, and one or more of these can be used in making
predictions about various psychological or behavioral outcomes.
Consistently, the autonomy orientation has been positively related
to psychological health and effective behavioral outcomes; the
controlled orientation has been related to regulation through introjects and external contingencies, to rigid functioning, and diminished well-being; and the impersonal orientation has been
reliably associated with poor functioning and symptoms of illbeing, such as self-derogation and lack of vitality.
Aspirations or Life Goals
Considerable empirical work within the SDT tradition has focused on the long-term goals that people use to guide their activities. Empirically, these goals fall into two general categories that
have been labelled intrinsic aspirations and extrinsic aspirations
(Kasser & Ryan, 1996). Intrinsic aspirations include such life goals
as affiliation, generativity, and personal development, whereas
extrinsic aspirations include such goals as wealth, fame, and attractiveness. Numerous studies have revealed that an emphasis on
intrinsic goals, relative to extrinsic goals, is associated with greater
health, well-being, and performance (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens,
Sheldon, & Deci, 2004).
Aspirations have been studied in terms of their strength or
importance. As such, they bear similarity to what some other
researchers refer or as needs and motives. We do not, however,
consider them to be needs, for needs are essential nutriments rather
than learned desires. Instead, we understand aspirations to be
acquired as a function of the degree to which the basic needs for
competence, relatedness, and autonomy have been satisfied versus
thwarted over time. When needs have been thwarted, for example,
people tend to adopt extrinsic goals that will lead to external
indicators of worth, rather than the internal feelings of worth that
result from need satisfaction. As such, extrinsic aspirations are one
type of need substitute—they provide little or no direct need
satisfaction but people pursue these goals because they provide
some substitute or compensation for the lack of true need satisfaction. Unfortunately, as extrinsic goals are being pursued they
tend to crowd out pursuit of basic need satisfaction, and they fail
to foster integration or wellness, even when attained.
Some Newer Developments
In recent years there have been many developments and extensions of the research and theorizing within the SDT tradition. We
now mention a few of these.
184
DECI AND RYAN
Mindfulness
SDT has always maintained that the development of integrated,
autonomous functioning depends on awareness. Recently SDT
researchers have begun to incorporate that idea through studies of
mindfulness, defined as an open awareness and interested attention
to what is happening within and around oneself (Brown & Ryan,
2003). Mindfulness has been associated with autonomous motivation and with a variety of positive psychological and behavioral
outcomes. Accordingly, promoting mindfulness or awareness has
been theorized to be a central element in psychotherapy, one that
allows inner exploration, reflective examination of needs and
feelings, and the development of a more autonomous orientation.
We (Ryan & Deci, 2008a) address this matter more fully in our
paper on psychotherapy within this special issue.
Energy and Vitality
An important aspect of motivation concerns the energization
of people’s psychological processes and behaviors. Within
SDT, the energy for action comes either directly or indirectly
from basic psychological needs, and we have been particularly
interested in the concept of vitality, which is the energy that is
available to the self—that is, the energy that is exhilarating and
empowering, that allows people to act more autonomously and
persist more at important activities. Whereas other theories
have posited that self-regulation and choice are draining of
energy, SDT researchers have hypothesized and demonstrated
that only controlled regulation depletes energy (e.g., Moller,
Deci, & Ryan, 2006). Autonomous regulation is not depleting
but can instead be vitalizing, and indeed SDT posits that
whereas controlled motives drain energy, actions that lead to
need satisfaction can actually enhance energy available for
self-regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2008b).
Applications
Finally, as we said earlier, there has been a surge of activity in
applying SDT to many of life’s domains. In this special issue we
are pleased to have papers summarizing some of the research
applying SDT concepts to the important topics of close relationships (La Guardia & Patrick, 2008), parenting (Joussemet, Landry,
& Koestner, 2008), education (Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008),
work (Gagné & Forest, 2008), well-being and health (Miquelon &
Vallerand, 2008), sport and exercise (Wilson, Mack, & Grattan,
2008), and sustaining our planet (Pelletier & Sharp, 2008). These
applications are inspiring in terms of the quality of research
supporting them, but perhaps more importantly because they demonstrate that comprehensive theorizing, when backed by a tradition
of strong empirical testing, can actually lead to improvements in
social practices and the betterment of individuals and the collectives in which they are embedded.
Résumé
La théorie de l’autodétermination est de nature empirique et concerne la motivation, le développement et le bien-être de l’être
humain. Elle porte davantage sur les types de motivation que sur
son ampleur et elle cible en particulier la motivation autonome, la
motivation basée sur le contrôlé (extrinsèque) et le manque de
motivation en tant qu’indicateurs prévisionnels des résultats en
matière de performance ainsi que de rapports et de bien-être
humains. La théorie touche aussi les conditions sociales qui sont
favorables ou non à ces types de motivation, en suggérant puis en
concluant que les diverses façons dont les besoins psychologiques
fondamentaux en matière d’autonomie, de compétence et de rapprochement sont soutenus ou non affectent tant le type que
l’ampleur de la motivation. La théorie de l’autodétermination
examine aussi les objectifs et les aspirations de vie des gens, en
comparant les éléments différentiels entre les objectifs de vie
intrinsèques et extrinsèques par rapport à la performance et à la
santé psychologique. Dans notre introduction, nous abordons aussi
brièvement l’évolution récente de la théorie de l’autodétermination
concernant la conscience et la vitalité, et nous soulignons
l’applicabilité de la théorie de l’autodétermination au sein de
domaines appliqués, dont le travail, les rapports humains, le parentage, l’éducation, les environnements virtuels, le sport, la durabilité, les soins de santé et la psychothérapie.
Mots-clés : théorie de l’autodétermination, motivation autonome,
développement de la personnalité, mieux-être
References
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822– 848.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and
psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology,
49, 14 –23.
Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensation systems
through the lens of self-determination theory: Reconciling 35 years of
debate. Canadian Psychology, 49, 225–232.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal
contexts: The role of self-deetermination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49, 233–240.
Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination
theory perspective on parenting. Canadian Psychology, 49, 194 –200.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream:
Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 80 – 87.
La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a
fundamental theory of close relationships. Canadian Psychology, 49,
201–209.
Levesque, C., Copeland, K. J., & Sutcliffe, R. A. (2008). Conscious and
nonconscious processes: Implications for self-determination theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, 218 –224.
Miquelon, P., & Vallerand, R. J. (2008). Goal motives, well-being, and
physical health: An integrative model. Canadian Psychology, 49, 241–
249.
Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and egodepletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1024 –1036.
Pelletier, L. G., & Shapr, E. (2008). Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing
can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology, 49, 210 –217.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008a). A self-determination theory approach
to psychotherapy: The motivational basis for effective change. Canadian
Psychology, 49, 186 –193.
SPECIAL ISSUE: SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY: A MACROTHEORY
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008b). From ego-depletion to vitality: Theory
and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 702–717.
Vallerand, R. J. (1983). The effects of differential amounts of positive
verbal feedback on the intrinsic motivation of male hockey players.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 100 –107.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L.
(2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive
185
contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246 –
260.
Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., & Grattan, K. P. (2008). Understanding
motivation for exercise: A self-determination theory perspective. Canadian Psychology, 49, 250 –256.
Received December 15, 2007
Revision received May 17, 2008
Accepted May 17, 2008 䡲
International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 184–198
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Educational Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Productive disciplinary engagement as a recursive process:
Initial engagement in a scientific investigation as a resource
for deeper engagement in the scientific discipline
Xenia Meyer *
Graduate School of Education, 4646 Tolman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94709, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 5 July 2013
Accepted 17 July 2013
Available online 19 August 2013
Engle and Conant (2002) show how productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) for
students can be attained through learning environments structured to support
problematizing subject matter, give students authority to address content problems,
hold students accountable to others and disciplinary norms, and provide students with
resources. This paper considers how one classroom’s involvement in a scientific
investigation embodied and extended the PDE framework. In this U.S. based classroom,
5th grade non-native and English language learning students engaged in scientific inquiry
and contributed their findings to a greater scientific community. This paper proposes that
these students experienced PDE at both initial and deeper levels, where students’ initial
PDE in scientific activities served as a resource for PDE at a more discipline-specific level.
ß 2013 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY license.
Keywords:
Multicultural
Inquiry
Science
1. Introduction
Engle and Conant (2002) describe how structuring learning environments to promote student problematizing of subject
matter, authority to address content problems, and accountability to others responsive to shared disciplinary norms,
together with making resources available to students, may foster productive disciplinary engagement (PDE).
As Engle (2011) further elaborates and explains, PDE entails students actively engaging in activities related to a discipline,
and being productive, or in other words, make progress – and while PDE refers to the in-the-moment attentiveness to
students’ disciplinary activities, the framework for PDE refers to the kind of learning environments that need to be
established by educators to foster PDE. The guiding principles of this framework include that educators promote student
problematization of subject matter, give students authority to address content problems, hold students accountable to
others and to shared classroom and disciplinary norms – and provide students with the necessary resources to continue
learning. Though a variety of different pedagogical approaches may foster PDE, this paper considers what PDE may look like
in the case of an inquiry-based investigation, where students participate in addressing an actual scientific research question
in collaboration with practicing scientists.
The movement toward inquiry-based instruction seeks to reform didactic and lecture-based approaches to science
instruction where teachers teach about science rather than engaging students in doing science through involvement in
scientific practices (National Research Council (NRC), 2000, 2012). In inquiry-based classrooms, students learn science
through the context of participating in scientific activities, where scientific content is embedded into scientific practices,
* Tel.: +1 4152605411.
E-mail address: [email protected].
0883-0355 ß 2013 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY license.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.002
X. Meyer / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 184–198
185
which are ideally made explicit to students. Though there has been dispute of what, exactly, counts as inquiry (e.g. Berland &
Reiser, 2009), the NRC (2000) describes one North American influential vision of what student involvement in classroombased scientific inquiry would entail. This description includes the restructuring of classroom learning environments to: (a)
engage students in scientifically oriented questions, (b) provide opportunities for students to give priority to evidence in
responding to questions, (c) encourage students to formulate explanations from evidence, (d) have students connect
explanations to scientific knowledge, and (e) encourage students to communicate and justify their findings in a scientific
manner (NRC, 2000, p. 29). More recently, the NRC (2012) specified that in addition to participating in inquiry, student
involvement in scientific practices entails practices such as students asking their own questions, planning and carrying out
investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, and engaging in argument from evidence. Though the implementation of
inquiry, or student involvement in scientific practices, remains on a continuum, with more or less emphasis of the various
aspects of scientific practice, Berland and Reiser (2009) delineate three essential goals to scientific inquiry: sensemaking,
articulating, and persuading. Consistent with the recommendations of the new framework for science learning (NRC, 2012),
these goals suggest that a learning environment structured for inquiry would provide students with opportunities to make
sense of data, share their findings, and convince others about what they find.
Though engaging classroom-based inquiry may provide learning opportunities for students that more closely models
scientific activities, in many cases classroom-based inquiry falls short of modeling the actual work of scientists because of
the lack of access to scientists and their guidance in learning about scientific norms (e.g. Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Schwartz,
Lederman, & Crawford, 2004). It is important to note that while classroom-based activities are authentic to the practices of
school science (Lave, 1992) and reflect an hybridized culture of pedagogical practices combined with scientific content and
practices (Hogan & Corey, 2001), they may not necessarily be representative of what scientists actually do. Involving
students in scientifically authentic investigations (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Lederman, 1992), in collaboration with practicing
scientists, may provide opportunities for school-based inquiry to extend beyond the classroom and connect to a scientific
community of practice (Wenger, 2007). In this way, classroom-based inquiry may become more authentic to the actual work
of scientists and students may be provided with opportunities to learn more about scientific practices and norms beyond the
classroom environment. In this unique learning environment, a hybrid space may be formed between the classroom and
context of the scientific activity and the fusion of disciplinary and school-based norms may occur. This sort of learning
environment may also provide a stepping-stone for promoting deeper levels of PDE in science, by first engaging students in
more surface-level aspects of the discipline.
In the case of involving students in inquiry, a teacher may guide them toward PDE in science. In a learning environment
where a teacher engages students in scientifically oriented questions, students may have the opportunity to problematize
content and form their own questions about what they are observing. Problematizing may entail not only students making
sense of content from their own perspectives, but also making sense of content using scientific terms (Ford, 2008). Students
involved in actual scientific investigations may also have access to resources, such as authentic scientific questions and the
scientists who ask them. As students are provided with opportunities to formulate explanations from evidence and
communicate their findings, they may begin to practice authoring their own ideas. Student authorship with respect to
inquiry-based practices also presupposes that students have access to resources, such as data to work with and an audience
who is interested in and responsive to their findings. As students give priority to evidence and learn to justify their findings –
as well as connect their learning to prior scientific knowledge, they may begin to demonstrate accountability to disciplinary
norms. That students are able to do so would involve students having access to data and to scientific knowledge and guidance
to learn scientific disciplinary norms, again in this case, a resource. Thus, through PDE in scientific practices, students are also
introduced to the scientific discipline.
While the idea of establishing collaborative relationships between science classrooms and practicing scientists is gaining
momentum (e.g. Cakmakci et al., 2011; Rennie & Howitt, 2009; van Eijck & Roth, 2009; van Eijck, Hsu, & Roth, 2009), more
research is needed to consider the impact of student engagement in actual scientific practices in school settings may be. This
paper claims the hybrid context formed by the infusion of scientific practices into a classroom setting, with the teacher both
structuring this learning environment and serving as a broker between classroom and scientific practices, provided students
with the opportunity to engage in PDE at both initial and deeper levels. This paper further proposes that student PDE in actual
scientific practices may itself serve to foster students gaining, or appropriating, disciplinary aspects of scientific
problematizing, authority and accountability, in effect creating a positive feedback loop between these principles and
fostering PDE at a deeper, in this case scientific, disciplinary level.
To theoretically illustrate the recursive process through which student initial PDE led to deeper PDE in this hybrid
classroom setting, this paper makes use of a case of student involvement in the Fossil Finders project, an investigation
conceptualized by geologists using fossils to research environmental changes during the Devonian period. This case study
provides a compelling example of the trajectory of PDE in a classroom of underrepresented, where students’ initial PDE in
classroom activities prepared them and became a resource for deeper levels of engagement in the actual practices of
geological research. This project was implemented with a 5th grade classroom in an underresourced urban school in the
eastern part of the United States, a setting in which innovative approaches to science instruction and PDE may be unlikely to
occur (Settlage & Meadows, 2002). The focus classroom served underrepresented and non-native language speakers, many of
whom were recent immigrants. The goal of engaging these particular students in scientific activities was to provide them
with opportunities to engage in and experience scientific practice. The intention of the curriculum was not to transform these
students into scientists, but rather, to illustrate what participating in science could be like. The collaboration between the
186
X. Meyer / International Journal of Educational Research 64 (2014) 184–198
classroom and scientists provided a setting to observe how students achieved PDE through involvement in inquiry, and
appropriated scientific authority and accountability as they problematized, gained expertise, and made contributions to an
actual scientific investigation.
2. Theory and background
To consider how the framework for PDE (Engle & Conant, 2002) may relate to participation in authentic inquiry, I center
my focus on the experience of the learner in the instructional setting structured by the teacher and draw on theories of
situated learning and identity (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Rogoff, 1995) with respect to communities of practice and
their disciplinary engagements (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). I further draw on Engle’s (2011) conceptions of
authority and accountability to address how each lead to and result from PDE, vis-à-vis participation in the authentic
activities of science.
At the core of Engle and Conant’s (2002) and Engle’s (2011) description of PDE, lies student engagement. According to the
authors, student engagement entails students discussing content with substantive contributions in coordination with one
another, remaining on-task and/or reengaging in the topic and remaining on-task for long periods of time, and indicating
enthusiasm for what they are learning through emotional displays. This engagement then becomes disciplinary when ‘‘there
is some contact between what students are doing and the issues and practices of a discipline’s discourse’’ (Engle & Conant,
2002, p. 402). In the case of traditional classroom-based activities, this discourse may remain limited to school-based
discourses. However, classroom participation in scientific investigations may extend the normal classroom context to
include aspects of scientific work and thereby scientific discourse (Lemke, 1990; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). This
particular kind of learning context may be formed as a result of the interaction between students and scientists when
working on a
