EMOTIONS IN THE SCIENCE
CLASSROOM
An Article Review
2
For this article review, I decided to seek to understand how students’ emotions about science and
themselves in relation to science influence learning in the classroom. I believe that positive
emotions regarding science and the understanding of science are needed to cultivate a nourishing
learning environment; however, emotions appear to be seldom regarded within the STEM field.
Article 1.
The first article I am using to gain a deeper understanding of the involvement of emotions
in science is “Emotions in the doing of science: Exploring epistemic affect in elementary
teachers' science research experiences” by Shannon G. Davidson, Lama Z. Jaber, and Sherry A.
Southerland. The authors argue that educators must have “opportunities to encounter,
understand, and appreciate the epistemic affect in science to support students in navigating their
affect in the science classroom” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1008). They advocate for professional
development programs to offer firsthand affective experiences that enrich educators’
instructional practices, with the goal of creating “thinkers, doers, and learners of science.”
(Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1008)
In presenting their idea, the authors introduce their vision of science in which teachers do
not simply provide students with material in an attempt to fill their heads with facts; instead,
students have the opportunity to think, behave, and act as scientists (Davidson et al., 2020, p.
1009). Hereby, the emotional responses, feelings, and dispositions that arise when participating
in the creation of knowledge “are part of what ‘instigates and stabilizes disciplinary engagement’
in scientific pursuits” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1009). In short, the epistemic affect is viewed as
an essential aspect of scientific research and forming curious minds. Still, opportunities by
themselves are not enough; educators must actively support students in navigating the practices,
norms, and discourse of science so they can engage in meaningful learning. To be a supporting
3
figure, educators themselves must experience the feeling of being a scientist. To make this
possible, the authors advocate for teachers’ participation in “Research Experiences for Teachers
(RET) programs,” in which educators have the immersive experience of collaborating with
scientists.
To make a stronger argument, the authors define the meaning of “affect” in the realm of
education. They point out that “affect” can be conceptualized in three different ways: “Emotion
as an individual experience, emotion as a sociocultural experience, and emotion as interactional
and performative” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1010). The individualistic view defines emotions as
feelings experienced by one person and therefore belonging to this person alone. The
sociocultural view suggests that “emotions and feelings are shared cultural artifacts that are
governed by social interaction and group norms” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1010). This does not
mean that the individual does not experience emotions, but rather that their emotions are based
within particular social and cultural frameworks. The perception of emotions as interactional and
performative is a modernist view, concluding that “emotions are not private, nor merely the
effects of outside social structures, nor simply language‐laden, but are embodied and
performative” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1010). In other words, the ways we perceive affect are
intertwined with physical, psychological, and social experiences that relate to our emotions. The
authors conclude that affect is a construct understood in many ways, but highlight that emotions
and desire are interwoven, particularly in the act of learning. Therefore, scientists' experiences of
epistemic affect […] is a critical but often overlooked aspect of disciplinary engagement”
(Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1011).
It must be understood that science does not exist in a vacuum. Instead, science is done by
human beings who exist in social, political, and cultural contexts. Therefore, science can never
4
be fully objective—free of values and beliefs; the field is very much connected with emotion.
However, the authors note that very little attention is paid to the epistemic science experience
and motivation despite surveys strongly suggesting that a “critical aspect of scientific pursuits
lies in the emotions, feelings, and dispositions that are inherent in the doing of science”
(Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1012). Overall, emotions play an important role in a person’s cognitive
behavior and are experienced when constructing knowledge and developing understandings. The
authors list several emotions that can be experienced by scientists including “confidence, the
feeling of intuitive knowing, the feeling of error when one has likely made a mistake, feelings of
uncertainty, curiosity, frustration, excitement, anxiety, struggle, perseverance, and feelings of
understanding or having intellectual satisfaction” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1012). Further, both
educators and students can identify with these feelings, allowing them to share common ground.
At this point, the authors introduce the “meta-affect,” which describes the ability to reframe the
experience of feelings. For example, “perceiving confusion as motivation, associating puzzles
and uncertainties with pleasure rather than intimidation, and perceiving inconsistencies as
simultaneously bothersome and stimulating rather than menacing” (Davidson et al., 2020, p.
1013) are critical for disciplinary engagement—even outside a scientific context.
Currently, schools focus on equipping K-12 science classrooms with access to resources
and materials. However, they often exclude the creation of meaningful intellectual engagement,
which could be offered by establishing a context like that of a scientist. This can be achieved by
emphasizing the “community norms and practices of science such as argumentation, peer
collaboration, and accountability” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1014) Therefore, educators should
“design instructional opportunities that allow students to experience epistemic affect in
meaningful ways” and “support students in their internalizing and framing of epistemic affect so
5
that feelings and emotions are productive rather than stymying” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1012).
One issue with this is that educators themselves did not experience this in their schooling; they
were often presented with “cookbook laboratories” that emphasized following a sequence of
steps rather than actively engaging in creating knowledge. Those led to a limitation of
engagement and a reluctance to teach science, as educators themselves might perceive it as
overly difficult or even tedious. This is unfortunate because elementary teachers are crucial for
science development, offering the first introduction to science for many students. Therefore,
RETs can be especially enriching for these teachers.
Educators who participated in RETs experienced the emergence of three major epistemic
themes: “feelings of struggle and anxiety; a willingness to persevere through setback and
uncertainty; and a sense of pride and accomplishment” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1021). These
experiences did not take on a linear pathway, but it was found that struggle and anxiety were
mostly experienced at the beginning of the program, while feelings of accomplishment and pride
occurred during the final stages. The “meta-affect” was crucial in proceeding with this research,
as struggle and anxiety may have a stymying influence on scientific research if scientists fail to
productively navigate these negative feelings. Therefore, it is necessary to reframe such affect as
motivation and perseverance. Regarding willingness to persevere through uncertainty and
setbacks, educators had to reframe those epistemic feelings as productive to mirror the work of
scientists. A sense of accomplishment and pride occurred when teachers had the opportunity to
share their knowledge and understanding regarding their research. The authors highlight that
these changes in perception did not occur overnight or without guidance, and that science occurs
within a community in which “communication, argumentation, collaboration, and
accountability” (Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1033) are all part of creating knowledge. Whenever the
6
participating educators experienced uncertainty or setbacks, their mentoring scientist would
model a stance of perseverance and motivation, underscoring that pressing on was necessary to
progress. Within the classroom setting, the teachers must inhabit this role.
Regarding implications for instructions based on their theory, the authors point out that it
is not only important for students to feel like scientists by experiencing the aforementioned
emotions; it is also important for educators to recognize, appreciate, and respond to their
students' feelings to promote rather than hinder the creation of knowledge. This might lead
students to perceive uncertainty as an enticer for curiosity and inquiries that frame intellectual
challenges. The authors conclude that by allowing educators to experience epistemic affect
firsthand, they are likely to value the complexity of the emotional work of science. They are also
more likely to empathize with their students and offer quality support in their students’ endeavor
of creating knowledge.
Application to Teaching Practice (1)
Overall, this article was rather revealing to me as a teacher candidate: I have never
learned about the epistemic influence on education. This article gave me a lot of insight into the
way students may experience science. It highlighted the fact that although not all feelings are
verbally expressed, they are still valid. Hence, teachers need to engage with students and ask
them for their feedback, making sure they are responsive to the students’ body language; this will
allow for genuine exchanges and trust to build between parties. It is also important to help
students reframe negative emotions as productive ones. At one point, the article quoted a
participant of the study: “I liked telling them [the other scientists at the Lab] about what we did.
Even though— well, we just did a little, but maybe it'll add up to something. I love that”
(Davidson et al., 2020, p. 1028). For me, this highlighted the importance of instilling in students
7
that they do not have to solve the world’s problems, but that their learning and contribution are
nonetheless valuable. Students must recognize their capability and knowledge, and be perceived
as capable and knowledgeable by their environment. Additionally, it is important for students to
self-reflect, as they might not be aware of their progress and emotions as they experience them.
Further, this article advocated for the avoidance of “mitigating moves,” such as lecturing
explanations. Instead, students should be offered procedure‐oriented lab experiences with
predetermined outcomes. Lastly, this article makes a case for empathy being the first step “for
teachers to support and productively leverage their students' epistemic affect” (Davidson et al.,
2020, p. 1035). Empathy can only be internalized by meaningfully engaging in scientific
experiments ourselves. Therefore, as we prepare to become teachers, we cannot forget that we
should never stop learning. RETs offer the possibility for teachers to educate themselves on how
they can offer their students a more meaningful learning environment.
Article 2.
Epistemic affect regarding science learning is not the only way students’ feelings are
intertwined with learning. This article highlights that self-efficacy, the way we feel when
partaking in science, is also crucial for meaningful learning. In the article, “‘I'm just not that
great at science’: Science self-efficacy in arts and communication students” by Eileen McBride,
W. Wyatt Oswald, Lindsey A. Beck, and Amy Vashlishan Murray, the authors claim that selfefficacy influences students’ persistence and success in sciences. Therefore, both mastery
experiences and personally meaningful, student-centered course designs are needed to scaffold
students’ confidence as learners.
The authors define self-efficacy as the “strength of an individual's confidence in their
ability to perform a task or achieve a desired outcome” (McBride et al., 2019, p. 598). Science
8
education research acknowledges that non-intellective characteristics, such as attitudes, beliefs,
and self-concept, are crucial for students’ retention and success in mathematics and science.
However, the authors point out that very little is known about the role of self-efficacy and citizen
science literacy in general education environments. In “The Construct of Self-Efficacy,” selfefficacy is described as the “conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required
to produce outcomes” (McBride et al., 2019, p. 598). This conviction is domain-specific and
likely to vary across contents. High self-efficacy levels in a certain domain trigger more
ambitious goals, longer perseverance, more cognitive and physical composure, and a link
between effort and outcome. According to the authors, self-efficacy emerges from four sources.
The first source—mastery experience—are instances of success that provide evidence of ability
or skill. These are domain-specific and especially meaningful when perceived as challenging.
The second source—vicarious experience—is experienced through the observation of others and
their relation to success or failure. When students see someone similar to them succeed or learn a
skill, they are more likely to try themselves. The third source—social persuasion—is based on
the encouragement one perceives from those around them. A sense of confidence is partly
derived from the confidence others have in one’s ability, especially when it comes from
knowledgeable authority figures. Lastly, feedback from physiological and psychological states
influence self-efficacy. The physiological and emotional states one experiences in the context of
performance—the level of anxiety and apprehension—can be interpreted as indicators of
inadequacy, influencing one’s self-efficacy. The authors highlight that, out of those four sources,
mastery experiences most powerfully influence self-efficacy. Mastery experiences are mostly
positive and can be rooted in prior experiences in science, demonstrations of competence,
effectively communicating a concept or idea, successfully applying a scientific concept to real
9
life, successfully completing assignments, and a good objective grade (McBride et al., 2019, p.
610).
It was found that the conception of efficacy beliefs is highly malleable and therefore
easily influenced by experiences in the learning environment. Science anxiety—described by the
authors as “feelings of tension and stress that interfere with the construction of science
knowledge, the development of science skills and abilities, and the use of science knowledge,
skills, and abilities in life and academic situations” (McBride et al., 2019, p. 604) —negatively
influence science self-efficacy. In contrast, a high sense of self-efficacy suggests that the student
is more likely to engage with science in their daily life and critically think about the world
around them.
Regarding the academic factors of this research, the authors found that, while prior
experience potentially supports science self-efficacy, the value of the prior experience is crucial.
On a pedagogical note, it is pointed out that quality as opposed to quantity is important when it
comes to students’ learning. Additionally, it was found that students of color and ESL learners,
who initially reported low science self-efficacy at the beginning of the research, increased their
science self-efficacy at the highest rate. Students predominantly reported mastery experiences
and helpful teaching strategies as sources of their increased self-efficacy. Regarding teaching
strategies, students mentioned course organization, paced delivery, diversity of material and
activities, well-structured assignments, a positive classroom environment, and lastly, attitude and
personality of the teacher as especially helpful (McBride et al., 2019, p. 616). Students also
valued scaffolding through hands-on experiences, opportunities for metacognitive reflection, and
well-timed feedback. Finally, students appreciated “real-life” applications aligned with their
interests and experiences.
10
Application to Teaching Practice (2)
For this article, the development of self-efficacy in undergrad college students was
researched. Still, this research can be related to elementary science, as this is where students are
first introduced to science and begin developing self-efficacy. It was also mentioned that master
experiences depend on previous experiences, highlighting the fact that what students learn during
their academic career will influence them throughout their lives. Therefore, I believe that the
material that was presented in this text is also important to elementary science instruction. The
article concluded that students of color and students who spoke English as a second language
benefitted greatly from measures that increase self-efficacy in science. This is especially
important for NYC public school teachers, who are working with a highly diverse student body.
Regarding my own teaching practice, I found this article to be very helpful. One student
described her experience as “being treated like my voice was valid and that my thoughts
mattered” (McBride et al., 2019, p. 615). This highlighted the importance of creating a safe and
welcoming classroom environment in which students are not afraid to share their thoughts and
make their voices heard. In my class, I will focus on including the different sources of selfefficacy. Mastery experiences were especially meaningful when perceived as difficult and
challenging. One way to keep students academically challenged is to operate within Vygotsky’s
Zone of Proximal Development, as students will be able to learn from one another and through
experiments that are supported by the teacher. Another source of self-efficacy was the
observation of others’ success. This underscores the importance of ethnic diversity in STEM
fields. Many imagine the quintessential “scientist” as an older, white male, e.g., Albert Einstein.
By inviting diverse groups of scientists into the classroom, in person or online, students will see
people who look like them creating knowledge. Another source of self-efficacy is
11
encouragement from those around us. A teacher must believe in the capability of their students.
If the teacher does not expect much from their students, it will create a self-fulfilling prophecy
and students will give up on learning. Therefore, I would focus on giving specific feedback
beyond “well done” and allowing students opportunities to self-evaluate their work. Lastly, selfefficacy is shaped by physical and emotional states. This ties in with the former article, which
argues that negative emotions regarding science need to be reframed to motivate and drive the
students to succeed. This requires the teacher to assume a mentor role, which I will facilitate in
my classroom.
Conclusion
Overall, these two articles highlighted the importance of our emotions when participating
in science and our emotions regarding ourselves when interacting with science. Emotions are
often overlooked within the STEM curriculum, yet they play an important role in understanding
the topic. Both articles presented the use of material relating to real-life problems and
emphasized the students’ interests as essential for engagement in critical thinking and their
evaluation of the world around them. By creating critical thinkers and citizen scientists, society
will be more trustful of science and less easily influenced by conspiracy theories. Lastly, it
became clear that epistemic affect and self-efficacy go hand in hand. Self-efficacy is needed to
feel enough confidence in oneself to reframe negative epistemic experiences; in turn, the
reframing of negative epistemic experiences improves self-efficacy. Therefore, it is exceptionally
valuable to create opportunities for both in the science classroom.
12
References
Davidson, S. G., Jaber, L. Z., & Southerland, S. A. (2020). Emotions in the doing of science:
Exploring epistemic affect in elementary teachers' science research experiences. Science
Education, 104(6), 1008-1040.
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/doi/full/10.1002/sce.21596
McBride, E., Oswald, W. W., Beck, L. A., & Murray, A. V. (2019). “I'm just not that great at
science”: Science self-efficacy in arts and communication students. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 57(4), 597-622.
https://doi-org.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/10.1002/tea.21603