Students’ Representational and Relational Caring in STEM
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of both professional science practice and children's science learning show that emotions, including care, are not simply ancillary to disciplinary work but a generative part of science practice.In science education research, however, students' care is often overlooked.In this paper, we describe the nature and expression of care across two classrooms studying biology and ecology and participating in a pen pal exchange.We analyze artifacts from the pen pal exchange, as well as students' retrospective interviews and written reflections.Two dimensions of care surfaced in students' letters: representational care and relational care.We discuss practical implications for learning environment design and methodological implications for recognizing and analyzing how students' caring manifests in the classroom. Objectives and significanceStudies of both professional science practice and children's science learning show that emotions, including care, are not simply ancillary to disciplinary work but a generative part of learning (e.g., Pierson et al., 2023b; Fox Keller 1985;Haraway, 2016;Jaber & Hammer, 2016).Yet, as critical scholars have noted, care has been invisibilized in science (Fletcher, 2001;Kimmerer, 2013).In science education research, students' care is often overlooked (exceptions are Krist &Surez, 2018 andMcGowan &Bell, 2022); instead, this literature primarily focuses on teachers' caring toward students (e.g., Velasquez et al., 2013) or pedagogies that promote care as part of socio-emotional learning (e.g., Garner et al., 2018).Moreover, students' expressions of care may not be recognized as such by researchers or educators; care is interpreted and enacted differently across communities, and individuals' perceptions and experiences of care are shaped by identities such as culture, race/ethnicity, gender, and religion (Antrop-Gonzlez & De Jess, 2006; Rogers & Weller, 2012).In light of these issues, we propose that it is important to foreground students' expressions of care in science classrooms in order to understand the relational, emotional, and ethical work needed to sustain generative investigations.In this paper, we describe the nature and expression of care across two classrooms studying biology and ecology and participating in a pen pal exchange.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it