© Monica Alm i Exploring the Ways That Developing and Using Models Support Changes in Student Thinking About Phase Changes By Monica Ann Alm Post-Baccalaureate Secondary Education Teaching Certification, University of Wyoming, 2016 Biology, BS, University of Wyoming, 2013 Plan B Project Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education with an emphasis in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wyoming 2019 Laramie, Wyoming Masters Committee: Chair – Dr. Ana Houseal, Science and Mathematics Teaching Center Committee Member – Dr. Jay Norton, Ecosystems and Science Management Committee Member – Dr. Eric Teman, School of Counseling, Leadership, Advocacy, and Design ii Abstract In 2013, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released. Currently, approximately two-thirds of American students live in a state that is using NGSS or standards influenced by the Framework for K-12 Science Education and/or the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Utah adopted new science standards based on NGSS in December 2015. For educators to successfully implement the new standards, a shift in curriculum and teaching practice is required (NRC, 2012). To do this, one may examine student data and student reflections. This study focused on one of the Scientific and Engineering Practices (developing and using models) within sixth grade self-contained science classrooms. I examined how using specific strategies related to developing and using models may change student thinking. Data from student reflections and assessments within a particular unit were gathered and compared to teacher data (field notes and analysis of assessments), looking at the same constructs. Both findings from the literature review and my study suggest that students develop deeper understanding of science concepts through the effective use of models. As students developed and used models, they further developed their scientific practices and change of thinking regarding phase changes, as identified in The Framework and NGSS. iii Acknowledgments From a young age, I have always been described as a dreamer. I truly cannot think of a day where I was not planning my next adventure or setting a new goal. It would be an understatement to say how ecstatic I am to accomplish my goal of earning a master’s degree! To come to this moment would not have been possible without a countless number of individuals. My words of gratitude are only a small token of my unconditional appreciation for each of those who have helped me be successful. • Thank you to my committee chair, Ana Houseal, for all of the hours she spent editing my work, guiding me through the research, and encouragement. • Thank you to my committee members, Jay Norton and Eric Teman, for their feedback and support. • I am grateful the University of Wyoming offers such a stellar program. Go Cowboys! • Thanks to my family and friends for your love, support, and playful humor to keep me smiling. • A special thank you to my grandparents, Paul and Janet. I am beyond blessed to have had such a special bond with the both of you. • To my husband, Dennis, for cheering me on every step of the way. I cannot believe how lucky I am to be his wife! • Lastly, to my mom, for her continuous love, support, and encouragement. Words cannot express the influence and inspiration you bring to me each and every day! iv Table of Contents Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………..………...1 Background ………………………………………………………………………............1 Statement of Problem ……………………………………………………………..….…..3 Purpose ………………………………………………………………………….….…….4 Research Question ……………………………………………………………….….……4 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………….5 History of Science Education.…………………………………….………………….…...5 The Framework and NGSS ………………………………………………………………7 Models ………………………………………………………………..…………………12 Diversity and Equity ……………………………………………………………….........15 Action Research……………………………………………………………….................16 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY ………………………………………………………………...18 Setting and Population ………………………………………………………………......18 Participants and Consent ………………………………………………………………...19 Instruments ………………………………………………………………..……………..19 Instructional Sequence……………………………………………………………….......23 Data Collection ……………………………………………………………….................25 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………....................28 Chapter 4 RESULTS ………………………………………………………………..................29 Findings ………………………………………………………………..………………..29 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………............36 Summary ………………………………………………………………...........................36 Discussion, Implications, and Limitations ………………………………………………36 Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………………………39 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………........................40 References ………………………………………………………………....................................41 v List of Tables Table Page 1 Summary of Instructional Focus and Time Spent During the Study…………….…....27 2 Pre-Assessment Results……………………………………………………………….30 3 Post-Assessment Results…………………………………………………………....…31 4 Modeling Activity Data……………………………………………………….……….33 5 Misconceptions Identified……………………………………………………………..35 vi List of Figures Figure Page 1 A Model of the Three Dimensions of Science Learning………….…...……….8 2 Disciplinary Bridging Concepts……………………………….……..………..10 3 Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs)……………………………………..…………11 4 District Assessment……………………………………………………....……20 5 Blank Student Model………………………………………….………..………21 6 Modeling Activity Rubric………………………………………….…………..22 7 Individual Reflection Prompts…………………………………..…….………..23 8 Revision Sentence Frames……………………….…………………..…………25 9 Pre- and Post- Assessment Percentage Change………………………...………32 10 Overall Student Growth………………………………………………….……..34 vii Chapter 1 Background The 21st century economy of the United States depends heavily on science and engineering education. As reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) careers are vital to the growth and stability of the economy in the United States (Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan, & Doms, 2011). Individuals in STEM fields not only play a significant role in the US economy, but also earn more than those in other fields. In 2015, 93 percent of STEM occupations had wages above the national average. Overall, STEM wages vary but in 2015, the national average wage for STEM occupations was $87,570 (Fayer, Lacey, & Watson, 2017). In comparison with non-STEM occupations, which averaged at $45,700. Furthermore, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017) noted STEM-based occupations flourished by 10.5 percent from May 2009 to May 2015, whereas non-STEM occupations had a net growth of 5.2 percent. While this growth is noteworthy, governments throughout the world are predicting shortages of STEM workers. The call for more individuals in STEM fields occurred in 2010, when President Barack Obama stated a need for 10,000 new engineers each year and 100,000 STEM teachers by 2020. Other countries have echoed President Obama’s concerns. It has been argued that these shortages are due to deficiencies of literacy in STEM areas. To deal with the shortages and literacy deficiencies, it is of the utmost importance STEM literacy is taught from Kindergarten through high school, prior to students entering college or the workforce (Charette, 2013). Furthermore, engaging and cultivating passions in the young minds of students in STEM can develop the skills necessary for success in 21st century careers. 1 Science education in the U.S. has often revolved around the country’s needs. In the earlier stages of science education, a balancing act occurred in regard to what kind and how science was taught. Science was seen as a way to actively engage students in the natural world, independently reason, and draw conclusions, and as a means to prepare students for the issues they would face in society (DeBoer, 2000). For much of the 20th century, science education was a blend of content, practice, and how this understanding impacted society (DeBoer, 2000). Yet, due to rapid advances in science and technology, in addition to low scores of U.S. students in science in comparison to their international counterparts, there was a call to change science education. Thus in 2011, A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), hereafter referred to as The Framework, was developed to address the necessary revisions and use the research on standards-based education. The Framework was designed to combat the “need for science and engineering professionals to keep the United States competitive in the international arena” (NRC, 2012, p. 7). Two main goals were recognized by the committee: “(1) educating all students in science and engineering and (2) providing the foundational knowledge for those who will become the scientists, engineers, technologists, and technicians of the future” (NRC, 2012, p. 10). Additionally, The Framework, intentionally integrated science content and practice with engineering design, due to how closely interconnected the two are (NRC, 2012). Using The Framework as a structure, Achieve Incorporated, a bipartisan group of elected officials and business leaders, led a two-year effort to develop the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The public and a panel of experts reviewed several drafts prior to their final release in April 2013. As of January 2019, 19 states adopted 2 NGSS and 21 states have adopted NGSS-based standards (NSTA, 2019). These standards use the three dimensions from The Framework: (a) Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs), (b) Cross- Cutting Concepts (CCCs), and (c) Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). Each dimension of the standards is used concurrently with one another to ensure each student has the opportunity to gain experience with developing science knowledge and accompanying twenty-first century skills. Statement of Problem Scientific models are used in science classrooms as a tool for students to represent understanding of a system or phenomena. As educators implement the use of models, a number of questions may arise: How should models be used efficiently in the classroom? “What counts as a model? Are the models scientists use different from the ones my students should be developing?” (Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2017, p. 115). Prior to The Framework and NGSS, the term “model” became muddied through differences of the term based on its colloquial use, use in other disciples, and prior educational reforms (NRC, 2012, Krist & Reiser, 2014). Because of such, models used in the classroom were not as effective as hoped. Thus, the practice of developing and using models was incorporated by The Framework and NGSS. To align with The Framework and NGSS, the shift of models in K-12 science curriculum must be carefully designed around the substance and structure of content. By doing this it has the potential to further the level of student comprehension and engage in knowledge-building practices (Lehrer & Schauble, 2006; Rosenburg, Hammer, & Phelan, 2006; Schwarz et al., 2009). 3 Purpose The purpose of this research was to identify ways the Science and Engineering Practice, developing and using models, supported the changes in thinking about phase changes. This project was created based on the work of Mark Windschitl, Jessica Thompson, and Melissa Braaten (2017) and their work around “Making Thinking Visible Through Models”, which directly built upon the NGSS philosophy of “NGSS All Standards, All Students” (NGSS, 2013). The idea of “Making Thinking Visible Through Models” is to provide students an explicit opportunity to build and share knowledge about a phenomenon over time; exhibiting changes in thinking over time. To engage students in the process of modeling complex phenomena, such as “How Did My Homework Get Ruined?”, six principles are used: “(1) represent an event or process, (2) select a context-rich phenomenon, (3) make models pictorial, (4) include both observable and unobservable features, (5) include conditions before, during, and after the event, (6) make models revisable” (Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2017, pp. 118- 124). Students developed, used, and revised their models. Following the lessons, students finalized their models based on evidence from the class activities. Accompanied by a self- reflection which students were able to describe how developing and using models supported the changes in their thinking. Research Question The project’s objective was to examine my practice to see if developing and using models provided all students with an engaging, rigorous learning opportunity. In addition to, how my practice changed with the effective use of developing and using models. The research question that guided this project was: What are some of the ways that developing and using models (that 4 students and the teacher identify) support changes in student thinking about a particular science concept? Chapter 2: Literature Review History of Science Education In the 19th century, science became part of the United States’ (U.S.) education curriculum. Yet, this was in an era where education was predominately humanity-based. Hence, the introduction of the sciences had to be done in a delicate manner, to ensure public approval. To convey the necessity of this curriculum, scientists brought forth its “practical importance in a world that was becoming dominated by science and technology”. Furthermore, it was important for learning the “inductive process of observing the natural world and drawing conclusions from it” (DeBoer, 2000, p. 583). Until the mid-1900s, science education revolved around creating a balance between scientific thinking and making the subject relevant and intellectual (National Society for the Study of Education, 1932). However, subsequent to World War II, this balancing act came to a halt as new challenges surfaced. There was a new need to further the United States’ national defense, through the expansion of scientific studies. For this reason, a major movement in science education took place (National Society for the Study of Education, 1947; President’s Scientific Research Board, 1947, Vol. 1). With the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957, science education got a boost in public education for the next couple of decades. The deceleration of the space race in the 1970s and 1980s, compelled the Department of Education in the U.S. to move the focus of science education back to the role it played in society (DeBoer, 2000). However, to become a key player 5 in international assessments (e.g., Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS]) and keep the pace in global markets (Schmidt, 2003; National Research Council, 1996), science, as helping the U.S. in global competition, reappeared. The turning point for this was in part due to the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983). This report presented arguments regarding a lack of academic standards in the United States, which were evidenced by the significantly lower standardized test scores of U.S. students, particularly in the areas of mathematics and science. A decline in the nation’s economic position was correlated with these insufficiencies. To solve the problem, the solution was to, “create a more rigorous academic curriculum” which “would be accompanied by higher standards for all students and new means of assessment and accountability” (DeBoer, 2000, p. 589). A push for cohesive, in- depth science practices was vital because of this, and due to the astounding growth in both science and technology (Noonan, 2017). Thus, the science education reform of the 1990s was standards-based, which pushed for the blending of science content, literacy, and role in society. Unlike previous reform efforts in science education, this push for increased science content and cohesive, in-depth science practices has remained prevalent up into the current efforts. The need has been felt because of tremendous changes in science and technology. In 2011, A Framework for K-12 Science Education, (The Framework) (NRC, 2012) was proposed and developed to address the critical issues surrounding the lack of quality science education in the rapidly changing twenty first century, U.S. competitiveness, and inadequate workforce (NRC, 2012). 6 The Framework and NGSS Development. Achieve, a bipartisan group of governors and business leaders, headed by the National Academy of Sciences, developed The Framework. It identifies “what students need to know and be able to do to be a functional citizen, which includes being scientifically literate and an effective member of the US workforce” (NRC, 2013). With The Framework as a basis, Achieve, in partnership with twenty-six states and forty writers, developed science standards, which were focused on increasing the rigor within science education for K-12 students. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which served to extend upon previous reforms and standards, were released in April 2013. These new standards focus on student- centered learning. The authors felt that they were written in such a way that they would enable students to think critically and independently, solve complex problems, and collaborate. In addition, they were rich in content and practice (NGSS Lead States, 2013). According to Achieve (2013), these standards proposed multiple performance expectations (PEs) for each grade level from K-5 and grade bands in Middle and High School. The PEs represent what each student should be able to do by the end of instruction of that standard. For instance, the performance expectation MS-PS1-4 [read: Middle School – Physical Science Standard 1-4]: “Develop a model that predicts and describes changes in particle motion, temperature, and state of a pure substance, when thermal energy is added or removed.” is designed to demonstrate students’ comprehension of the movement of particles in states of matter (solid, liquid, or gas) and during phase changes (melting, freezing, condensing, and evaporating) (Achieve, 2013; Utah State Office of Education, 2015). This physical science performance expectation of the standard incorporates the developing and using models Science and Engineering Practice (SEP). To demonstrate their 7 understanding, students should be able to develop and use a model to describe the phenomena observed with the arrangement of particles in the state of matter and the movement of particles through phase changes. In this way, models are used as tools, which can be used to facilitate conceptual understanding (Martin, 2001, 2007). Within each PE, three dimensions are concurrently integrated into the students’ learning: Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs), Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), and Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). Figure 1 highlights the intersection and importance of the three dimensions. Figure 1. A Model of the Three Dimensions of Science Learning (Houseal, 2015, pp. 58-62) SEPs. An issue in science education has been that there is uncertainty if there should be an emphasis on content knowledge or scientific practices. Research in the early 2000s led to understand that creating too narrow of a focus can cause misconceptions, isolated thinking, and 8 vague ideas regarding scientific inquiry (NRC, 2012). For this reason, the Framework developers specifically used the term “practices” to bring both emphases together simultaneously. Furthermore, these practices are found in both science and engineering. The eight Scientific and Engineering Practices identified by The Framework (NRC, 2012) and the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013) are: 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (NRC, 2012, p. 42) CCCs. To further understand natural phenomenon, scientists use crosscutting concepts (CCCs) themes. There are many lenses to observe scientific concepts, and with the support of the CCCs, differing characteristics of the phenomenon can be revealed (Fick, 2017). The Framework (2012), identified the CCCs as: 1. Patterns 2. Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation 3. Scale, proportion, and quantity 4. Systems and system models 5. Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation 6. Structure and function 9 7. Stability and change Duschl (2012) discussed the similarities found in the NGSS crosscutting concepts and other science curriculum texts: National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), Science for all Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989), and the College Board Standards for Success (College Board, 2009). Yet, unlike the crosscutting concepts (Figure 2), the previously mentioned texts, did not fully integrate the multitude of connections that link scientific concepts and disciplines together (Fick, 2017). Figure 2 depicts the similarities acknowledged by Duschl. Figure 2. Disciplinary Bridging Concepts (Duschl, 2012). DCIs. Because of the amount of scientific information available in the twenty-first century, it is not feasible to teach all known content within each scientific discipline. To promote the idea of educating students beyond the memorization of facts, The Framework and NGSS talk about presenting limited, but sufficient knowledge of the core subjects that can create scientific literacy and producers of knowledge (NRC, 2012). The selection of the Disciplinary Core Ideas 10 (DCIs) was based on this. To be considered a core idea, the documents stated, two of the following criteria must be met: 1. Have broad importance across multiple sciences or engineering disciplines or be a key organizing principle of a single discipline. 2. Provide a key tool for understanding or investigating more complex ideas and solving problems. 3. Relate to the interests and life experiences of students or be connected to societal or personal concerns that require scientific or technological knowledge. 4. Be teachable or learnable over multiple grades at increasing levels of depth and sophistication. That is, the idea can be made accessible to younger students but is broad enough to sustain continued investigation over years. (NRC, 2012, p.31). Figure 3 illustrates the DCIs from The Framework. Figure 3. Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs) (NRC, 2012, p. 3) 11 The disciplinary core ideas are built on a developmental progression, where specific outcomes are detailed from K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 (NRC, 2012). Models Educators commonly use hands-on investigations and labs in their classrooms. Yet, a disconnect for students often occurs within these activities due to a lack of connection between the concept and larger content knowledge. Consequently, students are taught the skills necessary for the task at hand. But, because of this disconnect, they do not learn the science fully. “In other words, they gain neither content understanding nor a justification for doing the ‘steps’ in the first place” (Krist & Reiser, 2014, p. 1). Thus, the NGSS incorporate the practice developing and using models. The use of scientific models, when carefully designed around the substance and structure of content, can further the level of student comprehension while engaging in this knowledge-building practice (Lehrer & Schauble, 2006; Rosenburg, Hammer, & Phelan, 2006; Schwarz et al., 2009). According to the Framework (2012), there are two types of models: mental and conceptual. Mental models are derived from personal experiences and social discourse. They are used to create predictions and inferences regarding phenomena (Dankenbring & Capobianco, 2015; Franco & Colinvaux, 2000). For example, students create mental models about the changes of the seasons due to Sun-Earth interactions. With their mental models, students may believe the seasons are caused by an exaggerated elliptical orbit of Earth. Because of this misconception, students will likely infer the Earth’s distance from the sun results in four distinct seasons. The external manifestations of mental models are conceptual models (NRC, 2012). Conceptual models are defined as a representation of the properties or relationships within a 12 concept or process (Churchill, 2013; Churchill, King, & Fox, 2013). Because conceptual models are based on representations, certain aspects of the concept being modeled may be emphasized or eliminated. Without an understanding of the selection of the emphasized pieces, students may again develop misconceptions. In science, both mental and conceptual models facilitate an understanding of the natural world. By concentrating on central features to explain and predict phenomenon, scientific models are representations which conceptualize and simplify a system (Schwarz, et al. 2009). The Carbon Cycle model, a food web depicting interactions among organisms in an ecosystem, and the Bohr model of the atom are examples of scientific models. A scientific model consists of “elements, relations, operations, and rules governing interactions that are expressing using external notation systems” (Lesh & Doerr, 2003). Therefore, a model provides an explanation for why the phenomenon occurs in the manner it does and potentially generate new predictions. It is vital to note that not all representations, including 3D replicas, are models. “Models are specialized representations that embody aspects of mechanism, causality, or function to illustrate, explain, and predict phenomena” (Schwarz, et al. 2009). In other words, to be a scientific model, it must contain or demonstrate a process that goes beyond a simple representation. The use of these types of models is an important component of the SEPs and CCCs (there is reference to scientific modeling in both dimensions) because of their use in understanding core concepts and scientific skills (NRC, 2012). Thus, through the teaching of the development and use of models, students learn to foster an understanding for concepts and processes of science and become more scientifically literate. The scientific skills (development of scientific thinking, inquiry, and literacy) students gain from the creation of models range from “enacting and describing diagrammatic models as 13 displays of ideas to describing and enacting models as tools for working out ideas” (Krist & Reiser, 2014, p. 3; NRC, 2012). In this way, models need not be used only at the end of a unit to depict an overall concept but rather used throughout the unit to facilitate sense-making. As students develop their models, they can use them to communicate, experiment, revise, and make new predictions as new content is encountered (NRC, 2012; NRC, 2007; Coll, France, & Taylor, 2005). A student’s ability to reason through critiquing, evaluating, and analyzing are furthered through modeling (Schwarz, et al. 2009; Kenyon, Schwarz, & Hug, 2008). From the initial science education reforms, these skills have been identified as important because they create relevance, intellectual thinking, and in-depth science practices. To gain these skills, it is imperative that higher-level thinking skills and how to create and interpret models is done so with the proper guidance and instruction (Krist & Reiser, 2014; Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber, 2007), Furthermore, the active engagement that models bring into the classroom coincides with increased conceptual understanding and scientific literacy (NRC, 2007; NRC, 2012). Diversity and Equity The Framework and NGSS have furthered science reform by depicting what science is and who does science. In this way, science learning is being redefined to address diversity and equity. In the early 1900s, science was viewed as a subject for elite students, potentially those that would enter science-based fields. After Sputnik, the previous viewpoints evolved. The National Science Foundation and other organizations developed programs which focused on scientific literacy for all students. Yet, due to lack of understanding by educators and the decline of science instruction at the elementary level (Blank, 2013), the focus diminished, until the 14 advent of the Framework and NGSS. These documents uphold the viewpoint that both “men and women from different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds work as scientists and engineers (NGSS Appendix H, 2013, p. 6). To ensure that each student has access to academically rigorous science, in 2011 a group of 40 professionals formed the NGSS Diversity and Equity Team. This group was comprised of experts in Kindergarten through 12th grade science, students with disabilities, English language acquisition, state level standards/assessments, and workforce development specialists. The team’s work revolved around the philosophy “NGSS All Standards, All Students.” Because of the diversity of US students, the Diversity and Equity Team created four federally designated groups, to encompass “all students”; (a) economically disadvantaged students, (b) students from major racial and ethnic groups, (c) students with disabilities, and (d) students with limited English proficiency (NGSS as cited by Januszyk, Miller, & Lee, 2016). Each of these groups, along with others who did not fit within these categories, are required to have access to subject matter that would allow them to become “college and career ready and take part in the global community” (Januszyk, et al. 2016, p. 47). Aspects of equity are woven throughout the performance expectations and the three dimensions of learning – science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas; which explain scientific phenomena and the designing of solutions to problems (NRC, 2012; NGSS, 2013; Lee, Miller, & Januszyk, 2014). A newer, more predominant role of engineering is purported to deepening the level of student comprehension (Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002). This occurs as students design solutions for local problems, creating a bridge between content material and their lives. These contexts include restoration of habitats and alternative energy sources, among others (Januszyk, et al. 2016). 15 Going beyond the older definition of “scientific inquiry” (NRC, 1996), to achieve the PEs of the NGSS, students are required to focus on both science and engineering practices. This more in-depth, language-intensive approach also requires teaching to go beyond the traditional cookbook labs. For this reason, a higher level of discourse is vital for students with limited literacy development (Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). Research has demonstrated that when students are given the proper amounts of support, “all students can comprehend [receptive language functions] and communicate [productive language functions] their science ideas” (NGSS Appendix D, 2013, p. 6). In this way, the science classroom can become an environment which encourages rigor and rich discourse. In the NGSS, the CCCs are precise in connecting core ideas and other science disciplines. Many view the CCCs as the knowledge that goes beyond the basics and would be found in honors or advanced classes. Yet, because the CCCs are explicitly prevalent throughout, it is conceivable that all students will be able to make scientific connections (Januszyk, et al. 2016). Action Research To further effective and purposeful changes in science education, the use of research in the classroom is vital. Action research is a common research technique that encompasses research with actions based on scientific theory. The term “action research” was conceived in 1946 by the German social and experimental psychologist, Lewin. Lewin, a founder of the Gestalt School, was concerned with social problems and focused on the group processes of participants in organizations by addressing confrontation, crises, and diversity (O’Brien, 1998). McNiff (2016) suggested action research as a ‘form of dialogue’, which allows practitioners (educators, administrators, and supervisors) to make choices for improvement of practice. Research that produces only books is not enough, rather it should lead to social action. 16 This social action is to be composed of a circular motion of creation, action, and examination of the results of the action (Lewin, 1946). Because of this, action research can take on various forms (e.g., addressing the social problems that constrain and repress students in the classroom, through the implementation of research-based practices). “Teachers have not only carried out development work for their schools but have also broadened their knowledge and their professional competency” (Altrichter, Feldman, Posch, & Somekh, 2013, p. 6). Through action research, educators are encouraged to be metacognitive, and reflect on their teaching practices, the effects on each student, and the role of teaching in democratic societies (Adler, 2003). Thus, action research can increase the quality of professional practice by allowing the practice of the researcher to be reflected upon. In 1996 (O’Brien, 1998), Richard Winter devised six ethical principles researchers should consider when conducting action research. They are: 1. Make sure that the relevant persons, committees and authorities have been consulted, and that the principles guiding the work are accepted in advance by all. 2. All participants must be allowed to influence the work, and the wishes of those who do not wish to participate must be respected. 3. The development of work must remain visible and open to suggestions from others. 4. Permission must be obtained before making observations or examining documents produced for other purposes. 5. Descriptions of others’ work and points of view must be negotiated with those concerned before being published. 6. The researcher must accept responsibility for maintaining confidentiality. 17 With these principles in place, promotion of research ethics and norms takes place. Action research does have some disadvantages. Rapoport (1970) brought up three issues: “First, it begs the ethical/value issues involved in action research; second, it does not attend to the social scientist’s interest in the research but only the client’s; and third, it locates initiatives too exclusively with the client” (p. 499). Despite these disadvantages, action research in education, and this study, has the ability to create social change. This social change will allow me to be in charge of my craft, foster a connection between new ideas and practices, and promote professional metacognition (Hensen, 1996). Chapter 3: Methodology This action research study was designed to observe specific learning opportunities in my classroom, with a focus on exploring how they might make science more accessible for all students. The lenses of three-dimensional scientific learning and a specific Science and Engineering practice (SEP) developing and using models were used to frame the research. Recall that the question used to guide the research was: What are some of the ways that developing and using models (that students and the teacher identify) support changes in student thinking about a particular science concept? Setting and Population This study was conducted in five, self-contained sixth grade integrated science classes in a district located in a suburb community with a population of approximately 34,000 in an inter- mountain West U.S. state. The grade 6-8 middle school in this district had 912 students, 308 of whom were in the sixth grade. The district’s population was characterized by the following 18 demographics: free and reduced lunch (19.7%); special education (9.7%); English Language Learners (3.2%); non-Caucasian (23.4%). Participants and Consent The sixth-grade classes in this study, which were taught by the Responsible Project Investigator (RPI), consisted of 153 students, 91 males and 62 females who ranged in age from 11 to 12 years old. Instruction was provided to all students; yet, not all students participated in the study based on parent/guardian consent and student assent. Prior to the study, consent forms were sent to the parents/guardians of each student through email. A physical copy was also provided. Out of the 153 students, 95 students turned in approved forms prior to the start of the study. Data were not used from students who did not turn in the necessary forms prior to the study and/or missed more than 75% of instructional time. Ninety students participated in the study. Instruments The instruments used for this study were (a) a district-mandated pre- and post- assessment, (b) blank student model, (c) individual reflection prompts, (d) modeling activity rubric, and (e) teacher field notes. District assessment. The district-mandated pre-and post-assessment data contained the same questions. These questions were used to assess student understanding of the particle nature of matter as it goes through phase changes. Multiple choice questions were used on the online assessment. Students watched a short video clip demonstrating the expansion of molecules when heat was added, then answered questions regarding what was occurring during the video clip. The four questions following the clip had students analyze graphics pertaining to the various states of matter during phase changes (see Figure 4). 19 Figure 4. District Assessment Student model. Each student was given a blank model (see Figure 5). Basic components of the model (i.e. glass of ice water) were added prior to students developing their individual models, so that students could focus on content rather than illustrative details. 20 Figure 5. Blank Student Model Rubric. A rubric was developed by the RPI to analyze student work on the modeling activity and gapless explanation. Using the standards as a baseline (level 3 – “Meets the Standard”), the rubric was developed. The rubric, as seen in Figure 6, allowed students to observe the necessary aspects for the model/gapless explanation and at what level their work was at. 21 Name ______________________ “How Did My Homework Get Ruined?” Model Rubric Scoring Rubric 4 – Exceeds the Standard 3 – Meets the 2 – Approaches the 1 – Below the Standard Standard Standard Explanation of Particle Student is able to Student is able to Student is able to Student is not able to Movement demonstrate AND explain demonstrate AND explain demonstrate or explain demonstrate or explain the motion of particles in the motion of particles in the motion of particles in the motion of particles in the three states of matter the three states of matter two states of matter differing states of matter and the energy levels Explanation of State of Student is able to Student is able to Student is able to Student is not able to Matter demonstrate AND explain demonstrate AND explain demonstrate or explain demonstrate or explain the state of matter in 5+ the state of matter in 3-4 the state of matter in 1-2 the state of matter in the areas of the scenario areas of the scenario areas of the scenario scenario Explanation of Phase Student is able to Student is able to Student is able to Student is able to Changes demonstrate AND explain demonstrate AND explain demonstrate or explain demonstrate or explain the 3-4 changes the 3-4 changes the 2-3 changes the 1 change (condensation, (condensation, (condensation, (condensation, evaporation, etc.) evaporation, etc.) evaporation, etc.) evaporation, etc.) occurring in the scenario occurring in the scenario occurring in the scenario occurring in the scenario/ and apply it to a different Student is not able to scenario explain phase changes in the scenario Apply and Connect Student is able to clearly Student is able to apply Student is able to Student is not able to Resources apply and connect what and connect some minimally apply and clearly apply and connect materials/class activities materials/class activities connect what what materials/class they used to revise their they used to revise their materials/class activities activities they used to model (5+ model (5+ they used to revise their revise their model (1-2 materials/activities) and materials/activities) model (3-4 materials/activities) includes connections not materials/activities) discussed in class Reflection Student was able to Student was able to Student was able to Student was not able to identify their initial identify their initial identify their initial identify their initial and/or thinking and new thinking thinking and new thinking and new new thinking regarding and make a clear thinking. Students used thinking. this concept. connection to how they specific examples from gained the new inside the classroom to knowledge. Students do this. used specific examples from inside or outside of the classroom to do this. Figure 6. Modeling Activity Rubric Instructor field notes. Throughout the study, teacher fields notes were recorded regarding individual student learning and the changing of perception about the scientific concept. For example, when students created their initial model, the teacher took notes about the misconceptions that were revealed. As time progressed, the field notes, along with the student models indicated the new knowledge learned and the evidence used to overcome the misconception. The field notes were analyzed each day, subsequent to the completion of student activities. Field notes and student work were compared for similarities and any discrepancies. Similarities were noticed in regard to the progression of student learning and the areas where students needed additional scaffolds. A discrepancy occurred when the field notes indicated inconsistencies with the observed ability of students, in comparison to the concrete data found on the model revisions. 22 Student reflective prompts. Students completed a self-reflection. The self-reflection provided students with the opportunity to display how their thinking changed over the course of the study. The prompts focused students’ attention on what they previously thought and were able to do, and how various classroom activities changed their thinking (Figure 7). Student Reflection Congratulations, you’ve just completed ‘States of Matter’! Now that you’re done, please think back to the beginning of the unit and think about what you’ve learned and how you’ve learned it. Fill in the blanks of the following prompt: I used to think ________________________________. Now I know __________________________ __________________. I think this because _____________________________________________. I couldn’t do ______________________________. before, but now I can ______________________ __________________________. I learned this from ______________________________________. The most important thing I learned was _________________________________________________. The trickiest part for me to understand now is ____________________________________________. Figure 7. Individual Reflection Prompts Instructional Sequence Due to the nature of NGSS-based models, timing in the school year, and the depth of knowledge 6th grade students have, the study was used during a portion of the “Matter and Energy” unit. In the earlier phases of preparation for the study, I (the RPI) observed how students could develop and use models appropriately in the unit. The “How Did My Homework Get Ruined?” model was created for students to answer the overall question and how it relates to phase change phenomenon. To gain better understanding of the process students would be going through, I went through the modeling activity and gapless explanation myself. An initial model was created to explain how placing a glass of ice water on a sheet of homework can ruin it. Then, followed by research, revisions took place. Subsequent to the research and revisions, I developed a gapless explanation. A gapless explanation is an explanation of scientific phenomenon that was 23 thorough and included all of the concepts that I wanted the students to have by the end of the unit. Both the model and gapless explanation build on one another to answer, “How Did My Homework Get Ruined?” Through using the previous process, the modeling activity/gapless explanation rubric and student self-reflection sheet were created. Initially, students completed a pre-assessment to measure their current level of understanding of particle phase changes. Following the pre-assessment, students developed their initial model to answer the question “How Did My Homework Get Ruined?” The initial model was a way for students to present their current level of understanding in both illustrations and text. As students finished their initial model, the modeling activity rubric was handed out and discussed, allowing students to understand the expectations of the final model. Students participated in numerous labs/activities about the movement of molecules and started into phase changes on days two through six. On day seven, the class came together and created a “Bringing it All Together” table to support model revisions and answer the question “How Did My Homework Get Ruined?”. The table asked: (a) What did we do?, (b) What did we learn?, (c) How does this help answer the question?. Rather than erasing previous work on the models, students used color-coded sticky notes for revisions, allowing for the evolution of thought process to be evident. Students were provided with sentence frames to guide the revision process (see Figure 8). 24 Sentence Frame Sticky Note Color/Type of Revision I think ______________ supports my model Purple – Adding an Idea but it also tells me that ______________ should be added to make it more accurate. I think ______________ supports part of Light Blue – Revising an Idea my model, but I would like to change ______________ to make it more accurate. I think ______________ contradicts Yellow – Removing an Idea ______________ in my original model, and I need to remove or find out more about it. I still have questions about _____________. Teal – Posing a New Question Note: In the first blank, students use a class activity/lab for their evidence. Figure 8. Revision Sentence Frames As students revised their models, the color-coded sticky notes were placed over the portions revised. Students used one sticky note to write the sentence frame and another one of the same color to add in additional information. For instance, an illustration depicting the particle movement of a liquid. Subsequent to the model revisions, students participated in phase change and heat transfer activities/labs. On day thirteen, students completed the post-assessment, as well as adding to the “Bringing it All Together” table. The final day of the study consisted of students finalizing their models with the color-coded stickies, created a gapless explanation to answer how their homework got ruined, and completed a self-reflection. Data Collection This three-week study began with students participating in a “How Did My Homework Get Ruined?” modeling activity. The modeling activity was used to expose the students’ initial perceptions of the particle nature of matter. It was repeated throughout the unit to assess the progression of student understanding (Merritt, Krajcik, & Shwartz, 2008). Students revised their 25 model halfway through the unit and then for a third time, prior to the post-assessment. As a result of conceptual learning gained through readings, activities/labs, and discussions, student models were revised. Revisions of the student models were made using color-coded sticky notes to indicate the change of ideas; “adding an idea, revising an idea, removing an idea, and posing a new question” (Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2018, p. 136). The focus of the study was to understand how developing and using models supported the changes in students’ thinking about the particle nature of matter. To track student learning and changes in thinking over time, pre- and post-assessment data was calculated. Students completed individual reflection prompts on what they learned and how they learned it. Throughout the unit, the teacher completed field notes about the learning progression of each student. Student reflections and assessment data were compared to the teacher’s data, to compare the same constructs. 26 Table 1. Summary of Instructional Focus and Time Spent During the Study Day and Instructional Focus Time Spent Day 1 Pre-Assessment 15 minutes Develop Initial Model 30 minutes Discuss Rubric 5 minutes Day 2 Ice and Warm Water Mini Activities 50 minutes Day 3 Water in a Jar Activity 50 minutes Day 4 Molecules in Motion Lab 45 minutes Day 5 States of Matter Overview 40 minutes (Close Guided Reading, Interactive Notebook Worksheet) Day 6 Evaporation Lab 50 minutes Day 7 Bringing Information Together 15 minutes Discussion Model Revisions 35 minutes Day 8 Condensation Lab 50 minutes Day 9 Heat Energy Reading 20 minutes Freezing Lab 25 minutes Day 10 Melting Lab 40 minutes Day 11 Heat Energy Transfer Reading 30 minutes Energy Transfer Sorting Activity 15 minutes Day 12 Conduction Lab 50 minutes Day 13 Post-Assessment 20 minutes Bringing Information Together 15 minutes Discussion Day 14 Final Model Revisions 50 minutes Self-Reflection *Time spent on activities may have been different due to weekly schedule variations 27 Data Analysis To analyze the quantitative changes in student thinking over time, pre- and post- assessment data were calculated. Student scores were individually compared, then placed into the five groups based on the four groupings of created by the NGSS Diversity and Equity Team, in addition to gender. The groupings allowed for data analysis of each demographic and to gain insight as to the effectiveness of developing and using models for all students. The differing sets of quantitative data were compared overall and within each student grouping for further insight into the changes of student thinking over time. Teacher field notes were recorded by the RPI throughout the study. The field notes captured what occurred in student activities, if and how student thought-processes were evolving, and to identify any new or prior misconceptions. Following each student activity, I analyzed the field notes. Through the analysis, I was able to see if my notes matched the data from student activity sheets or discussions. For example, if I noticed students creating a connection between the movement of particles in differing phase changes and in their activity/notes the students furthered their connections with explanations and illustrations, I knew they were matching. Thus, by comparing the two, I could tell the students were making the connections I wanted them to. The student self-reflection was used to observe what students previously thought and were able to do, and how various classroom activities changed their thinking. Qualitative data collected from the self-reflections were analyzed as a whole based on the rubric and any reoccurring sets of data in terms of the evolution of student thinking, the activities (evidence) which changed their thinking processes, and the areas of uncertainty students were recorded. 28 Chapter 4: Results This chapter focuses on the findings from the study. The data from the pre- and post- assessment, modeling activity, and self-reflection will be individually presented. Findings Pre- and Post-Assessment Data were collected as a whole and from the five student groups (n=90) for the pre- assessment. As a group, the average score was 37% and the scores did not differ much from the separate groupings. Furthermore, based on the analysis, there were no differences among gender or students who were economically disadvantaged in comparison with those who were not. Students in Special Education did score higher than their regular education peers, as with underrepresented (racial or ethnic minority) students in comparison to their peers. Table 2 shows the pre-assessment results. 29 Table 2. Pre-Assessment Results Student Grouping (n) Average Score Overall (90) 4.85 Male (45) 4.85 Female (45) 4.85 Regular Education (83) 4.85 SPED (7) 4.91 ELL (3) 4.71 Non-ELL (87) 4.85 Economically Disadvantaged (15) 4,85 Not Economically Disadvantaged (75) 4.86 Underrepresented (20) 4.94 Peers (70) 4.86 Note: max score of 13 points At the end of the unit, students completed the post-assessment. As evident by the data, 91% of students were proficient (a score of 80% or higher) on the scientific concepts. There were no differences amongst males/females or regular education/SPED. However, there were notable differences between English Language Learners and non-ELL students, in addition to underrepresented students with their peers. Table 3 illustrates the post-assessment results. 30 Table 3. Post-Assessment Results Student Grouping (n) Average Score Overall (90) 11.76 Male (45) 11.75 Female (45) 11.76 Regular Education (83) 11.76 SPED (7) 11.75 ELL (3) 11.41 Non-ELL (87) 11.76 Economically Disadvantaged (15) 11.74 Not Economically Disadvantaged (75) 11.76 Underrepresented (20) 11.60 Peers (70) 11.76 Note: max score of 13 points The average score on the pre-assessment was 37%, whereas on the post-assessment it was 91%. Figure 9 shows the percentage change of each student grouping and how there were no differences. 31 Figure 9. Pre- and Post-Assessment Percentage Change 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pre Post Figure 9. Pre- and Post-Assessment Percentage Change Modeling Activity Throughout the study, students completed a modeling activity. Students developed an initial model at the beginning of the unit, prior to any activities or labs. The model was revised halfway through the unit, and again at the end. A rubric (see Figure 5) was used to assess student ability to explain particle movement, state of matter, and phase change, in addition to apply and connect resources and their self-reflection. When the study concluded, the modeling activity revealed 84% of students demonstrated a proficient understanding of the particle nature of matter through phase changes. As observed with the pre- and post-assessments, there were no large discrepancies between or within the groupings. Table 4 shows specific data from the modeling rubric. 32 Table 4. Modeling Activity Data Student Grouping (n) Average Score Overall (90) 16.63 Male (45) 16.57 Female (45) 16.63 Regular Education (83) 16.63 SPED (7) 16.62 ELL (3) 16.19 Non-ELL (87) 16.63 Economically Disadvantaged (15) 16.59 Not Economically Disadvantaged (75) 16.63 Underrepresented (20) 16.60 Peers (70) 16.63 Note: max score of 20 points Out of the five areas of measurement on the rubric, 92% of student participants in four areas were consistently in the 3 (“Meets the Standard”) to 4 (“Exceeds the Standard”) range. For students to receive a three, they must be able to master the standard or task. A score of four indicates the student has mastered the standard or task and has went above grade-level or standard requirements. The ‘Apply and Connect Resources’ portion of the activity proved to be a more arduous concept for participants in each of the student groupings. Scores for this portion of the rubric were: 3% “Exceeds the Standard”, 69% “Meets the Standard”, 11% “Approaches the Standard”, and 7% “Below the Standard”. While the difference was not significant, males had more difficulty in ‘Apply and Connect Resources’; 72% of females were at a level 3 or 4, in comparison with 68% of males. The second grouping where the difference was noticeable was regular education students in 33 comparison with students in Special Education; 50% of students in Special Education were at a level 1 or 2, there were no students in this grouping at a level 4, whereas 21% of regular education students at the same levels. In regard to overall student growth during the study, there are a couple of noteworthy pieces of data to observe. Overall, students’ scores went from 4.85 to 16.63. Also, students from each of the groupings had similar growth. Figure 10 highlights the overall growth. Figure 10. Overall Student Growth 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Before (Pre) After Figure 10. Overall Student Growth When observing the student reflection portion of the study, the teacher’s notes and student responses coincided. As students were developing their initial model, misconceptions were revealed (see Table 5). For example, many students, in each of the five student groupings, described the water seeping from the glass and then onto the homework. This notion caused students to limit their perception on the movement of molecules throughout phase changes. These misconceptions were noted in the teacher field notes during the development of the initial models and earlier student activities. Yet, as noted in the field notes, as students participated in different activities, the misconceptions lessened over time and were no longer evident as of the 34 final model revisions. With the progression of the unit and instruction, both the students and the teacher used this portion of the model as a reference point for further activities, lessons, and discussion. Table 5 illustrates misconceptions identified from the initial student model and teacher field notes. Table 5. Misconceptions Identified Misconception Number of Students Percentage of Students The movement/position of molecules 71 79% does not vary with phase changes. Evaporation and condensation are the 55 61% same process. Water seeped through the glass. 43 48% The water on the homework 26 29% disappeared. The melting water in the cup caused it to 3 3% spill over. Note: n=90 35 Chapter 5: Discussion Summary The purpose of the research was to build on the current research pertaining to the SEP of developing and using models in the Next Generation Science Standards, in addition to examine my practice with the use of the SEP. Furthermore, it implemented the modeling processes by Thompson, Windschitl, and Braaten (2018) of Ambitious Science Teaching to understand the ways that ‘Developing and Using Models’ (that students and the teacher identified) supported their changes in thinking about a particular science concept (phase changes). Discussion, Implications, and Limitations Challenges and Benefits. Krist and Reiser (2014), suggested that a disconnect occurs between classroom activities and the connection with the concept, and larger content knowledge. Without explicit acknowledgement, students cannot elaborate beyond the task at hand. A separation of scientific concepts arises; thus, students find difficulty in bringing together prior knowledge, the task at hand, and expanding to other disciples. This was apparent as students were asked to revise their initial models. Without the explicit instruction, students were unable to grasp how to bridge their prior knowledge with the new set of information provided. Students revised their models but had many questions on how to connect the concepts from the activities to their models. There were many similarities between the literature review and the findings from the action research. The literature illustrates the necessity of proper guidance and instruction for relevance, intellectual thinking and in-depth science practices (NRC, 2007; NRC, 2012). In this study, the modeling activity did help students work towards these skills. Yet, without necessary supports, students stumbled on taking the task at hand and further elaboration, causing them to 36 be frustrated. It can be challenging for students to not be fed the answer or participate in “check- your-answer activities” (Hammer & Elby, 2002). This was evident from the action research with the more advanced students. To think beyond a test question was daunting for them. Both males and females in this grouping wanted to go at a slower pace and frequently questioned if they were completing the task correctly. Whereas, students who were not advanced (based on current academic standards) were more open to making the revisions and taking risks. The differences between the two groups was not unexpected. Prior to this study, the RPI conducted a similar task as the students and felt high levels of frustration, uncertainty, and the need for reassurance. To have had the previous experience, the RPI used this personal experience to identify how each student might participate in the modeling activity and figure out which scaffolds might be important. To use developing and using model as envisioned by the Framework and the NGSS, three-dimensional and focused on particular practices, was challenging for students. Due to it being different from their usual experiences in science, students found difficulty with the revision process of the practice. Students were uncomfortable leaving the incorrect portions of the model and using the sticky notes to revise. It confused them as to why they could not just erase what was previously there with the new information. Another confusing aspect to the revisions was the addition of evidence from labs and activities. The students were unsure of why the citing of evidence was necessary if they were able to explain/illustrate the process from the labs or activities already. Each of the difficulties mentioned are the result of the role of science in society throughout the history of US education, in addition to limited science education at the elementary level. The district the action research took place in, was in the second year of using 37 NGSS-based standards at the middle school level. Science courses at the elementary and high school level have not adopted the new standards due to the district’s standard adoption process. Consequently, students coming into sixth grade are not equipped with the necessary science skills and to develop a model with evidence-based revisions is a daunting concept. Hence, the reason students had trouble connecting class activities with the tasks at hand and expanding to other disciplines and being open to revising and taking risks with the development of their model. The modeling activity used in this research was age appropriate, however because of the difficulties mentioned above, there was a need for continual, explicit instruction and scaffolding. The literature supports that with continual guidance and support, student learning is not fragmented (NRC, 2007; NRC, 2012 Schwarz, et al., 2009; Kenyon, Schwarz, & Hug, 2008). Therefore, by supporting students with these types of scaffolds, they can become more independent thinkers over time. In this study, students from each grouping benefitted from more direct instruction for how to do the model revisions, because it was taxing for them to complete the task independently. Once students were provided the framework and necessary aspects to the task at hand, students became more independent. This also matches the literature because in order to gain these higher-level thinking skills, it is essential that the proper guidance and instruction are in place (Krist & Reiser, 2014; NRC, 2007; NRC, 2012). Equity. Lastly, the research regarding academically rigorous science for all students was supported. Despite the limitations, students in each of the five groupings were at or above proficiency levels. Each student in the five classes had similar learning opportunities and experiences. Because of this, all students, as evident by the data were able to “comprehend [sic] 38 and communicate [sic] their science ideas”, which was encouraged through rigor and rich discourse (NGSS Appendix D, 2013, p. 6). Recommendations for Future Research A couple of questions arose during the project: Do misconceptions become further imbedded when asking students to create an initial model? The initial model allows students to gauge their level of understanding and help the educator find the level of knowledge of each individual. As stated by Tweed (2009), Once we know what ideas our students bring with them, then we can use our pedagogical content knowledge to know how best to present concepts, identify where students may go wrong in their thinking or have gaps in understanding, and determine effective methods to help our students engage meaningfully with their preconceptions and the science concepts (p. 53). Thus, when asking students to take a pre-assessment or create an initial model, the asking of questions should be examined to not further misunderstandings. Another question was: would the use of prewritten sentence starters on the revision sticky notes eased student anxiety or perfectionist-like tendencies? The development of models has the potential to play a significant role in the students’ skills of developing, constructing, experimenting, communicating, predicting, and describing scientific phenomenon (NRC, 2012; Churchill, 2013; Schwarz, et al., 2009; Kenyon, Schwarz & Hug, 2008). Yet, for some students in the study, uncertainty of the correct wording on the sticky notes occurred. Despite the best efforts of the RPI to reassure those students, some students still used more time than expected to perfect each sticky note. 39 Conclusion Based on the results of this action research, it can be concluded that the findings in the study do support the literature about developing and using models as a learning tool for all students. Sixth grade students often come to the secondary level with minimal science backgrounds, thus a limited skillset. Through the use of NGSS-based standards, all of the students in my study had access to rigorous, three-dimensional science learning. Because of such, the SEP developing and using models did promote higher level thinking and a 21st century skillset, as evident by the results of the pre-assessment to the modeling activity and post- assessment. 40 References Achieve, Inc., on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve, Inc. Adler, S.A. (2003). Dilemmas of action research. Action in teacher education, 25(1), 76-82. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blank, R. K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap? Science Education, 97, 830- 847. Charette, R.N. (2013). The STEM crisis is a myth. IEEE Spectrum, 50(9), 45-59. Churchill, D. (2013). Conceptual model design and learning uses. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(1), 54-67. Churchill, D., King, M., & Fox, B. (2013). Learning design for science education in the 21st century. Journal of the Institute for Educational Research, 45, 404–421. Coll, R. K., France, B. & Taylor, I. (2005) The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research, International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183-198. College Board (2009). College Board standards for success. New York, NY. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. Dankenbring, C., & Capobianco, B. M. (2015). Examining Elementary School Students’ Mental Models of Sun-Earth Relationships as a Result of Engaging in Engineering Design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 825-845. Duschl, R. A. (2012). The second dimension crosscutting concepts: Understanding a framework for K–12 science education. The Science Teacher, 79(2), 34–38. Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM occupations: past, present, and future. Retrieved from Bureau of Labor Statistics Website: https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology- engineering-and-mathematics- stem-occupations-past-present-a nd-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and- mathematics- stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf. 41 Fick, S. J. (2017). What does three-dimensional teaching and learning look like?: Examining the potential for crosscutting concepts to support the development of science knowledge. Science Education, 102(1), 5-35. Franco C., Colinvaux D. (2000) Grasping Mental Models. In: Gilbert J.K., Boulter C.J. (eds) Developing Models in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (4th ed., pp. 53-66). New York: Macmillan. Houseal, A. K. (2015). A visual representation of three-dimensional learning: A tool for evaluating curriculum. Science Scope, 39(1): 58-62 Januszyk, R., Miller, E. C., & Lee, O. (2016, April 1). Addressing Student Diversity and Equity: The Next Generation Science Standards Are Leading a New Wave of Reform. The Science Teacher. Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40-44. Krist, C., & Reiser, B.J. (2014). Scientific practices through the students’ eyes: How sixth grade students enact and describe purposes for scientific modeling activities over time. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Boulder CO. Lee, O., Miller, E. C., & Januszyk, R. (2014). Next Generation Science Standards: All Standards, All Students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 223-233. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and Language for English Language Learners in Relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with Implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (n.d.). Cultivating Model-Based Reasoning in Science Education. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 371-388. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Martin, A. (2001). Functional neuroimaging of semantic memory. In R. Cabeza & A. Kingstone (Eds.), Handbook of functional neuroimaging of cognition (pp. 153-186). Cambridge: MIT Press. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual review of psychology, 58, 25-45. 42 Merritt, J., Krajcik, J., & Shwartz, Y. (2008). Development of a learning progression for the particle model of matter. Paper presented at the BiAnnual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Michaels, S., Shouse, A.W., Schweingruber, H. A., National Research Council (U.S.). Board on Science Education, & ebrary, I. (2008). Ready, set, science: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academies Press. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (2015). Guide to implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Society for the Study of Education. (1932). A program for teaching science: Thirty‐first yearbook of the NSSE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. National Society for the Study of Education. (1947). Science education in American schools: Forty‐sixth yearbook of the NSSE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Noonan, R. (2017, March 30). Economics & Statistics Administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.gov/reports/stem-jobs-2017-update NSTA. (2019). About the Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx O’Brien, R. (1998). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto. President's Scientific Research Board. (1947). Science and public policy (vol. 1). Washington: Government Printing Office. Rapoport, R.N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research with special reference to the Tavistock experience. Human relations, 23(6), 499-513. Rodriguez, A.J., and C. Berryman. 2002. Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher’s journey. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4): 1017–1045. 43 Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. Tweed, A. (2009). Designing effective science instruction: What works in science classrooms. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Utah State Office of Education. (2015). Utah Science With Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards. Retrieved from https://schools.utah.gov/file/265a0b53-b6a7-48fb-b253- b6a5f38ffe19 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. J., & Braaten, M. L. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 44