Listen and learn: Research paper Research papers are a pairing of two 18 minute presentations followed by 18 minutes of Discussion led by a Discussant, with remaining time for Q & A.
This is presentation 2 of 2, scroll down to see more details.
Other presentations in this group:
Transformative Experience Theory
Dewey envisioned experiences of relevance as a foundational purpose of education (e.g., Dewey, 1990/1902, 1938) and developed a theory of experience to compliment this vision (e.g., 1933, 1980/34, 1938). Drawing on this work, Pugh and colleagues (e.g., Pugh, 2011; Wong et al., 2001) conceptualized transformative experience as an educational goal and defined it in terms of three characteristics: (a) motivated use (applying curricular content in contexts where such application is not required), (b) expansion of perception (re-seeing the world by viewing it through the lens of curricular content), and (c) experiential value (valuing curricular content for the way it expands perception and developing greater appreciation for aspects of the world that are re-seen).
Researchers identified effective strategies for fostering transformative experiences resulting in the Teaching for Transformative Experience in Science (TTES) model (e.g., Girod et al., 2003; Heddy & Sinatra, 2013; Pugh, 2002; Pugh et al., 2017; for summaries, see Pugh, 2020; Pugh & Girod, 2007). The overarching strategies and design principles of TTES include artistic crafting of content, putting students in the role of explorers, creating a culture in which students feel safe to “surrender” to learning experiences, modeling transformative engagement, and scaffolding student experience and re-seeing of content (Pugh, 2020).
The Seeing Science Project
Mobile technologies (e.g., cellphones) and online collaboration platforms bridge students’ in-school and out-of-school experiences (Zheng et al., 2017) helping students make connections between school content and their everyday lives (Brill & Park, 2008; Pimmer, 2016). Consequently, these technologies may complement and expand the TTES model. We (Authors, 2022, 2023) explored the potential of this pairing in collaboration with a high school science teacher using the model of design-based research (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). Over a three-year period, we developed and refined the Seeing Science project, an intervention in which students took pictures with their mobile device when they noticed a connection to class content. They then posted their pictures and connections to a shared private platform. The teacher used these experiences as discussion anchors for connecting science content to students’ real-world experiences. Results from this research were promising. However, further research is needed to investigate whether the project can be adopted and applied by teachers in other contexts and whether such adoptions will successfully foster transformative experiences and related outcomes.
The current study created a professional learning community of three high school teachers and the original teacher collaborator. Teacher participants we asked to create their own versions of the Seeing Science project and implement them in their classrooms. The purpose of the current paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of these projects by using qualitative and quantitative data to describe student engagement, with a focus on the degree to which they did or did not undergo transformative experiences.
Participants
Three teachers were recruited to participate in the research. The three teachers had a combined 20 years of experience, with two participants (Mark and James) teaching High School AP Psychology and one participant (Kara) teaching 7th Grade Science and STEAM. These teachers’ students were also recruited. A total of 113 students participated.
Professional Learning Communities and Project Implementation
Over summer 2022, the participating teachers and the original teacher-participant met in a series of four virtual professional learning community (PLC) meetings led by the research team. During these PLCs, the teachers learned about the Seeing Science project and developed their own version of the project. Throughout the development process, teachers exchanged ideas and provided feedback to each other.
During the fall of 2022, the teachers implemented their Seeing Science projects. In addition, they participated in three virtual PLCs in which they discussed how the projects were going, exchanged ideas for improvement, and otherwise supported each other.
Data Collection
Transformative Experience Questionnaire
The transformative experience questionnaire (Koskey et al., 2018) was used to measure reported levels of transformative experience at the start of the fall semester (pre) and at the conclusion of the Seeing Science project (post) in the two psychology teachers’ classes. We did not use the measure for Kara’s students because they were solely working on senior capstone projects and the measure was not appropriate for this context. The measure contained 15 items targeting the three characteristics of transformative experience to which students responded on a 4-point Likert scale. Rasch (1980) analysis was used to develop a composite score. Both the pre and post measure had strong person reliability (.89 for both) and good item fit (MNSQ<1.4 for all items but one).
Student Interviews
A total of 26 students from James’ class, 18 students from Mark’s class, and 9 students from Kara’s class were randomly selected to participate in focus group interviews consisting of three students each. Interview questions prompted students to reflect on their participation in the project, application of class content in everyday contexts (motivated use), re-seeing situations through the lens of the content (expansion of perception), and interest in the class content (experiential value). Semi-structured interviews (Creswell & Poth, 2016) were conducted to allow flexibility and further inquiry of students’ responses.
Analysis
Quantitative data from the TE pre- and post-test scores were analyzed with a paired sample t-test. Qualitative data from the interviews were coded into themes representing the three categories of transformative experiences (motivated use, expansion of perception, and experiential value). We then coded the data from each category into subcategories, representing the quality of the example, ranging from a negative to an enthusiastic positive example of the category. All data were coded independently by two individuals and differences were resolved through discussion until agreement was reached.
Quantitative Results
Data for Mark’s and James’ students were pooled and a paired sample T-test found a statistically significant increase in transformative experience Rasch scores from pre to post (t₉₂ = 5.218, p<0.001) with a medium effect size (d=.532). On average, transformative experience post scores were 0.93 points higher than pre scores (95% CI [.57, 1.3]) and the change from pre to post was nearly identical for the students of each teacher.
Qualitative Results
The qualitative results showed students across all classrooms reported examples of each of the characteristics of transformative experiences. Of the 53 students' interviews, 52 shared examples of expansion of perception, 49 shared examples of motivated use, and 47 shared examples of experiential value.
For each characteristic, we coded the examples into subcodes representing the quality and whether each example was negative or positive. For example, in the case of motivated use, we coded the responses into (1) Negative example (ex. “… it's not something that I would continuously think about all the time”), (2) Ambiguous example (ex. “not really…there are a couple of terms that like, I would remember and if there's situations that would stick out to me, but besides that, not really,”), (3) Positive example (ex. “I was seeing new terms that we learned about play out in my actual life. And I thought that was pretty cool. And definitely, most of it came from outside of class.”), (4A) Positive example referencing specific incident (ex. “I talked about SSRIs for a bit, because like, I have a personal connection with those and how like, they affect, like, mental illness and stuff. And it was really cool. Because I [was] like, Oh, this is why meds work this way…and being able to share that.”), and (4B) Enthusiastic positive example (ex. “To notice how my mind works in the outside of class, like, relate it back. And so I feel like I've definitely like found myself more because I can understand what's going on inside the mind.”).
To summarize our findings, among those students who made motivated use s tatements, 79.6% provided positive statements, with 67.9% providing specific examples and/or enthusiastic responses. Only 2.0% provided statements indicating they did not engage in motivated use and 20.4% provided ambiguous statements. For students who made expansion of perception statements, 84.6% made a positive statement indicating they engaged in expansion of perception. Further, 71.7% provided a specific example of re-seeing in their everyday lives and/or gave an enthusiastic response about expansion of perception. Only 1.9% of students provided a statement indicating they did not engage in expansion of perception and 28.8% provided an ambiguous statement. Finally, for students who made experiential value statements, 83.0% supplied positive statements indicating experiential value and 32.1% supplied a specific example and/or an enthusiastic response about valuing the experiences content provided outside of school. No students stated they did not engage in experiential value, while 6.4% made ambiguous statements. It is important to note these categories were not mutually exclusive. Indeed, some students made a negative or ambiguous statement about a category like motivated use and later provided a specific example of motivated use.
Discussion
The quantitative results illustrate an increase in students’ transformative experiences during project implementation (for Mark’s and James’ students; recall the measure was not appropriate for Kara’s students). Given prior research finding a decline over time in transformative experience (Pugh et al., 2017) and related constructs such as interest and task value (e.g., Frenzel et al., 2010; Zusho et al., 2003) in non-intervention conditions, the current results suggest the projects were effective. This conclusion is supported by the qualitative data.
In the qualitative data, nearly all students made statements coded as characteristics of transformative experience, and the majority of responses were coded as positive examples. Moreso, many students provided specific examples of transformative experiences or times they felt enriched by content from class connecting to their out-of-school lives (ex. “Yes, I definitely think about why people do certain things…I noticed that in especially shows and movies. And I just never like picked up on it before. But now I know what it is. And so I am.”). This data supports the quantitative data, as students not only demonstrated an increase in transformative experiences via survey responses, but also a strong majority of them described engagement in the characteristics of transformative experience in interviews. For context, prior research has found that, in the absence of targeted interventions, only about 10% of students report undergoing transformative experiences with another quarter of the students reporting engaging some of the characteristics (Pugh, 2020).
The results suggest technology interventions like the Seeing Science project can impact students’ level of transformative experience and the relevance they find in school material. This is especially noteworthy, as the utilization of our professional learning community of teachers meant each teacher modified and implemented the Seeing Science project differently. Despite these differences, quantitative data illustrated students’ levels of transformative experience increased across the intervention and a strong majority of students reported examples of transformative experiences in focus group interviews.
This study is particularly valuable to ISTE attendees because it provides promising outcomes for increased relevance in learning. The Seeing Science project is an intervention that can be easily adapted to a range of content areas to help students experience learning in more impactful ways. Attendees will leave this session with a greater understanding of the theoretical framework supporting transformative experience and practical examples of how to implement Seeing Science in their teaching.
Albrecht, J. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2018). Relevance for Learning and Motivation in Education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380593
Authors. (2022).
Authors. (2023).
Brill, J. M., & Mark, Y. (2008). Facilitating engaged learning in the interaction age taking a pedagogically-disciplined approach to innovation with emergent technologies. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 70-78.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D. C. Heath and Co.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. Perigee Books (original work published 1934).
Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press (original work published 1902).
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. M. (2010). Development of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 507-537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x
Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87(4), 574-587. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1054
Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science Education, 97(5), 723-744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21072
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410-1412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067
Kaplan, A., Sinai, M., & Flum, H. (2014). Design-based interventions for promoting students’ identity exploration within the school curriculum. In S. Karabenick & T. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 18: Motivational Interventions (Vol. 0, pp. 243-291). Emerald Group. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320140000018007
Koskey, K., Stewart, V., Sondergeld, T., & Pugh, K. J. (2018). Applying the mixed methods instrument development and construct validity process: The case of the transformative experience questionnaire. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633310
Pimmer, C. (2016). Mobile learning as boundary crossing: An alternative route to technology enhanced learning? Interactive Learning Environment, 24(5), 979-990. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1128211
Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Making Learning Personally Meaningful: A New Framework for Relevance Research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 11-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589
Pugh, K. J. (2002). Teaching for transformative experiences in science: An investigation of the effectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1101-1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00198
Pugh, K. J. (2011). Transformative experience: An integrative construct in the spirit of Deweyan pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558817
Pugh, K. J. (2020). Transformative science education: Change how your students experience the world. Teachers College Press.
Pugh, K. J., Bergstrom, C. M., Heddy, B. C., & Krob, K. E. (2017). Supporting deep engagement: The Teaching for Transformative Experience in Science (TTES) Model. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(4), 629-657. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1277333
Pugh, K. J., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9029-0
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Expanded Ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2019). Interest and its development, revised. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation, 2nd ed (pp. 205-226). Oxford University Press.
Collective, T. D.-B. R. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G.-J., Haerens, L., Patall, E., & Reeve, J. (2018). Fostering personal meaning and self-relevance: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 30-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Wong, D., Pugh, K. J., & University, T. D. I. G. A. M. S. (2001). Learning science: A Deweyan perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 317-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<317::AID-TEA1008>3.0.CO;2-9
Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2017). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052-1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1081-1094. https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/0950069032000052207
Return
Trips and Tours