“Do I feel threatened? No… I’m learning!”—Affective and relational dynamics in science professional development

Abstract

This paper focuses on interactions in a science professional development (PD) course in which participating teachers engaged in doing science. Whereas the PD design of this course aligned with research on effective PD practices, we found that these practices did not sufficiently account for the affective and relational dynamics that unfolded in the PD interactions. In this paper we explore how critical discourse analysis (CDA) can be used both to theorize and analyze the affective and relational work happening in PD, through the critical lenses of power and positioning. Our analysis surfaces tensions between participants and facilitators, as well as among participants, which often related to their notions of disciplinary expertise. More important, our analysis shows that attunement to affective and relational dynamics, including explicit attention to communication norms, is essential for engendering productive learning opportunities within PD spaces. We discuss the implications of this study for teacher educators and PD facilitators, and we end with directions for future research on affective and relational dynamics in teacher learning. | BACKGROUNDDuring a hot August, a dozen elementary and middle school science teachers have gathered in a high school classroom to engage in a science professional development (PD) program. They spend 2 days together with three university instructors, exploring the question of what keeps a blimp in the air. This group of teachers is at the beginning of a hybrid (in person and online) series of graduate-level PD courses.For the following 3 weeks until their next in-person meeting, the teachers continue to pursue their thinking about the blimp phenomenon through a number of online forums, where they exchange ideas with each other and receive Science Education. 2019;103:338-361. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sce Hawley & Valli, 2007).However, we find that addressing these components in our PD activity design does not sufficiently account for the affective aspects of teacher learning or the complex relational dynamics that unfold between teachers and PD facilitators. In our work, we consider affective aspects to comprise a host of constructs including feelings, emotions, drives, and motivations; in particular, we find ourselves attuning to emotionally charged moments that raise expressions of teachers' anxiety, discomfort, uncertainty, insecurity, or frustration. We view relational dynamics to mean the ongoing and reflexive ways in which all participants (teachers and PD facilitators) interact with, orient to FINKELSTEIN ET AL. | 339and position each other in terms of their contributions within the PD interactions. We argue that attention to affective and relational dynamics may be essential to leveraging teachers' engagement and productive participation in learning opportunities.In this paper, we explore how critical discourse analysis (CDA) can be used both to theorize and analyze the affective and relational work happening in PD. As theory, CDA allows us to examine PD dynamics thr...

Teacher learning in communities of practice: The affordances of co‐planning for novice and veteran teachers' learning

“…Teachers' engagement in collaborative learning is mediated by their social location and power relations within the learning community (Liu, 2013; Sutton & Shouse, 2018). Finkelstein et al (2019) illustrate how “one participant being a district science specialist or another being a novice teacher could privilege or devalue their contributions among the group” (p. 356). Indeed, in the presence of more experienced colleagues, novices may refrain from sharing, inquiring, and negatively reflecting on their work (Charteris & Smardon, 2015).…”

“…Collaborative inquiry allows teachers to explore and negotiate a diversity of perspectives, ideas, and solutions (Featherstone & Pfeiffer, 1996; Finkelstein et al, 2019; Grossman et al, 2001; Lord, 1994; Nelson, Slavit, & Deuel, 2012). Explicit reflective discourse can make teachers' thinking accessible to peers (Cochran‐Smith & Lytle, 1999; Little, 1990) and turn tacit professional knowledge into explicit shared knowledge (Clark & Yinger, 1979).…”

“…Teachers' discussions are often rich in information exchange and the sharing of “tips and tricks” (Horn et al, 2017, p. 7) and success stories (Segal, 2019), without much explicit reasoning and problematization of pedagogical and disciplinary issues (Little, 1990; Louie, 2016; Nelson et al, 2012). Teachers often feel exposed and threatened by joint reflection and inquiry into their practice (Finkelstein et al, 2019; Koellner et al, 2007; Vedder‐Weiss et al, 2019), which might result in teachers' avoidance of critique and disagreements (Grossman et al, 2001; Hargreaves, 1991).…”

“…Thus, applying the CoP's situated learning framework for science teacher learning, veteran teachers are expected to teach novice teachers, who are positioned as learners, gradually socialized into the science teaching profession (Chen & Mensah, 2018). For elementary science teachers, who are often generalists with little formal science training and expertise (Berg & Mensah, 2014; Finkelstein, Jaber, & Dini, 2019), learning from more experienced peers in a CoP is crucial to their enculturation into the science teaching community and the development of their science content knowledge and skills (Chen & Mensah, 2018). However, the positioning of veteran teachers as responsible for the novice learning may limit both novice and veteran learning because the latter tend to dominate the floor (Liu, 2013), resulting in “quick foreclosure of the brainstorming discussion” (Goh & Fang, 2017, p. 141).…”

“…While face‐work is important for positive relational dynamics (Brown & Levinson, 1987), it may undermine learning (Netz, 2020). Face‐work is often aggravated when veteran and novice teachers interact, particularly when veteran teachers' practice is being scrutinized (Finkelstein et al, 2019; Vedder‐Weiss et al, 2019). How then might veteran and novice teachers collaboratively learn in a CoP?…”