Science

The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of different instruments, independently developed and traditionally used for measuring science teachers’ beliefs in short-term interventions, to longitudinally measure teachers’ changing beliefs.

Numerous research studies have illustrated the importance of connecting the visible (macroscopic) world of chemical phenomena to the invisible (particulate) world of atoms and molecules for conceptual understanding in chemistry (Birk & Yezierski, 2006; Gabel, Samuel, & Hunn, 1987; Johnstone, 1993; Nakhleh, 1992). This skill fits particularly well into the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) science practice of developing and using models, and a particle-level understanding of phenomena is a fundamental component of the redesigned AP Chemistry curriculum.

When asked what plants need for photosynthesis, many students can correctly recall the reaction equation and state that plants require CO2, H2O, and light. Many students, however, do not understand that these reactants are the raw materials plants use to make sugars and instead believe that they are food for plants. Moreover, when questioned further, students often voice the idea that plants get their food from the soil (Kestler 2014).

Despite decades of research regarding best practices for the teaching and learning of chemistry, as well as two sets of national reform documents for science education, classroom instruction in high school chemistry classrooms remains largely unchanged. One key reason for this continued gap between research and practice is a reliance on traditional, prescriptive professional development (PD) in place of PD that focuses on changing teachers’ ideas and beliefs. The former view treats teachers as technicians, workers who are supposed to follow a manual to produce student results.

Kinematics is a topic students are unknowingly aware of well before entering the physics classroom. Students observe motion on a daily basis. They are constantly interpreting and making sense of their observations, unintentionally building their own understanding of kinematics before receiving any formal instruction. Unfortunately, when students take their prior conceptions to understand a new situation, they often do so in a way that inaccurately connects their learning.

The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of different instruments, independently developed and traditionally used for measuring science teachers’ beliefs in short-term interventions, to longitudinally measure teachers’ changing beliefs.

This paper describes a guided-inquiry activity designed for the first week of a first-year high school chemistry course. Students manipulated magnetic models of atoms in depicting air and learned to connect the three domains of chemistry: macroscopic, symbolic, and particulate. The purpose of the activity was 2-fold: to remediate misconceptions of foundational chemical concepts such as atoms, molecules, compounds, subscripts, and coefficients; and to help students begin to think in the particulate domain of Johnstone’s triangle when studying chemistry.

Researchers and educators agree: Children demonstrate a clear readiness to engage in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning early in life. And, just as with language and literacy, STEM education should start early in order to maximize its benefits and effectiveness. So why is STEM not woven more seamlessly into early childhood education? What can we do – in the classroom, in homes, in museums, in research labs, and in the halls of legislating bodies – to ensure that all young children have access to high-quality STEM learning early in life?

This study investigates the models of elementary content specialization (ECS) in elementary mathematics and science and the affordances and constraints related to ECS—both generally and in relation to specific models. Elementary content specialists are defined as full-time classroom teachers who are responsible for content instruction for two or more classes of students. The sample consists of 34 elementary content specialists in math and/or science, as well as a matched comparison group of self-contained classroom teachers.

Ensuring all students have opportunities to engage in scientific argumentation is a key goal for K–12 students. While research has shown that teachers’ beliefs about argumentation can impact their classroom instruction and that students in low socioeconomic status (SES) schools are less likely to experience challenging science learning, there is little research focused on the relationship between teachers’ argumentation beliefs and student SES. As such, in this study we explored the scientific argumentation beliefs of teachers in low, mid, and high SES schools.