Feeling obliged to “Do Well” or “Not to Fail”? The distinction between approach and avoidance dimensions of oughts

The present studies examined the proposition that there are approach and avoidance dimensions in feelings of obligations, that are associated with a specific network of behaviors, affect, and cognitions in achievement situations. Across 4 studies, results indicated that being motivated by ought-approach was associated with significantly higher positive affect and persistence compared with being motivated by ought-avoidance. Also, arousal and affect could be explained by one's disposition for approach- or avoidance-based oughts. Being motivated by ought-approach was significantly more adaptive compared with avoidance and multiple-ought terms. It was concluded that obligations based on approach or avoidance tendencies represent diverse motivational systems with different cognitions and affective responses.     

Do normal children have “flat”; ability profiles?

Scatter on the five specific scales in the McCarthy was examined for the standardization sample to explore the types of ability profiles exhibited by normal children. Contrary to the common stereotype of “flat” profiles, normal children aged 21/2 to 81/2 years evidenced much variability in their performance on the various cognitive and motor dimensions.     

“Will it help the sheep?”: Why educate?

Educators with a passion for facilitating learning among undergraduate students believe that education for the common good is central to what they do. In this excerpt from her new book “Multiplication Is for White People”: Raising Expectations for Other People's Children, Lisa Delpit suggests that this is an essential view at every educational level.     

Teacher ratings of problem behaviors: Which student behaviors “concern” and “disturb” teachers?

Fifty elementary teachers rated the problem behaviors of students to indicate both how much the behaviors “disturbed” them and how much they were “concerned” about the behaviors. The results suggest that teachers are more concerned about behaviors than disturbed by them. However, teachers were both disturbed and concerned about aggressive interaction with and between students. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

“Won't you give up your snack for the sake of science?” Emerging science identities in family everyday interaction

This study provides a rich account of everyday science engagement in a science family (a family rich in science habitus) and sheds light on how science–person and science–antagonist identities emerge through science engagement in such a family. Using audio recordings and field notes obtained over a year of self‐ethnography, I systematically analyze science engagement in one family, showing how science was infused in all aspects of family life. However, the children in this family diverged in patterns of science participation: one child exhibited a science person identity, expressing more positive disciplinary emotions, initiating more frequently, asking more questions, sustaining longer investigations, and generally holding the floor three times more than the other child, who exhibited a science antagonist identity. To further understand the reason why the two children thus diverged in their patterns of science participation, despite many shared conditions, I zoom in on the moment‐by‐moment interactions in the family. Using microanalysis, I explore how positioning and roles may elucidate such local variation. The analysis illustrates how repeating events of identification within everyday family interactions are a powerful mechanism that can help explain such divergences. The findings underscore the importance of parents' awareness of the myriad of ways that recognition and roles are intertwined in everyday science engagement and identity formation. They suggest considering the potential of informal science‐learning environments to lead to alienation from science. Furthermore, the study implies that although we must investigate how socio‐historical categories function to deny individuals' (and groups') access to science, we should also go beyond these categories to understand how equal access to science is denied in less apparent ways.     

“Who are you callin' expert?”: Using student narratives to redefine expertise and advocacy lower track science

The purpose of this study was to construct an interpretation of lower track science students' notions of expertise in science teaching. Data were collected and transcribed from focus groups, teacher journals, classrooms events, and student artifacts. Students responded to focus group prompts over the course of a years regarding how and why they chose to learn science from their teachers based on affective attributes, advocacy/impedance, and identity. Results showed that lower track science students closely associate affective teacher attributes with effective teaching strategies. In addition, students identified advocacy or impedance in academic success based on personal experience rather than other more overt characteristics such as race or gender as a major determinant for their successful science learning. Implications for research and teacher education in diverse settings are discussed. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 13–36, 2011