To learn more, visit https://participatorysciences.org/conferences/caps-2025/.
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/spring.html.
To learn more, https://www.aapt.org/conferences/.
To learn more, visit https://www.aapt.org/Conferences/WM2025/index.cfm.
To learn more, visit https://meetings.aaas.org/.
Evaluation of plausible alternative explanations of scientific phenomena is an authentic scientific activity. Instructional scaffolding can facilitate students’ engagement in such evaluations by facilitating their reflections on how well various lines of scientific evidence support alternative explanations. In the present study, we examined two forms of such scaffolding, with one form providing more autonomy support than the other, to determine whether any differential effects existed between the two.
Evaluation of plausible alternative explanations of scientific phenomena is an authentic scientific activity. Instructional scaffolding can facilitate students’ engagement in such evaluations by facilitating their reflections on how well various lines of scientific evidence support alternative explanations. In the present study, we examined two forms of such scaffolding, with one form providing more autonomy support than the other, to determine whether any differential effects existed between the two.
Evaluation of plausible alternative explanations of scientific phenomena is an authentic scientific activity. Instructional scaffolding can facilitate students’ engagement in such evaluations by facilitating their reflections on how well various lines of scientific evidence support alternative explanations. In the present study, we examined two forms of such scaffolding, with one form providing more autonomy support than the other, to determine whether any differential effects existed between the two.
Evaluation of plausible alternative explanations of scientific phenomena is an authentic scientific activity. Instructional scaffolding can facilitate students’ engagement in such evaluations by facilitating their reflections on how well various lines of scientific evidence support alternative explanations. In the present study, we examined two forms of such scaffolding, with one form providing more autonomy support than the other, to determine whether any differential effects existed between the two.
Children who live in under-resourced communities and attend under-resourced schools deserve access to high-quality teachers and educational opportunities to support their success and well-being. This study emerged from a professional development (PD) for urban teachers working in such schools, to expand educational opportunities for elementary students through outdoor science teaching.
Children who live in under-resourced communities and attend under-resourced schools deserve access to high-quality teachers and educational opportunities to support their success and well-being. This study emerged from a professional development (PD) for urban teachers working in such schools, to expand educational opportunities for elementary students through outdoor science teaching.
From the experiential learning perspective, this study investigates middle and high school students (n = 1009) who used an online module to learn about wildfire hazards, risks, and impacts through computational simulations of wildfire phenomena. These students were taught by 18 teachers in urban, rural, and suburban schools across the United States. We analyzed students’ simulation behaviors captured in log files, responses to an assessment administered before and after the module, and demographic surveys, as well as teachers’ responses to a post-module implementation survey.
From the experiential learning perspective, this study investigates middle and high school students (n = 1009) who used an online module to learn about wildfire hazards, risks, and impacts through computational simulations of wildfire phenomena.
