To learn more, visit https://conferences.union.wisc.edu/bcce2026/.
To learn more, visit https://www.acs.org/meetings/acs-meetings/future-meetings.html.
To learn more, visit https://www.acs.org/meetings/acs-meetings/future-meetings.html.
To learn more, visit https://meetings.aaas.org/.
To learn more, visit https://aapt.org/Conferences/meetings.cfm.
To learn more, visit https://aapt.org/Conferences/WM2026/index.cfm.
Teach mathematics and science using materials for the weather-focused Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, & Snow Network project.
Teach mathematics and science using materials for the weather-focused Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, & Snow Network project.
This article portrays how citizen science (CS) projects can be integrated into elementary classrooms to enhance students’ sensemaking skills and connect to real-world science problems. For the last several years, we have been involved in a study, Teacher Learning for Effective School-Based Citizen Science (TL4CS), that developed materials for elementary school teachers to engage their students in data collection, analysis, and interpretation for two existing CS projects: Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow Network (CoCoRaHS) and the Lost Ladybug Project (LLP).
This article portrays how citizen science (CS) projects can be integrated into elementary classrooms to enhance students’ sensemaking skills and connect to real-world science problems.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI’s scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students’ written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI’s scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students’ written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores. We also examine whether enhancing the alignments can improve scoring accuracy.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI’s scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students’ written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI’s scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students’ written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores. We also examine whether enhancing the alignments can improve scoring accuracy.
