Whose meanings belong?: Marginality and the role of microexclusions in middle school inquiry science

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

Full length article

Whose meanings belong?: Marginality and the role of microexclusions in middle school inquiry science

T

Karlyn R. Adams-Wiggins Department of Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Science education Identity-in-practice Belonging Competence Collaborative learning Status hierarchies

Recent research emphasizing disciplinary identities in the classroom indicates the importance of social interaction and inclusion in the classroom, yet only limited work focuses on how peerinitiated exclusion impacts learners. This study addresses that gap by examining the role of microexclusions, or affronts to sense of belonging and competence, in collaborative groups in 7th grade inquiry science classrooms. The qualitative analyses here involved videorecorded observations for 5 small groups of students participating in a semester-long series of inquiry life science units. A total of 19 observations were analyzed across the 5 groups. Five themes were identified across the groups: individualization or splitting of the group, adversarial interactions within the group, uneven access to regulatory roles within the group, lagging group members, and using diffuse status characteristics to redirect group activity. Results indicate that microexclusions redirect learners' behavior toward managing participation dynamics inside the group at the cost of inclusion and group functioning. Implications for equity and science education reform are provided considering findings.

1. Introduction With the growing emphasis on learning disciplinary practices in science education, there is an increasing need to understand what happens to learners doing science in collaborative learning contexts. Engagement in scientific practices is expected to promote learners' development of scientific identities and to deepen their conceptual knowledge (NRC, 2007). However, collaborative learning contexts are known to often involve adverse social dynamics, such as inequitable participation and reliance on existing social hierarchies (Cohen & Lotan, 1997). Importantly, learners can be excluded from engagement in scientific practices and thereby be positioned as “not a scientist” or incapable of scientific thought, reproducing the inequities science education reforms seek to dissolve. Exclusion from opportunities to be a legitimate meaning maker may lead to long-term disengagement, marginality, and group dysfunction. Greater attention needs to be being given to how status-laden identities in science are constructed, defined, and reified through social interaction. Yet there is only limited work addressing how learners' peer interactions inside collaborative groups inform inclusion and exclusion in reform-oriented science learning environments, as much of the existing research emphasizes the role of teachers and traditional curricula as sources of exclusion instead. In an example of work attending to how these positions are negotiated at the peer level in science, Engle, Langer-Osuna, and McKinney de Royston (2014) offered a framework for understanding authority in collaborative learning contexts; they highlighted how group members negotiate influence in group activity. More research is needed to understand how peer interactions affect learners' participation in scientific practice. For researchers and practitioners concerned with educational equity, practice-oriented frameworks for understanding learning

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100353 Received 7 February 2019; Received in revised form 30 August 2019; Accepted 12 October 2019 2210-6561/ Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

bring with them questions about opportunity, access, and whose meaning-making processes are valued in disciplinary practice (for examples, see Esmonde, Takeuchi, & Radakovic, 2011; Nasir, Snyder, Shah, & Ross, 2012). The present study aimed to take a similar approach to equity-oriented studies, but with an increased emphasis on the social side of being a collaborator in a science learning context. The present study examines the role of microexclusions in peer interactions within a collaboration-intensive and argumentation-driven inquiry science context. Microexclusions are moment-to-moment affronts to learners' belonging and competence in groups organized around the activity of disciplinary practice. The social relationship focus in these analyses offers insight into the mechanisms underlying learners' disengagement on the moment-to-moment level and provide some clarity about how broader social hierarchies manifest themselves at the local level (i.e. the classroom in a work group). Further, the present study engages the larger question of whose meaning making and participation is considered legitimate once inquiry science curricula have been introduced. The problem is addressed using qualitative analysis of video recorded observations to describe the acts that send learners to either membership in or to the margins of collaborative group activity; the ways that microexclusions impact group functioning beyond the individual receiving the microexclusion are also discussed. To conduct this examination, I use a sociocultural perspective inspired by Wenger's (1998) marginal non-participation concept. By understanding peer interactions in reform-oriented science contexts, we gain insights into how teachers can best facilitate learning in small groups. A great deal of evidence has accumulated that demonstrates the role of social interactions in creating equitable or inequitable opportunities to learn and identify with disciplines generally (Bianchini, 1997; Boaler, 2008; Carlone, Scott, & Lowder, 2014; Leander, 2002a, 2002b). Discourse and social interactions serve as spaces in which sources of motivation, such as the need for a sense of competence and the need for a sense of belonging, can be shaped; in social interactions, affiliation with the discipline can either be deepened or eroded by positioning learners as competent or incompetent, with implications for learners' understandings of who belongs in the discipline (Gresalfi, Martin, Hand, & Greeno, 2009). While teachers and the curriculum itself are key players, group members' interactions with one another can be understood as an ongoing storyline of sorts in which individual learners are positioned as different kinds of contributors by virtue of their past and present interactions; interactions over the course of time constitute a social history for the group (Esmonde et al., 2011). Reform-oriented classrooms emphasizing disciplinary practice are indeed built around “learners-acting-as-scientists”, not simply “doing science” in a straightforwardly logical or value-free vacuum; the role of peer social life is unavoidable, as are the broader social structures that inform peer interactions in school. Thus, it is crucial to explore how groups' social histories inform ability to identify with the discipline. When power is redistributed from teachers to students in reform-oriented classrooms, peers can support or obstruct participation in scientific practices and thus mediate one's ability to identify with the discipline. In reform-oriented science contexts, collaboration and argumentation are key features. Yet, after accounting for the benefits of argumentation and collaboration, these same features still intersect with the problem of equity in a potentially adverse fashion. While access to opportunities to participate and become a legitimate meaning maker in these contexts is informed by the scientific practice of using evidence to justify one's reasoning, there are more explicitly subjective criteria, such as authority that are now known to inform how learners navigate argument. Engle et al.'s (2014) work has provided some insights into how learners make these judgments inside of a group: group member perceptions influence argumentation through the negotiation of authority, access to the speaking floor, and physical location in the workspace. Other work supports this view by demonstrating how competence can be conceptualized as socially constructed, with its definition and implications being created in social interaction (Gresalfi et al., 2009; Nolen, 2007). Moreover, individual learners' agendas are also informed by group members' motivational histories that are embodied in actions during groupwork, so issues of competence and belonging can lead to learners withdrawing participation or pushing their group toward dysfunction and exclusion (Barron, 2000, 2003; Nolen, 2007; Rogat & Adams-Wiggins, 2015). Learners in collaboration become legitimate meaning makers in reform-oriented contexts by appropriating the practices of real-world scientists at the guidance of teachers and peers, but seemingly unrelated additional criteria are still used to regulate whose meaning making is considered legitimate in small-group learning. Compounding the issue, in newer inquiry science learning contexts learners can struggle with understanding the goals of argumentation and regulating group-level activity (Berland, 2011; Berland & Lee, 2012; Berland & Reiser, 2011; Chinn & Clark, 2013; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). 2. Present study: microexclusions & legitimate meaning-making in inquiry science When group interactions become moment-to-moment challenges to group members' sense of competence and belonging, we can speak of microexclusions. Microexclusions gradually push a group member toward the margins of group activity by communicating implicitly or explicitly that a group member does not belong 1) as a valued actor in a social group of peers and/or 2) as a learner capable of doing science and thinking scientifically. In the case of inquiry science education contexts, being seen as a valued actor and being seen as a competent doer of science are intertwined, so microexclusions are likely to be comprised of affronts to both belonging and competence simultaneously. The consequences of microexclusions are expected to be cumulative and vary by severity of each microexclusionary act (i.e. as a product of both how it was objectively enacted as well as how it was interpreted by the recipient). Microexclusions are conceptualized as interfering with learners' identification with science as a discipline by detracting from group's relational climate. The marginality produced through microexclusions relates to Wenger's (1998) concepts of identity in practice and marginal non-participation. In Wenger's model, being excluded from participation means being excluded from the practices of a given community and the corresponding opportunities to construct an identity as a member of the community. In a reform-oriented science education context, learners can be understood as participating in a community organized around appropriating the practices of scientists, although learners themselves are not necessarily joining a community of scientists in the broader world. Further, in this theoretical framework, learning itself has four facets: learning as belonging (community), learning as doing (practice), learning as 2

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

experience (meaning), and learning as identity (becoming). In Wenger's model, learners initially are on the outskirts of a community's activities, but this only becomes problematic if they increasingly move away from the community rather than increasingly become central to the community's activities. In inquiry science classrooms, marginal non-participation is movement away from further deepened participation in disciplinary practices, unlike legitimate peripheral participation in which one gradually gains access to deepened participation in disciplinary practice with the support of those who are more experienced. In marginal non-participation, non-participation itself becomes the defining feature of the group member's involvement, harming prospects for identification with science. In the case of microexclusions, learners are pushed away from the four facets of learning: they lose (1) opportunities to belong in a community of learners appropriating scientific practices, (2) opportunities to make meaning in scientific practice, (3) opportunities to engage in scientific practices in the classroom, and (4) opportunities to become more like a scientist and identify with the discipline. Being pushed away from these opportunities places learners at risk of marginal non-participation and on an outbound trajectory away from science. Accordingly, this study describes how microexclusions inform group activity in inquiry science collaborative learning contexts. Microexclusions are posited to be manifestations of socially negotiated motivational processes inside collaborative groups and, more important, are posited to be a mechanism by which learners end up on the margins of collaborative group activity in reform-oriented science classrooms. This approach foregrounds social interactions with peers that contribute to how learners come to see themselves as competent and valued contributors engaged in scientific practices and legitimate meaning making about scientific topics. This foregrounding of relationships with peers is an attempt to emphasize competence and belonging as catalysts for identification with the discipline in line with Cohen's (1994) argument that popularity and academic status are key for problems of inequitable peer interactions in the classroom. The perspective forwarded here is also like Van Horne and Bell's (2017) work highlighting the ways that competence and belonging (discussed as social recognition) matter for identification with a discipline. Further, the present study deliberately included periods of non-participation during collaborative tasks; these nominally off-task periods are understood as one form of negotiated, goal-oriented behavior displayed by learners (Hickey, 2003). The following research question was addressed: how do groups function when microexclusions have taken place in an inquiry-based science context? 3. Method 3.1. Participants & context Participants were selected from the classrooms of four seventh-grade science teachers in an ethnically diverse, suburban middle school in the mid-Atlantic United States; these classrooms were participating in a series of inquiry science units over the course of a semester. This study included participants from videotaped groups from class periods in the larger sample (N = 441). The inquiry science units were designed to encourage scientific reasoning and engage students in scientific practices such as evaluating evidence quality and using evidence to evaluate model fit (Chinn, Duschl, Duncan, Buckland, & Pluta, 2008; Chinn & Buckland, 2011; Duncan, Freidenreich, Chinn, & Bausch, 2011; Promoting Reasoning and Conceptual Change in Science, PRACCIS). The curriculum also sought to develop norms for relying on evidence and providing justification for claims (Pluta, Chinn, & Duncan, 2011). This opportunity for students to develop criteria for model evaluation permits greater authority and ownership for learners. Learners established shared criteria that served as the basis for evaluating model and evidence quality. Learners engaged in collaboration in groups of three or four as well as pairwork with a partner in their groups. The curriculum in this study provides a rich context for understanding learners' agency in the classroom: the curriculum incorporated disciplinary practices of science, inquiry, and collaboration. These three features promote a shift of authority to learners by facilitating cognitive autonomy. The curriculum also affords engagement in peer interactions and opportunities to engage in discipline-relevant discourse (Blumenfeld, Kempler, & Krajcik, 2006; Rogat, Witham, & Chinn, 2014). Nonetheless, previous findings suggest learners may engage in practices that lead to reduced participation by groupmates (Adams-Wiggins & Rogat, 2013; Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004; Rogat & Adams-Wiggins, 2015). 3.2. Selection of groups & observations Participants in this study were a subsample of students participating in the larger curriculum project. Groups were selected by only including groups videotaped during collaboration and from which at least two group members were interviewed at the end of the semester, as interview transcripts were used to assess alignment of the microexclusions coding scheme with learners' own reported perceptions. Nearly all groups with two or more members interviewed were also videotaped groups, as teachers were asked to provide two students from each of their videotaped groups to be interviewed at the end of the semester and only two interviewees . In limited cases, students did not consent to interviews and teachers sought additional students from videotaped groups to replace them. Further, only groups with relatively stable composition across units were included: groups in which more than one student was removed from the group were excluded. As two teachers reconfigured their videotaped groups every unit, their class periods' groups were ultimately excluded from the study. The final sample of stable groups for whom two members had been interviewed and groupwork had been videorecorded included five groups out of the original sixteen groups (Table 2). After selecting groups, groups' observations were selected from all videotaped groupwork periods. The aim of selection was to include four observations and achieve balanced observation time across groups. Criteria used to narrow the pool of observations for the sample included the following: all group members were on-camera for the observation and audio quality was viable for transcription and coding purposes. Considering the goals of selection, this led to some groups (i.e. Group C and Group F) having fewer or greater than four observations included in the sample to ensure similar lengths of observation time. A total of 19 observations were 3

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Table 1 Microexclusions. Indicator

Description

Example

Deference

Expected or enforced deference to others in a turn order

Public Evidence of Low Academic Performance

Getting answers incorrect in presence of groupmates; being recognized by peers as off-task; having one’s poor performance in classes discussed by peers; all cases involve peers witnessing the evidence of low performance A group member’s idea is unincorporated/unused/ignored; a group member is ignored during group talk

Patrick is interrupted by Shane; Patrick allows Shane to continue speaking The group regularly waits to allow Donna to give her answers first when sharing answers Carson has the teacher read the worksheet to him Greg asks a question that demonstrates his lack of comprehension of the content being covered

Failure to Address Group Member(s)

Pushed out of Group Talk Target of Ridicule

Being pushed into exclusion during group talk (both on- and offtask) Being targeted with putdowns by peers

Unequal Access to Tools

Inability to access task tools

Unequal Evaluation of Peer Work

One-sided expectation of peer evaluation

Adam makes a suggestion to the group; the group completely disregards the fact that he made a contribution Carla asks David for his input; Carla omits his contributions as the group completes the worksheet together. Paul talks around Ty as Ty attempts to join off-task talk about Pokémon Greg gets mocked for misunderstanding “distantly related” on a worksheet Paul and Ty discuss Shonyce having bushy eyebrows in front of her Jacob can’t see the laptop without crouching on the floor since Arjuna has full control of it Shonyce’s worksheets are passed among Ty, Paul, and Jivan subjection to evaluation is not mutual

included across all groups. Finally, off-task activity was included when analyzing the selected observations. 3.3. Coding microexclusions All qualitative coding was done coding directly to video using Dedoose mixed methods research software and all observations in the sample were coded for microexclusions. Microexclusions were identified using a set of indicator codes to capture affronts to competence and belonging that were expected to disrupt group members' access to deepening participation. These codes were developed during a pilot study with a single group from the current sample (Group F). Interview transcripts for the four interviewed members of Group F were open coded for talk about conceptually relevant topics, such as inclusion, exclusion, and status differences inside the group. These codes were then further refined using the remaining 22 interviews for the entire sample, including students from groups whose videorecorded observations did not meet the final bar for inclusion in analysis of observations. The researcher selected Group F for initial code development for three reasons (in rank order of importance to the decision): availability of interviews for four group members, observed whole-class level interactions from the researcher's fieldwork suggesting a salience of relative competence in the classroom (i.e. high likelihood of observing the phenomenon of interest), and additional knowledge from fieldwork suggesting a salience of relative competence in Group F more specifically. The researcher also observed Ty of Group F during field work being selected by the teacher to instruct the entire class from the chalkboard about a concept the class was struggling to understand, suggesting Ty had high academic status and would likely be central in group activity. Finally, the full sample of selected video recorded observations for the present study were coded. This last stage led to a total of seven examples of microexclusions, incorporating both the students' own stated perceptions and the researcher's inferences from observations: (1) deference to peers, (2) unaddressed ideas, (3) public evidence of low relative ability or performance, (4) pushed out of group talk, (5) target of ridicule, (6) unequal access to task tools, and (7) unequal evaluation of peer work (See Table 1 for descriptions). The coded observations were then used in a thematic analysis. 3.4. Thematic analysis Thematic analysis was oriented toward describing patterns in groups' functioning in the wake of microexclusions, synthesizing across groups to describe whole-sample patterns. This required the researcher to first construct group interaction summaries, primarily comprised of tables summarizing each microexclusion coded, its corresponding transcript excerpt, and the consequence/ group's response to the coded event. Tables were organized first by group member targeted and then by observation. Next, the researcher constructed an analytic memo cataloging microexclusion consequences by microexclusion type along with interpretive notes. This information was organized first by group to facilitate inferences at the group level and simplify the process, as over 100 examples existed across codes.

4

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Table 2 Student descriptive profiles by group. Group

Interviewee Agreement on Equitable Interactions

Name

Additional Information

A A A B B B B C C C C D D D D F F F F

Yes, unequal

Arjuna⁎ Hailey Jacob⁎ Ian Alana⁎ Sam⁎ Jacki Luke⁎ Carson Leesha⁎ Greg Erica Shane⁎ Necha⁎ Patrick Paul⁎ Jivan⁎ Shonyce⁎ Ty⁎

Asian-American, Boy, Described by Hailey and Jacob as high achieving White, Girl White, Boy White, Boy White, Girl White, Boy White, Girl Asian-American, Boy Not reported, Boy Latina, Girl White, Boy White, Girl White, Boy Latina, Girl Asian-American, Boy Asian-American, Boy Asian-American, Boy Black/African-American, Girl Asian-American, Boy, Described by multiple classmates and groupmates as high achieving Asian-American, Girl, Present for 1 observation only

No

Yes, unequal

No

No

F

Rania

Note: All student names are pseudonyms. Student pseudonyms with at least one asterisk are those who were interviewed within a given group. Students’ ethnicities were self-reported via a checklist and students were able to select as few or as many ethnicities as they liked.

4. Results The present study aimed to describe group activity when microexclusions have taken place in an inquiry-based science context. Microexclusions here are conceptualized as ephemeral and only having the possibility of long-term, ongoing marginal non-participation or more severe forms of social exclusion typically described as marginalization. Group interactions immediately after a microexclusion took place were the focus of analysis and description. The themes identified by the researcher thus constitute an interpretive summary of sample-level patterns in group interactions that took place immediately following a microexclusion. In this section, I provide exemplar excerpts of group talk to elaborate and substantiate the five themes I identified as being associated with microexclusions: (1) individualization or splitting of the group, (2) adversarial interactions within the group, (3) uneven access to regulatory roles within the group, (4) lagging group members, and (5) using diffuse status characteristics to redirect group activity. See Table 3 for transcription conventions applied in all excerpts. 4.1. Individualization and splitting of groups When microexclusions occurred, groups often divided into dyads or shifted to individual modes of activity. Note that in the instances described here the assigned task was a group-level one, although in limited examples groups indeed cycled back to a pairwork or individual task which was then used to justify a rigid split inside the group. For example, Excerpt 1 highlights how while reviewing evidence about clawed frogs in a cells unit lesson addressing the function of nuclei, Group A's Arjuna was omitted from a turn order by Jacob and Hailey (Pushed Out of Group Talk). When this happened, Arjuna unsuccessfully sought his groupmates' attention and resorted to independent work despite typically being very involved in group talk. As a result, the intended activity, Table 3 Transcription conventions. Notation

Meaning

Example

T

Teacher speaking

Bracketed Name Bracketed Action Parentheses

Name replaced with pseudonym in transcript Non-verbal action embedded in turn Target of speaker’s turn or description of non-verbal tone taken during turn Turn containing only non-verbal actions; loose transcription of conceptually irrelevant talk occurring during off-task conversation Beginning of interruption/crosstalk Non-transcribable portion of audio

T: Alright guys, so now you’re supposed to put all the pieces into the pattern // [Necha]’s [pauses] (to Patrick)

Italicized Turn Backslashes Inaudible

5

Jacob gasps.Hailey abruptly puts her head down on the table. The two have a cheerful, laughing tone and are joking about making errors in their turn order reading aloud from the packet. Jacob: These abnormal tadpoles// Alana: (to Ian) Yes, Ian, now you [inaudible]

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Excerpt 1 Arjuna works independently. Turn & speaker

Microexclusion

1

Pushed out of group talk

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Jacob: We'll switch off every sentence. [Resumes reading aloud] Scientists have found that some of these frogs give birth to tadpoles that are abnormal. Hailey laughs, Jacob joins in laughter. Arjuna: That thing is staring at me. (Barely audible, appears to refer to the picture of the frog in his packet) Hailey: [laughing, reading from packet] These abnormal tadpoles have many cells that have a nucleus. Jacob: These abnormal tadpoles// Hailey: //Can they get pregnant? Jacob: What? Hailey: They can't get pregnant? Jacob: I don't know. [Resumes reading aloud] These abnormal tadpoles grow normally in the beginning, but later on look different from normal tadpoles. The abnormal tadpoles – oh, sorry. Hailey: (joking tone) Ah, how rude! [Resumes reading] The abnormal tadpoles die before they become frogs. These pictures// //Jacob gasps. Hailey abruptly puts her head down on the table. The two have a cheerful, laughing tone and are joking about making errors in their turn order reading aloud from the packet. Jacob: [reading from packet] Oh, show scientists' drawings of the abnormal tadpoles and normal tadpoles that … look like// Hailey: [reading from packet] The numbers in the middle show how many days the tadpoles// Jacob and Hailey together: //Has been alive. Hailey: How rude. You cut me off. [Resumes reading]. Mutated tadpoles – Oh my god. Oh my god, it looks like an alien! Jacob: It looks like a boat. Hailey: Oh, this one at the end! It's ugly, yeah. Jacob: Oh, ew. Oh, its head! Hailey: Oh, yay. Jacob: It looks like heart-shaped. Arjuna is writing in his own packet, quietly. Jacob: It's an alien in love. Okay. Hailey: Alright, let's answer these questions. All students examine their individual packets. Arjuna continues writing in his packet. Jacob: Read the article – check. In groups, discuss how do you – what do you conclude from the study? I don't really know. Did they mutate?// Hailey: //I – I don't know anything. I don't understand this. Alright, now on to page 8. Arjuna: Done, done, done. Jacob: Like, does it – does it just happen naturally? Or do they do something to the frogs? Arjuna: They don't do anything to the frogs. You have to pay attention.

Target of ridicule or disrespect

discussing what the group concluded from the clawed frogs research report, started on uneven footing since Arjuna had already arrived at his own conclusion. Arjuna then took a criticizing tone with Jacob, who had not had time to conclude yet. In another instance, Group A reviewed evidence involving a blog post about glowing cats and then discussed questions about it. In Excerpt 2, during the discussion questions section, Jacob and Arjuna ignored Hailey's question, instead adopting a dyadic mode of interaction. Hailey worked alone and took a desperate tone while her question went unanswered: In Excerpt 3, Group C showed individualization and splitting when reviewing evidence from a cells unit about Dolly the sheep and the nucleus's function; the group was expected to discuss what they concluded from the evidence. The group expressed awareness that a split had occurred, but here the split appeared more deliberate, as part of a competition over what the group's activity would be. Leesha attempted to facilitate on-task discussion with her group, but was ignored. Luke was drawn into an off-task dyad that was spearheaded by Carson. To her frustration, Carson asserted that no one was listening to Leesha (Target of Ridicule or Disrespect), even as Luke attempted to come back to task.

Excerpt 2 Hailey struggles alone. Turn & speaker

Microexclusion

1 2 3 4

Pushed out of group talk

5 6 7 8 9

Hailey: Why does it glow in the dark? [Pauses briefly] What does this mean? Jacob: It glows in everywhere. Hailey: What the hell does this mean? Jacob: [reading/skimming from computer] Which of these is correct, blah blah blah … The cat was not fertilized and developed into the egg.// Arjuna: //Yeah. Jacob: Cat eggs. Arjuna: [laughs] Hailey: This is disgusting. Jacob: What is the best conclusion to the study?

6

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Excerpt 3 Carson pushes off-task focus. Turn & speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Microexclusion

Leesha: //Okay, well, obviously since the nucleus is the main control center// Luke: //(to Carson) [inaudible] Carson: (to Luke) No, it's not!// Leesha: //the main control center thingy. That's why the baby looks like// Luke: //Which model or models does this evidence support?// Carson: //You know neither me nor Lucas are listening? Leesha: I don't care. Which model// Carson: //Cause I was yelling at Lucas about his thing and she's just talking over there, like, what is she talking about? I thought// Leesha: //[reading from computer] Which model or models does this evidence support? Carson: //She just goes on and on and on!

Target of ridicule or disrespect

4.2. Adversarial interactions The second consequence of microexclusions was adversarial interactions. Adversarial interactions were those in which group activity devolved into personal disputes between group members. During a genetics unit lesson on inheritance, Group C was tasked with using pedigrees to generate rules explaining how a trait can skip a generation. Carson, Leesha, and Luke fell into a combative mode of interaction as they disagreed over the task structure. Excerpt 4 shows how Leesha called Carson and Greg out for off-task activity (Public Evidence of Low Academic Performance; Target of Ridicule or Disrespect), while Luke called out Carson's perceived copying (Public Evidence of Low Academic Performance). Leesha and Luke then seized upon the directions listed in the student packet to avoid interacting with Carson and Greg. Leesha and Luke correctly stated that the student packet indicated the task was shifting to pairwork, although the teacher earlier stated that students were “doing [the activity] together” and did not clearly indicate whether this meant pairwork or whole-group activity (Pushed Out of Group Activity). Leesha and Luke continued questioning Carson and Greg's contributions by demanding to see their work, suggesting that Leesha and Luke may have seen merit in Carson and Greg's claims that the teacher directed them to work in whole-group mode. Importantly, regardless of the disagreement, Leesha and Luke used the task structure to avoid interaction with groupmates who they deemed non-contributors. The episode closes with Leesha Excerpt 4 Leesha and Luke reject Carson and Greg. Turn & Speaker

Microexclusion

1

Public evidence of low academic performance; target of ridicule or disrespect

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Leesha: (to Carson and Greg) I love how you guys aren't even doing anything, yet you're copying everyone else's! Luke notices that Carson has taken his packet. He walks to Carson's workspace and to take it back. Luke: Carson! [snatches packet from Carson] Greg: (to Leesha) You guys aren't helping me, we're supposed to be doing it as a group! Carson gets up from his seat and leans across Luke's workspace. All students in the group talk loudly over one another. Luke: Partner!// Greg: //No, she said group. She loves how we do that so, umm// Leesha: //(to Greg) I'm being sarcastic// Carson: //No, we're a group! Hello, group. She said, ‘group’!// Luke: //Pairs!// Carson: //Nope, not up there [points to teacher's notes on whiteboard]// Leesha: //You have to list one of your rules, too// Carson: //Yeah, I got one already. Luke: (to Carson) Well, what's your rule? Leesha: (to Carson) What's your rule? Carson: It needs the family// Luke: //No, look back in the packet. Leesha: I have Greg's paper so it doesn't matter. Greg: No you don't! Another student approaches the table, leans close to Greg, and says something inaudible. Carson: (to Greg)[speaking with hand over mouth] Ooh, ooh la la, this looks like a cute couple. Ooh, Ooh. The student walks away. Leesha: Your rules are so awful, Greg. Leesha forcefully shoves Greg's packet back to his workspace. She sighs. Carson returns to his seat. Greg: (to Leesha) You [pauses] suck.

7

Public evidence of low academic performance

Pushed out of group talk Pushed out of group talk

Public evidence of low academic performance; target of ridicule or disrespect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Excerpt 5 Leesha is frustrated with Greg. Turn & speaker

Microexclusion

1 2

Greg: Is this Evidence 1? Leesha: (to Greg, sarcastic tone) No, it's Evidence 500. Yes, it's Evidence 1.

3 4 5 6

Greg: Evidence 500? Oh my god. Leesha: God, give me patience// Carson: //Guys, are you guys ready to share?// Greg: //You get a taste of your own medicine, Leesha, for what you said before. [laughs]

Public evidence of low academic performance; target of ridicule or disrespect

directly attacking the quality of Greg's intellectual contributions (Public Evidence of Low Academic Performance; Target of Ridicule or Disrespect). More adversarial interactions took place in Group C during the nucleus lesson as the group reviewed evidence involving Dolly the sheep. In Excerpt 5, Greg and Leesha's interactions turned sour when Leesha implied Greg should not be asking a question about the group's assigned task (Public Evidence of Low Academic Performance; Target of Ridicule or Disrespect). During a cells lesson addressing the role of nuclei, Group F reviewed evidence from a simulated website. In Excerpt 6, Ty suggested that Rania and Shonyce were not contributing (Target of Ridicule or Disrespect). A dispute emerged, with Shonyce defending Rania's competence. Ty only partially walked back his accusations, instructing Shonyce and Rania to engage in “cooperative learning” as opposed to “cooperative cheating”. Later during the same task, adversarial interactions returned. In Excerpt 7, Jivan suggested Shonyce was doing outside work during science class (Target of Ridicule or Disrespect). Shonyce snapped back asserting that she was doing the assigned task. Shonyce jokingly blamed the adversarial interactions on the group's gender composition, which was two girls and two boys during this observation. 4.3. Uneven access to regulatory roles within the group The third consequence of microexclusions was uneven access to opportunities to regulate on behalf of the group. In this theme, a group member receiving a microexclusion also struggled to exert influence over things like deciding how the group would use tools, what next steps the group would take, and what topics the group would discuss. During a lesson on the role of chloroplasts in plant cells, Group B was tasked with drafting a model of chloroplasts' function. The group showed uneven access to regulatory roles. In Excerpt 8, Alana blocked Ian from deciding which slide the group should be on (Pushed Out of Group Talk; Unequal Access to Tools). Ian responded by waiting and then moving the slide set forward anyway, as there was no other means for him to get the information he needed. While Group D worked on an evolution lesson on natural selection, they were tasked with identifying similarities between two models. Excerpt 9 took place after Shane voiced his disinterest in participating and began talking about summer sports activities with Necha. In Excerpt 9, Shane shifts onto task at the teacher's direction. When it was Patrick's turn to share ideas to the group, he was interrupted by Necha with off-task comments despite him having more task-relevant contributions at the time (Target of Ridicule or Disrespect). Patrick was talked over by Shane and Necha the entire time he shared with the group. Excerpt 6 Ty accuses Shonyce and Rania of cheating. Turn & speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Microexclusion Ty: Shonyce, you're not doing anything. Rania: I have her packet. Shonyce: Yeah, she has my packet. Rania: Wait, is this right? Shonyce: Let me see. Ty: Don't copy word for word. Rania: I'm not copying word for word! Shonyce: (to Ty) Stop doing that, she's not doing it! Jeez. She's not dumb.// Jivan: Yo, Ty, as Mr. [Name] says, copy from a smart person. [laughs] Shonyce: She's on the – she's on the honor roll.// Rania: //I was.// //Shonyce laughs// Ty://[laughs] Copy from a smart person. Rania: //Alright// Ty: smiling It's called cooperative learning// Rania: //Yeah, that's what Mr. [Name] says [laughs]// Ty: //not cooperative cheating.

8

Target of ridicule or disrespect

Target of ridicule or disrespect

Target of ridicule or disrespect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Excerpt 7 Jivan monitors and criticizes Shonyce. Turn & speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Microexclusion

Shonyce: Oh, okay, she gave me back my packet. Jivan: This is obvious. Ty: This is the hypothesis, not the conclusion. Jivan: No, click next, Ty. Ty: Next. Jivan: Do you understand [inaudible] Shonyce: Uh, look. Jivan: Shonyce, stop doing your homework in science. Shonyce: I'm not doing my homework, I'm doing my packet! Ty: You normally do it. Shonyce: (to Ty) Don't be such a bully. [Smiles] So rude. (to Rania) See how men treat us? This is… men.

Target of ridicule or disrespect

Excerpt 8 Ian circumvents Alana. Turn & speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Microexclusion

Sam: Carbon dioxide, they're equal in the dark, and then there's more oxygen when it// Ian: //the light. Alana: singsong mumbling Alana: Okay. Ian: More carbon dioxide Sam: Do we need to actually draw a picture? Ian: Yeah. Sam: [Reading from prompt] In pairs// //Ian: Also, we can go back to the slides.// Sam continues reading prompt aloud Ian: Let's go back to a few pictures. Alana: No. Ian: Okay. All students write/draw in their packets. Alana: My beautiful sun. Sam: A picture. Do I just make, like, two jars? Alana: I guess. Ian manipulates the computer and changes the slides. Ian: There.

Pushed out of group talk; unequal access to tools

As the off-task talk continued from Excerpt 9, Patrick lacked access to opportunities to regulate. This meant that he could only indirectly address the issue, later questioning why his groupmates were discussing off-task topics. At the end of Excerpt 10, Patrick frustratedly questioned his off-task groupmates. Uneven access to regulatory roles permeated Group D's activity. In Excerpt 11, Group D worked on an individual task requiring shared use of tools by group members. Groups were asked to review evidence involving Dolly the sheep to understand the function of a nucleus. Shane individualized his use of the task tools and had pushed Erica, Necha, and Patrick out of on-task activity entirely. Nonetheless, the group swung toward off-task activity, as Shane disregarded where the rest of the team was on the task. 4.4. Lagging group members The fourth consequence of microexclusions was lagging group members. Here, an individual in the group became lost, confused, or fell behind. Group B exemplified lagging group members during a genetics lesson on the possibility of resistance to HIV. Group B was tasked with selecting the model they believed was best supported by all evidence from the lesson and then drafting an argument to support their decision. In Excerpt 12, Alana interrupted Ian who was attempting to finish evaluating each evidence's fit with the two models, a required step before drafting an argument. Alana pressured Ian to accept her ideas using microexclusions (i.e. Target of Ridicule or Disrespect Ian, Public Evidence of Low Academic Performance). Raising the stakes, Alana implied to the teacher that Ian simply was not willing to receive help despite the limited time left for work. Ian frustratedly asserted that he was trying to support his ideas. Ian ended up behind in the task and simply adopting Alana's answers as his own, in stark contrast to the intent of the activity. 4.5. Using diffuse status characteristics to redirect group activity In a special case of consequences of microexclusions, there were instances that involved repeated microexclusions targeting a specific group member of higher academic status and invoking diffuse status characteristics to redirect group activity. During a lesson on evolution, Group C referenced a group member's ethnic background via stereotyping. In Excerpt 13, Luke accused Carson of 9

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Excerpt 9 Necha interrupts Patrick. Turn & Speaker 1

Microexclusion

19 20 21 22

T: (To Patrick and Erica) Okay, so why don't you two share? (To Patrick, Erica, and Shane) Or, three of you share while [Necha]'s finishing up? Okay, exchange…argumentation is important to science class. Shane: Okay, so… [places red pen in plastic cup at center of table] Patrick sighs and leans on the table. Shane: (to Patrick) I saw you make eyes. Patrick: After reading// Shane: (to Patrick)//I agree. I think that's irrelevant because// Erica: How do you prove it? Shane: (to Patrick) What do you add on? Can you support that? Erica: It's evidence. Shane: (to Patrick) Give reasons. Okay. Patrick: Okay. Shane: My idea is Model 2 is better// Patrick: //obviously// Shane: //because of Evidence 3 and 4// Patrick: //After// Shane: Evidence 3 shows that there is genetic resistance to SIV in monkeys, which is sort of irrelevant when it comes to humans// Erica: Oh, well, that's actually a good point. So, like, only two of these are relevant. Patrick: After reviewing all the pieces of evidence, I can conclude that genetic HIV resistance does exist. It could be because most// Necha: //We're getting a 4-day weekend Erica: (to Necha) We are?//When? Patrick: //Evidence 4,// Necha: 24th.

23

Shane: (to Necha) Of May? For what?//

24 25

Patrick: //uh, shows that for Evidence 3// Necha: Okay, so, 24//

26

Shane: //Oh, do they have that teacher stuff? Teacher convention?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Target of ridicule or disrespect Target of ridicule or disrespect; pushed out of group talk Target of ridicule or disrespect; pushed out of group talk Target of ridicule or disrespect; pushed out of group talk Target of ridicule or disrespect; pushed out of group talk

Excerpt 10 Patrick is frustrated with off-task conversations. Turn & speaker 1 2 3

Microexclusion Shane: //What is this about wearing white after Labor Day? Erica: I have no idea. Patrick: Why are you thinking of this now?

Excerpt 11 Shane steers the group off-task. Turn & speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Microexclusion

T: So now it says, write to someone who might disagree with you. Alright, so this is what you presented. Suppose someone says, I don't agree with anything that you say. How would you convince them? Okay, what could you add to that to make them believe in your answer? Shane: Um, [inaudible] T: Okay, you guys, did you hear that? T leaves the group. Students write in their packets. Shane manipulates the computer. Shane: Draw a perfect, err, um Necha adjusts the laptop so she can see better, manipulates the computer. Shane adjusts it back toward himself, then picks up the laptop and places it at his workspace. Necha shrugs and Erica stands up as Shane takes the laptop. Shane: I wanna frickin' see it. Shane: Oh, this… oh! Crap, there's the webcam. Shane returns the laptop to its place on the books, so all students can see. Shane: Shane turns the webcam on. It's better than the gateway webcam, right? I wanna get one of these.

Unequal access to tools

invoking a model minority stereotype and Carson used model minority stereotyping to extract answers from Luke (Target of Ridicule or Disrespect). Leesha joined in, snapping her fingers at Luke, telling him to hurry and provide answers (Target of Ridicule or Disrespect). 10

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Excerpt 12 Alana raises the stakes for Ian. Turn & Speaker 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Microexclusion

Ian: HIV is// Alana: //SIV and FIV are the same thing as HIV and// Ian: //They're similar, it's just that HIV is for humans and then SIV and FIV is for animals, so right now we're studying humans, so. Alana: //Yeah, I just said that, so… yeah, it does exist… it's unlikely to get it, but it does exist. [Pauses] And the other reason I said that is better is the Paxton study, we studied for ‘does not exist’, strongly contradicts, and for the ‘does exist’ for the interview report at the area clinic, just contradicts, not strongly contradicts, so there's more that support the ‘contradicts’. Ian: Okay. Alana: I don't know if you want to change your arrows there, Ian. Or like your ratings. Ian: I don't really care. Alana: Well, here's the red pen. [throws red pen at Ian] Ian: Okay. Alana: Do you have anything that supports your argument? T: (to class) Alright students// Ian: //Not yet. Alana: Exactly. Ian: Just started. T: (to students in another part of the room) [inaudible] // Time is up, gotta write something. Ian: Like always. T: (to class) Alright, you need to circle something, write a response. I cannot [inaudible] anymore, you guys. I need you to be more productive. (To students out of frame) Good job. Good job, beautiful. T approaches Ian's workspace. T: (to Ian) Can I see your work, please? Ian: I'm still kind of, I'm just starting. T: Alright, but you have to select something, come on// Alana: I just explained it to him. Ian: I'm trying to support mine! T leaves table. Alana: (to Jacki) What are you writing? Jacki: (quietly) What I'm doing is doing what you've said and changing my [inaudible] Alana: So you have Model 1? Jacki: Yeah. Alana: (to Ian) Yes, Ian, now you [inaudible] Ian: Wait. T addresses class. Jacki, Alana, and Ian write quietly in their work packets. T: (to class) Guys, shh. Listen up. Here's a good little strategy. When I read, and I'm reading evidence, I underline things in the evidence that might back up my position. So you might want to go in there and underline and then when you're writing your essays// Ian: //Fine [leans head on hand, scratches forehead]// T: //go back and pull that into your essay. Alrighty? So just a little suggestion of things that you can do. Alright? Alright, now we're going to go over it. Um, you all had an option, okay? After looking at your evidence to select model 1 or 2. I want to hear your points of view. So, can anyone share with me which one they chose? Alright, [student].

Target of ridicule or disrespect; public evidence of low academic performance

Target of ridicule or disrespect; public evidence of low academic performance

Excerpt 13 Luke faces model minority stereotyping. Turn & speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Microexclusion Carson: Well, I'm saying [pauses] Leesha: [looking up from packet, smiling] Luke? Luke: Oh, okay, so now you're going to the Asian. Okay. T: Alright guys, so now you're supposed to put all the pieces into the pattern// Carson: (to Luke) Well, why wouldn't you? Leesha: (to Luke) Um! [snaps fingers in Luke's face] Luke: (to Leesha) I'm reading, god! Leesha: Wait I think I know it! [Looks at Carson] Carson: Oh, wait. Did you say something, Luke? That's what I think, too. Whatever Luke says.// Luke: //I'm reading. Carson: Wait, Luke, you're def – you're totally right. You're just, you're right, Luke. Leesha: (to Luke) We have, like, 10 min, hur-ry up. Luke: I don't know how [props head on hand]

11

Target of ridicule or disrespect Target of ridicule or disrespect Target of ridicule or disrespect Target of ridicule or disrespect Target of ridicule or disrespect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

Excerpt 14 Leesha's ethnicity is interrogated. Turn & speaker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Microexclusion Carson: You're not Indian. Prove it. Prove to me that you are Indian. Leesha rolls her eyes. Leesha: How would you like me to prove that to you. Carson: You're gonna have to find a way because you're not even proving it.// Leesha: My dad is half! Carson: No, prove it. Luke: If you're dad's half, doesn't that make you quarter? Carson: Yeah. Yeah, that would make you – no. Leesha: Wha -// Carson: //No, that would make you quarter? Leesha: No, no, he's not half. Luke: He's full Indian? Leesha: (to Luke) Yes, he's West Indian Luke: (To Greg) Didn't she just say that West Indians have the mark things? Leesha: No, I just said that they don't. Carson: If you can't prove that your dad's Indian, then I can't prove that I'm not Indian. Leesha looks around classroom. Leesha: God. Carson: I'm full-blood Indian. Leesha: I don't understand why nobody believes me. Luke: You look more Puerto Rican. Leesha: Because I look more like my mom. Luke: (to Leesha) Do you have a brother? Greg: (to Leesha) Do you have a brother or a sister? Leesha: I have a half-sister. Greg: You have a half-sister? So you have a step-sister? Leesha: A half-sister. We have the same mom and different dads. Luke: Oh, yeah. Greg: I get it, I get it. Leesha: Can we do number two? (exasperated tone)

Target of ridicule or disrespect

Target of ridicule or disrespect

Target of ridicule or disrespect Target of ridicule or disrespect

Later during the same lesson, Group C's talk spun into off-task activity and landed on discussion of Leesha's ethnicity. In Excerpt 14, Carson and Luke interrogated Leesha about her ethnicity. The extended exchange ended with Leesha frustratedly asking the group to move on in the intended activity. 5. Discussion The current study examined how microexclusions contribute to group activity in an inquiry science collaborative learning context using videorecorded observations as data sources. This research was intended to explore the role of peer interactions in learners' opportunities to meaningfully participate in collaboration-intensive, reform-oriented science learning environments. Microexclusions as affronts to competence and belonging were conceptualized as barriers to learners' uptake of a legitimate meaning maker role in science. Thematic analysis generated five themes describing the ways microexclusions contribute to group activity: (1) individualization or splitting of the group, (2) adversarial interactions within the group, (3) uneven access to regulatory roles within the group, (4) lagging group members, and (5) using diffuse status characteristics to redirect group activity. Beyond describing instances of exclusion at the moment-to-moment level inside collaborative groups, microexclusions were associated with groups' loss of coordination (e.g. Barron, 2000, 2003) throughout observed periods of group interaction. Group members asserted their competence, tolerated influential group member's diversions, and forfeited opportunities to learn when microexclusions happened. Groups fractured and group members fought when microexclusions happened. For Group B's Ian and Alana, tensions rose until Ian gave up on trying to explain an alternative perspective. This is concerning in light of the importance of individual learning in small group contexts and the centrality of argumentation as a scientific practice in inquiry, especially since Ian made clear that he needed more time to ensure his own individual-level understanding of the material. Microexclusions redirected learners' efforts toward managing participation dynamics inside the group, even if it could cost individual group members a basic sense of belonging inside their group and sense of competence in science and beyond, as Group C's interactions showed. Importantly, while losses of coordination after microexclusions can reflect a break in shared cognitive activity on the academic content level, the results here showcase how loss of coordination in some cases is better characterized as a break at the relational level that can undermine individual learners' ability to take up the legitimate meaning maker role in inquiry. The findings here also suggest that the language of the discipline can coexist with otherwise status-based decision-making processes in inquiry science classrooms; this should be taken into consideration when designing inquiry-based learning environments. In an unexpected finding, group members who were typically on-task sometimes used off-task interactions to deal with repeated ignoring, as was the case with Group D's Patrick. This aligns with recent research by Langer-Osuna, Gargroetzi, Chavez, and Munson (2018) indicating that in elementary school math contexts, learners similarly use off-task interactions for multiple purposes, including 12

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

sustaining on-task activity, resisting a groupmate's disproportionate influence, and gaining the attention of groupmates. The extent of the benefits and costs accrued from off-task diversions is unclear, though. The results suggest that groups use off-task conversations to compensate for the suboptimal relational space associated with microexclusions. Groups can deviate from the intended task itself in order to build camaraderie and foster rapport. Conversely, an individual group member can steer group activity toward off-task topics as a way of coping with the threat of being marked incompetent. The persistent off-task activity of students like Group C's Carson may be best understood as coping. Groups in inquiry-based science classrooms may benefit from tools to reduce threats to competence and promote group belonging while maintaining individuals' participation at a high-quality level. The findings involving off-task periods harken back to Barron's (2003) argument about the intertwined nature of social and cognitive features of collaboration. It may be more appropriate to conceptualize “social” and “academic” or “cognitive” as in a dialectical relationship, rather than as two mutually exclusive categories that can be separated in research. This is particularly clear in reform-oriented contexts where collaboration is common. Importantly, some of the disruptions produced by microexclusions signal the continued availability of explicitly racial discourses as a tool for renegotiating status hierarchies inside small group contexts, even in the context of a reform effort with the stated goal of equity and inclusion. Duek (2000) similarly observed racialized (and gendered) patterns of inequitable interactions and instructor feedback in a problem-based learning context with adult learners, prompting the conclusion that instructors must make serious efforts to intervene on status problems lest they intrude on learning as Cohen (1994) had already elaborated. The findings presented here reaffirm Cohen's arguments and extend them to show that, in addition to membership in a marginalized social group, moment-tomoment microexclusions themselves can be a source of inequity. These kinds of ethnicity-related microexclusions may function to legitimate status hierarchies inside the group by tapping into familiar racialized discourses (Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek, & Norman, 1998). In severe cases referencing ethnic group membership like Leesha and Luke experienced, microexclusions share conceptual overlap with microaggressions (Sue, 2010). These kinds of ethnicity-related microexclusions may function to legitimate status hierarchies by reaffirming a society-level hierarchy in a local micro-level series of interactions (Berger et al., 1998). In the context of adolescent learners in the United States, these kinds of references may be more common, though. For example, Douglass, Mirpuri, English, and Yip (2016) found that ethnic/racial teasing is a common approach to communicating about ethnicity or race to close peers and friends during adolescence, although the results indicated adolescents experiencing ethnic/racial teasing report more social anxiety on the day teasing occurred as well as the day after, consistent with research on discrimination. For there to be equitable access to legitimate meaning maker roles, learners' access to status hierarchy legitimating discourses as a tool for renegotiating participation dynamics during collaboration will have to be addressed. In the case of science education, this likely means giving greater consideration to scientific practices as sociohistorically-contextualized, as well as giving greater emphasis to the relational nature of being a learner or a scientist in the first place (see Bang, Warren, Rosebery, & Medin, 2012; Barton & Yang, 2000; Bell, Tzou, Bricker, & Baines, 2012; Nasir et al., 2012). 6. Limitations The findings of the present study should be understood with the knowledge of some limitations. First, the present study only included groups that had relatively stable group membership over the semester. Accordingly, the findings presented here may also be explained by group members' increased familiarity with one another because students who are more familiar with each other can have more positive interactions with one another, but also feel justified in being less concerned with how much belonging or competence their groupmates feel. The present study is limited in its consideration of the role of membership in a marginalized societal category for marginal identities in inquiry science. Low frequency of African-American and Latino/a students in videotaped groups as well as restrictions on information regarding students' learning disabilities limited the present study in this respect. Prior research suggests that this is an important route to pursue (Ashman & Gillies, 2013; Carlone et al., 2014; Cohen & Lotan, 1997). Related to this limitation, the present analyses were not able to account for implicit racialized discourses that likely inform groups' decisions about which peers ought to be strategically excluded via microexclusions, partially due to already-mentioned limitations of the sample and partially due to the lack of opportunity for follow-up interviews targeted at the question of implicit racialized discourses. Future research should more systematically address the role of group members' racial identity, gender, and disability status in constructing marginal identities in collaboration and in inquiry science contexts. Additionally, limited attention was given in the present study to the role of teacher practices and whole-class instruction since only video recorded observations of small group collaboration were analyzed. Webb et al.' (2008) work clarifies the need to understand teachers as norm-setting participants in the classroom as a social system. The present study occurred during a spring semester curriculum implementation and included students from two teachers' classrooms. Thus, teachers' efforts at appropriate curriculum enactment as well as their own prior established modes of interaction with students were likely to be influential. Similarly, the limited information in the present study on teachers' perceptions of and interactions with students limits our understanding of how teachers contributed to the collaborative episodes presented. As such, future work should consider how multiple activity systems overlap, with teacher practices being part of those systems. Finally, as alluded to in Angelillo, Rogoff, and Chavajay's (2007) work, the coding scheme discussed in this paper should be understood as tailored to the specific context of the present study. Because the interpretations that went into creating coding scheme are grounded in knowledge obtained through field observations and interviewees' idiosyncratic meanings, it follows that the codes should not be applied without similar tailoring when studying other contexts. As such, the codes presented here provide theoretical generalizations (Firestone, 1993).

13

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

7. Conclusion The findings presented here highlight the importance of peer interactions for learners' ability to be fully engaged during group activity in collaborative learning contexts. These findings indicate that microexclusions interfere with group functioning by derailing coordination over academic content as well as relational ties. Further, the findings here suggest that methods attuned to the social side of learning can be an asset for researchers concerned with issues of equity: it was possible to observe one mechanism by which an element of social structure (i.e. racial discourses) enters into local activity (i.e. scientific practices in the classroom). By examining interactional moves using the concept of microexclusions, macrosystemic or structural features' contributions to the local actions of individuals and small groups also became visible, allowing for some insights into how status hierarchies are reconstructed in interactions. Yet, the impact of these episodes is unlikely to be captured during data collection if researchers do not start from the position that the social side of collaboration is worth studying in its own right, as a group can indeed arrive at otherwise scientific ideas while relying on social hierarchies to organize their activity. Situative perspectives on learners' motivation have already strongly advocated for openness to socially- and culturally-oriented studies of learning and the present study reaffirms their argument (Nolen, Horn, & Ward, 2015). Future work will likely benefit from an eye toward seemingly irrelevant off-task periods, even if only in preliminary analyses for the sake of validating other disciplinary practice related conclusions. Funding This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [grant number 1008634]. References Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Rogat, T. K. (2013). Variation in other-regulation and the implications for competence negotiation. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.). To see the world and a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time and scale. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI., 15–19 June (pp. 18–25). . Angelillo, C., Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (2007). Examining shared endeavors by abstracting video coding schemes with fidelity to cases. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.). Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 189–206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ashman, A. F., & Gillies, R. M. (2013). Collaborative learning for diverse learners. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O'Donnell (Eds.). The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 297–313). New York, NY: Routledge. Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55(5–6), 302–318. https://doi.org/10. 1159/000345322. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889. Bell, P., Tzou, C., Bricker, L., & Baines, A. D. (2012). Learning in diversities of structures of social practice: Accounting for how, why and where people learn science. Human Development, 55(5–6), 269–284. Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657555. Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664. Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857–1882. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039–1065. Blumenfeld, P., Kempler, T., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167–194. Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students' identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869. Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2011). Differences in epistemic practices among scientists, young earth creationists, intelligent design creationists, and the scientist creationists of Darwin's era. In R. Taylor, & M. Ferrari (Eds.). Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 38– 76). New York: Taylor & Francis. Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.). International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314–332). New York: Taylor & Francis. Chinn, C. A., Duschl, R. A., Duncan, R. G., Buckland, L. A., & Pluta, W. P. (2008). A microgenetic classroom study of learning to reason scientifically through modeling and argumentation. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on international conference for the learning sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498. Douglass, S., Mirpuri, S., English, D., & Yip, T. (2016). “They were just making jokes”: Ethnic/racial teasing and discrimination among adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000041. Duek, J. E. (2000). Whose group is it, anyway? Equity of student discourse in problem-based learning (PBL). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 75–107). . Duncan, R. G., Freidenreich, H. B., Chinn, C. A., & Bausch, A. (2011). Promoting middle-school students' understanding of molecular genetics. Research in Science Education, 41, 147–167. Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245–268. Esmonde, I., Takeuchi, M., & Radakovic, N. (2011). Getting unstuck: Learning and histories of engagement in classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(3), 237–256. Firestone, W. A. (2016). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.

14

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 (2020) 100353

K.R. Adams-Wiggins

3102/0013189X02200401. Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49–70. Hickey, D. T. (2003). Engaged participation versus marginal nonparticipation: A stridently sociocultural approach to achievement motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 401–429. Langer-Osuna, J., Gargroetzi, E., Chavez, R., & Munson, J. (2018). Rethinking loafers: Understanding the productive functions of off-task talk during collaborative mathematics problem-solving. In J. Kay, & R. Luckin (Vol. Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2018. Vol. 2. London, UK: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Leander, K. M. (2002a). Locating Latanya: “The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction”. Research in the Teaching of English, 37(2), 198–250. Leander, K. M. (2002b). Silencing in classroom interaction: Producing and relating social spaces. Discourse Processes, 34(2), 193–235. Nasir, N. S., Snyder, C. R., Shah, N., & Ross, K. M. (2012). Racial storylines and implications for learning. Human Development, 55(5–6), 285–301. Nolen, S. B. (2007). Young children's motivation to read and write: Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2–3), 219–270. Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., & Ward, C. J. (2016). Situating motivation. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 234–247. NRC (2007). In R. Duschl, H. Schweingruber, & H. Shouse (Eds.). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–511. Rogat, T. K., & Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2015). Interrelation between regulatory and socioemotional processes within collaborative groups characterized by facilitative and directive other-regulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 589–600. Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 375–415. Rogat, T. K., Witham, S. A., & Chinn, C. A. (2014). Teachers' autonomy relevant practices within an inquiry-based science curricular context: Extending the range of academically significant autonomy supportive practices. Teachers College Record, 116, 070305. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Van Horne, K., & Bell, P. (2017). Youth disciplinary identification during participation in contemporary project-based science investigations in school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 437–476. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., De, T., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 360–381. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

15