Integrating Power to Advance the Study of Connective and Productive Disciplinary Engagement in Mathematics and Science

Abstract

Engle and Conant's productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) framework has significantly advanced the study of learning in mathematics and science. This artilce revisits PDE through the lens of critical education research. Our analysis synthesizes two themes of power: epistemic diversity, and historicity and identity. We argue that these themes, when integrated into PDE, strengthen it as a tool for design and analysis of disciplinary learning in relation to power and personhood, and describe the broadened framework of connective and productive disciplinary engagement (CPDE). By comparing and contrasting the use of PDE and CPDE in relation to two cases of classroom learning-for science, Warren et al.'s metamorphosis and for mathematics, Godfrey and O'Connor's measurement-we demonstrate how CPDE surfaces issues of history, power, and culture that may otherwise be overlooked by PDE alone. In particular, we analyze how CPDE makes visible unseen identities and generative resources of disciplinary knowing and doing among minoritized students. We discuss how the revised framework redresses epistemic injustice experienced by minoritized learners held to the narrow rubric of western epistemologies and compels close attention to the diversity of human activity in mathematics and science. Further, we elaborate how it provides a structure for teachers, teacher educators, and researchers to design and analyze learning environments as safeguarding the rightful presence of minoritized learners in STEM classrooms and beyond. Among its many contributions, the learning sciences has progressed our understanding of students' disciplinary engagement in and out of school. Within this body of research, Engle and Conant's (2002) productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) has made an indelible mark as a framework of design and analysis of disciplinary learning in relation to cultural and linguistic diversity (Engle, 2012). It emerged through the study of science learning in Fostering

Supporting Equity in Virtual Science Instruction Through Project-Based Learning: Opportunities and Challenges in the Era of COVID-19

“…In conceptualizing equity in virtual instruction, we associate equity with fairness in access and opportunity (Lee, 1999(Lee, , 2003Leventhal, 1980). Equitable science instruction involves providing all students with the opportunity to participate meaningfully in their communities of practice (Holland & Correal, 2013;Lave & Wenger, 1980) and enables students from communities who have been historically marginalized from science to see themselves, their families, and their cultures as part of science (Agarwal & Sengupta-Irving, 2019). Achieving these goals is particularly challenging given the barriers to engagement in the online context.…”

Do Abstractions Have Politics? Toward a More Critical Algorithm Analysis

“…By discussing both perspectives on algorithm analysis, we generate a productive discourse that highlights and values the various past, present, and future purposes for CS education [2]. Historically, CS education has sidelined justice-centered framings in favor of more cognitive framings that focused on developing students' knowledge, skills, and understanding of CS concepts and practices without emphasizing disciplinary identities [2,4,6].…”

“…Computing education has traditionally positioned computing as value-neutral and more interested in efficiency and business profit than "do[ing] something good" [2,4,5]. This curriculum reinforces dominant narratives around the apolitical identity of computer science (CS), marginalizing critical perspectives and reproducing systems of oppression that dehumanize minoritized students' identities [1,4,6,7].…”

Disrupting Gendered Epistemic Injustice in K-12 mathematics – A Research Synthesis

“…Mathematical inqu[ee]ry requires pedagogical practices that would mobilize students to pose new problems about the world and to problematize the tasks, the mathematical practices and materials, and the very ways of thinking and doing mathematics to interrogate "the 'regimes of the normal' (Warner 1993)" and to push beyond binaries in the elementary mathematics classroom (pp. 186-187; also see Agarwal & Sengupta-Irving, 2019;Gutstein, 2012).…”