Augmenting Primary and Secondary Education with Polymer Science

CC.C. EEE. III.... JJJ............. LL. MM. NN. OO.. loading. To add this web app to the home screen open the browser option menu and tap on Add to ho...
0 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Augmenting Primary and Secondary Education with Polymer Science and Engineering Rose K. Cersonsky,†,§ Leanna L. Foster,†,§ Taeyong Ahn,† Ryan J. Hall,† Harry L. van der Laan,† and Timothy F. Scott*,†,‡ †

Macromolecular Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Despite the prevalence of polymers in modern everyday life, there is little introduction to the topic in science education throughout primary or secondary schooling in the United States. Of the few states that do include polymer education, this is only found at the high school level, primarily in biology or chemistry. Over the past year, we have developed a graduate-studentrun outreach initiative aimed at providing young students with an understanding and appreciation of this class of materials through the interactive teaching of polymer science with audience-appropriate language. Our lessons are developed to align with the Michigan State Education Standards (Michigan is an NGSS Lead State Partner), such that each lesson can be adapted to the vocabulary of the classroom, even across different grade levels and school curricula. Most importantly, each of our lessons has multiple hands-on activities to reiterate and reinforce the concepts taught through active learning. In teaching our graduate student volunteer instructors to research and understand the vocabulary of their audience, we also hope to encourage these future educators toward active and perceptive science teaching, which has been demonstrated to afford greater short- and long-term lesson retention among students. This in effect provides two motivations for our program: (1) making polymers relatable to young students, thereby providing them a foundation prior to their introduction into the curriculum, and (2) teaching the next generation of educators in polymer science how to communicate effectively with their classes. Our program has proven successful in its starting years, and herein we detail the pedagogy and evaluation of the initiative. KEYWORDS: General Public, Elementary/Middle School Science, High School/Introductory Chemistry, Graduate Education/Research, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives

■

INTRODUCTION Polymers, large and often chainlike molecules, are essential components of many aspects of everyday life, from the materials found in car tires and shampoo bottles to the proteins and nucleic acids in cells; therefore, it is difficult to go a day without interacting with some form of polymeric material. Nevertheless, despite this prevalence of polymers, there is little introductory polymer education in primary and secondary schooling in the United States. A survey of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a collaborative effort between several U.S. federal agencies and 26 states, reveals no instances of the word “polymer”, one instance of “plastic” as an example of a transparent material, and one instance of “macromolecule”, used in the context of biomolecules such as carbohydrates, lipids, DNA, or RNA but not as its own separate topic. Indeed, the science standards of only nine U.S. states explicitly mention the word “polymers”, and among these, only one introduces “polymers” within primary (eighth grade) rather than secondary education (see Figure 1).1−33 Moreover, on the basis of the U.S.-based Praxis teacher certification testing standards,34,35 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

polymers are often absent from the education requirements of most primary and secondary education science teachers. In order to better promote general polymer education, polymerrelated teaching content must be made more accessible to these K−12 science educators to supplement existing curricula. In order to address this need, graduate students associated with the University of Michigan’s Macromolecular Science and Engineering Program have developed teaching modules to improve the accessibility of polymer education material. A polymer-focused outreach program was launched to provide teachers and classrooms with free polymer lessons presented by our volunteers, complete with materials. Because of their adaptable language and subject emphasis, these modules enable polymer topics to be taught at grades 1−12 to reinforce and build on state science standards. Special Issue: Polymer Concepts across the Curriculum Received: November 5, 2016 Revised: June 2, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Box 1. NextGen Science Standards Addressed in This Program 2-PS1-1 Plan and conduct an investigation to describe and classify different kinds of materials by their observable properties. 2-PS1-2 Analyze data obtained from testing different materials to determine which materials have the properties that are best suited for an intended purpose. 5-PS1-1 Develop a model to describe that matter is made of particles too small to be seen. 5-PS1-3 Make observations and measurements to identify materials based on their properties. MS-PS1-1 Develop models to describe the atomic composition of simple molecules and extended structures. MS-PS1-3 Gather and make sense of information to describe that synthetic materials come from natural resources and impact society. HS-LS1-1 Construct an explanation based on evidence for how the structure of DNA determines the structure of proteins which carry out the essential functions of life through systems of specialized cells. HS-ETS1-3 Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and trade-offs that account for a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics, as well as possible social, cultural, and environmental impacts.

Figure 1. Occurrence of the word “polymer” or like terms in state science education standards. States are colored by the earliest grade level that introduces polymers into the curriculum. Of those without polymers explicitly mentioned, 25 state standards adhere to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).32 California is the only state that introduces polymers before high school, and although they subscribe to the NGSS, they additionally implement state-specific standards.8

A goal of these lessons is to introduce students to polymers as a possible field of study as well as to promote favorable attitudes toward science. In order to accomplish this, each module was designed to employ active learning techniques that are universally applicable across all age ranges.36 Such techniques have been shown to promote student interest in a subject for further learning as well as to improve long-term retention.37,38 Because students’ classroom experiences with science have a strong influence on their attitude toward science,39 these lessons utilize the existing classroom context to present science in a new way, both by introducing novel subject matter and by enlisting scientists and engineers as nontraditional instructors. This exposure to a diversity of STEM professionals is critical to encourage interest and favorable attitudes toward STEM careers.40 Herein we describe the content, implementation, and feedback from the primary educators and volunteer instructors on the success of these lesson modules. Additionally, we detail three lesson modules that can be tailored to multiple grades, ranging from primary to secondary level, to promote polymer education and serve as models for future programs.

levels, such as atoms, covalent/ionic/metallic bonds, insulator/ conductor, and ductile/brittle. Students are encouraged to investigate these properties through tactile observations and strength testing. By incorporation of upper-level language, this module can be adapted through middle school grades by modifying the lesson to emphasize the relationship between bonding type and physical properties. Activities and Takeaways. All of the activities in this module revolve around understanding the different mechanical properties of classes of materials, specifically the distinction between “ductility” and “brittleness”. Activities for this lesson are listed in Box 2. Adapting the Lesson across Multiple Grade Levels. This module is suitable for grade levels 1−9 and can be adapted via the language used throughout (see Table 1). For this, we use NGSS to eliminate or introduce vocabulary on the basis of students’ existing knowledge. For example, the term “atom” is not introduced until 5th grade by Michigan standards,32 so below that grade level it must be introduced. We use analogies throughout the lesson to communicate different topics. For example, when talking about bonding, a concept foreign to students under grade level 5−6,32 we employ analogies through the idea of music sharing, using two students as volunteers. We can ask the first student to imagine sharing their favorite song by handing both earbuds to the second student (ionic bonding), sharing earbuds (covalent bonding), or by using a speaker and sharing the music (metallic bonds).

■

METHODOLOGY AND PROGRAM DESIGN This program provides accessibility to polymer education materials for implementation in a diversity of classrooms, specifically across multiple grade levels. We first reviewed the NextGen Science Standards, for which Michigan is a Lead State Partner, in part to determine the grade levels at which matter (grade 2), atoms (grade 5), molecular bonding (middle school, grades 6−8), and DNA (high school, grades 9−12) are introduced. These standards, labeled according to the convention Grade-Unit-Standard Number (see Box 1), served as guidelines for determining level-appropriate content and led to the development of three modules that optimize education potential based on standard science backgrounds. Why Are Polymers Different from Other Materials?

The first module, Why Are Polymers Dif ferent f rom Other Materials?, is intended to introduce the youngest students to polymers by focusing on determining differences in material behavior, as addressed in NGSS 2-PS2-1 and 2-PS1-2 regarding the structure and properties of matter. This module teaches students to differentiate between three classes of materials, namely, metals, ceramics (e.g., glass), and polymers (i.e., plastics), on the basis of common physical properties. The module also expands on the students’ existing knowledge by introducing scientific language with relevance for subsequent grade

Recycling and Remanufacturing

The second module, Recycling and Remanufacturing, is intended to familiarize students with polymers through the concept of recycling, in which most students participate at home from an early age. A basic awareness of atoms is required for thorough understanding (grade 5), but this module can also serve as an B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 1. General Vocabulary Guidelines for Why Are Polymers Dif ferent from Other Materials?

Box 2. Activities for Why Are Polymers Dif ferent from Other Materials? Ductility and Brittleness: This activity is done in three parts across the lesson: (1) Students bend a paper clip and a piece of aluminum foil until fracture, comparing the plasticities of the two metals and discovering that plasticity exists over a spectrum. (2) Students then compare the aluminum foil with a piece of plastic (plastic bag or wrap) by folding them until one breaks or is irreparably damaged. (3) One student is given a rubber mallet and a pair of safety goggles and told to hit an empty glass bottle inside a cloth bag (for safety) until it breaks. A different student is then given the mallet and goggles, and told to hit an empty plastic bottle inside a cloth bag the same number of times. The glass bottle always shatters, but the plastic bottle can be re-expanded to its original shape, leading the students to see the differences between brittle and ductile materials.

Term

NGSS Grade Level

Atom Bond Ductile

5 5−6 −

Brittle

−

Polymer chains Conduct Insulate Electron Monomers

− 6−9 6−9 6−9 −

Lower-Level Substitute Introduce the concept as “building block” “A connection between atoms” Introduce the concept as “responds to a force (push/pull) by bending” Introduce the concept as “responds to a force (push/pull) by breaking” Introduce the concept as “a string of atoms, like a string of beads” “Transfer” “Protect” “Part/piece of an atom” “Molecules” or “A group of atoms” that are the beads of the polymer chain

importance of recycling plastic bottles by considering the impact of low recycling rates (less than 30% of bottles are recycled annually) on the environment. Activities and Takeaways. The Recycling and Remanufacturing module involves, depending on the allotted time and the grade level of the class, two or three activities (the third of which is given in the Supporting Information). These activities are intended to cover concepts specific to polymers, such as vulcanization/cross-linking, as well as to inform the students of the differences in physical properties of various plastics. Activities for this lesson are listed in Box 3. Adapting the Lesson across Multiple Grade Levels. This lesson is suitable for grade levels 4−9, as knowledge of atoms is integral to understanding the concepts, and can again be adapted via the language used throughout (see Table 2).

Dif ferent Kinds of Strength: Students are given a variety of polymeric materials (we often use fabric, plastic wrap, rubber erasers, and straws) and told to submit the samples to four strength tests: (1) torsion (twisting), (2) bending, (3) compression (squashing), and (4) tension (stretching). They then rank the materials on the basis of their strengths. We do this activity to highlight that polymers exhibit different strengths.

Table 2. General Vocabulary Guidelines for Recycling and Remanufacturing Term Atom Monomers Polymer chains Density Cross-link Molecular weight

early introduction to atomic theory (grade 4). Identification of different recyclable materials directly addresses grade 5 standards (5-PS1-1 and MS-PS1-3) and reinforces grade 2 material (2-PS1-3). At upper levels (grades 7 and up), a greater emphasis on engineering can be incorporated, such as the processes by which plastics are produced and the effect on polymer properties. In this module, we give a brief introduction to polymers and introduce students to the polymer poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), a commodity thermoplastic polymer commonly used in container and textile production. It is notably used for beverage bottles, with over 50 billion PET water bottles sold in the U.S. every year.41 These bottles can be recycled and remanufactured into textiles, and we examine this process with the students, noting engineering innovations such as the blow mold extruder and the rotary blow mold extruder. We emphasize the

NGSS Grade Level 5 − − 6−8 − 6−9

Lower-Level Substitute Introduce the concept as “building block” “Molecules” or “A group of atoms” Introduce the concept as “a string of atoms, like a string of beads” “Mass divided by volume” “Connectors” “Polymer chain length”

For example, extrusion is a foreign concept to most precollege students and can be introduced through different examples such as the extrusion of toothpaste when the tube is squeezed. Other useful examples include the extrusion of hot glue from a glue gun or cake icing from a piping bag. Improvised examples can prove useful,42 and presenters were/are encouraged to develop their own appropriate language to assist understanding of the topic. Polymers in Medicine

The final module, Polymers in Medicine, is designed to introduce high school students to polymer science as a multidisciplinary subject, incorporating aspects of chemistry, biology, physics, and engineering, and to explore potential career avenues. At this level, students are expected to have a basic understanding of molecules and related physical properties. High school C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Box 3. Activities for Recycling and Remanufacturing

Box 4. Activities for Polymers in Medicine

Plastics Identif ication: The students are handed samples of six recyclable plastics (PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP, and PS) that are marked out of order with letters. Then, on the basis of material descriptions given by the instructors, small groups of students are encouraged to identify the plastics. We use this activity to stress scientific observation and educate students about recyclable plastics in their households.

Hydrophilic Polymers: In small groups, students are given a diaper and instructed to cut open the padded area and collect sodium polyacrylate (the fine powdery substance within the padding) in a cup. They then pour in sufficient water to submerge the polymer and begin stirring (the water can be colored yellow for a more lively class). The sodium polyacrylate will absorb a surprising amount of the water.43 Fake Prosthetics Competition: The second activity occurs at the end of the lesson, once the presentation is over. Small teams of students receive a variety of polymer items such as plastic bottles, bubble wrap, or expanded polystyrene, depending on availability. The volunteers present a challenge: develop a prosthetic leg using only the materials given, taking into consideration important attributes such as comfort, weight, and functionality. To do so, one member of each team bends one leg, and the prosthetic is attached to the bent leg. Students compete in physical challenges, such as running using their prosthetic leg or standing on only their prosthetic leg. Hydrogels f rom Alginate: Similar to the Hydrophilic Polymers activity, small groups students are given a dilute aqueous solution of sodium alginate, which can be tinted with food coloring, and a clear calcium chloride solution. Both of these substances are safe for use in nonindustrial concentrations, but students should avoid contact with skin and eyes through the use of latex or nitrile gloves and should be closely monitored. As the students add the colored alginate solution dropwise into the calcium chloride solution, they can observe the rapid formation of spherical alginate hydrogel beads upon contact between the two solutions. If the solution is added in a continuous stream, they will observe a jelly “worm” rather than droplets.44

Cross-Linking of Glue: The second activity highlights the effect of cross-linking on the physical properties of polymers. Here, mixing a solution of white glue (poly(vinyl acetate)) with borax results in cross-linking such that the solution gels, becoming solid. The rapid reaction between borax and the glue enables students to see the increasing viscosity and ultimately gelation of the solution as cross-linking proceeds. When this activity is performed at grade 2 or higher, the students can be asked about the different states of matter they observe, and the concept of cross-linking can be proffered to explain their observations.37

hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity are introduced since the swelling of hydrogels by water is a consequence of their hydrophilic behavior (see Table 3). Although students may not be familiar with the terms “hydrophobic” and “hydrophilic”, most will likely be able to infer the meanings of “hydro” and “phobia”. Presenters can lead them to these terms through familiar related words, such as “hydroelectric” or “hydration” for “hydro-“ and “claustrophobia” or “arachnophobia” for “-phobia”.

biology is the first place students are introduced to the structure of DNA (HS-LS1-1), a common example of a biopolymer. Additionally, as students at this level are expected to evaluate criteria and solutions for real-world problems (HS-ETS1-3), this module focuses on engineering design problems. Initially, examples of how polymers have been applied to address specific medical needs are recounted, and the students are subsequently challenged to identify polymer properties and implementations that best solve a medical problem. Each application is explained through an interactive case study with basic physical principles. Activities and Takeaway. This module is accompanied by two or three activities. Each activity looks into a function of polymers used to address medical needs, including hydrophilic materials and hydrogels,43,44 and prosthetics. Activities for this module are listed in Box 4. Adapting the Lesson across Multiple Grade Levels. Because of its more advanced content, this module is suitable for grade levels 9−12. Students should understand the concepts of atoms, bonding, and cells. Also, the concepts of

Table 3. General Vocabulary Guidelines for Polymers in Medicine

Term Atom Monomers Polymer chains Density

D

NGSS Grade Level 5 − − 6−8 − −

Cross-link Thermally activated Hydrogel

−

Stent

−

Lower-Level Substitute Introduce the concept as “building block” “Molecules” or “A group of atoms” Introduce the concept as “a string of atoms, like a string of beads” “Mass divided by volume”; use the analogy of a bag of feathers versus a bag of rocks “Connectors “Switch on by heat” Introduce the concept with an example of a dried and wet sponge Introduce the concept as “making a tunnel for the blood to go through” DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 2. Demographic data on the schools and classrooms visited. Fifteen schools were visited over the 2015−2016 academic school year, all within a one-hour driving radius from our central location, the University of Michigan campus at Ann Arbor (denoted by the block “M” on each map). We saw 55 classrooms in total, ranging from grade 1 to grade 12. The grade most visited was grade 7, comprising 19 out of 55 classrooms. For the 15 schools visited, the free and reduced-price school meals program eligibility is reported, with state and national averages noted, including the average of the schools visited.

Figure 3. Volunteer responses on the quality of the program and its impact on their communication skills. We conducted one survey at the end of the 2015−2016 academic school year and another midway through 2016−2017 (to gain additional insight). The responses showed that volunteers felt positively affected by their experience with the program and would likely volunteer again.

■

IMPLEMENTATION

to grade 12. We most commonly visited middle school (grades 6−8) (67% of all classes visited), specifically grade 7 (42% of all classes visited). The schools visited were predominantly public institutions (13 out of 15) and coeducational (14 out of 15). The federal free and reduced-price school meals program subsidizes meals for students whose household income falls beneath 130−185% of the poverty line (depending on the state) and is a commonly cited (although not encompassing) statistic to understand the socioeconomic status of a school’s population.45−47 Over 50% of the schools visited had ≥80% eligibility (Figure 3), and on average, we visited schools with ≥64% school eligibility, exceeding the state and national averages of 48.3% and 52.0%, respectively.48 This suggests that the educational resources of the schools visited were relatively limited.

School Selection

This outreach program was advertised through the University of Michigan’s Center for Engineering Diversity and Outreach (CEDO), an organization whose work includes the provision of outreach and pipeline development programs for primary and secondary education. Demonstrative of the undermet demand for such education programs in the southeast Michigan region (Figure 2), 32 visit requests were received within a two-week registration period. Because of resource constraints, this program was limited to 18 visits over 15 schools, scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis, with visit location restricted to within a 1 h driving radius from the University of Michigan campus at Ann Arbor. Within the 18 visits, we visited 55 classrooms, with grade levels ranging from grade 1 E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Volunteer Recruitment

The volunteer survey had a 42% response rate (11 out of 26, omitting the outreach coordinator). Volunteers were asked to rate the quality, appropriateness, and organization of the program on a scale of 1 to 5, and the results are shown in Figure 3. The volunteers rated the program favorably, with their favorite aspects of the program being both the physical act of teaching and interacting with students and engaging in an opportunity to encourage students to pursue STEM fields. Volunteers expressed multiple reasons for choosing to become involved in the program, the most common of which included gaining teaching experience and promoting higher education.

Volunteer presenters for this program were recruited from the University of Michigan students and faculty, primarily from the Macromolecular Science and Engineering (MacroSE) Program. Of the 27 volunteers, 25 (92.5%) were affiliated with the MacroSE Program, either as graduate students pursuing Master’s or doctorate degrees in the MacroSE Program, faculty affiliated with the MacroSE Program, or students (graduate and undergraduate) working in the laboratories of MacroSE faculty. Each visit required a minimum of three volunteers, one to administrate the visit and two to lead the instructional modules. In the interests of our volunteers, we required that no presenter lead more than four classes and recruited more volunteers for a visit when necessary. Before each visit, volunteer teams met to discuss language and logistical details. In this meeting, volunteers were introduced to the NextGen Science Standards32 applicable to their visit, and given suggestions on how best to relate to their student audience. We also encouraged our volunteers to employ a Socratic-type “question and answer” teaching approach, which has been demonstrated to better engage students than one-sided lecturing methods.49

■

FUTURE PLANS AND EFFORTS Given the positive reception this program has received to date, plans have been made to continue it at least through the 2017−2018 school year. Indicative of the program’s success, of the 15 educators visited in the 2015−2016 school year, 12 educators requested return visits. A total of 21 visits were scheduled for the 2016−2017 school year within a one-month registration period. Given the rapid evolution of the polymer science and engineering field, yearly review of all modules is necessary to ensure that the content remains current and relevant to students’ lives. Current efforts are focused on revising the program in anticipation of the 2017−2018 school year, including improving program accessibility and educational merit. During this program, it was determined that the limiting resource to the number of outreach visits possible was volunteer availability. To address this limitation, we are hosting a series of professional development seminars focused on communication and public speaking that are aimed to minimize presentation anxiety among students, thus encouraging more student volunteers. Additionally, by increasing our interactions with relevant STEM departments and organizations at the University of Michigan, we aim to expand our volunteer base of students, faculty, and staff, thus enable more site visits. In contrast to the 2015−2016 school year, for which the primary instructor requested visit dates, the 2016−2017 visit dates were predetermined by the program coordinators and offered to the primary instructors to select. It is hoped that this approach will improve volunteer participation by avoiding major student and faculty conflicts. In a complementary effort to improve the accessibility of polymer education, we are in the process of developing a teacher workshop that will provide the necessary tools to translate their newly acquired polymer knowledge to the classroom with teacher kits. These kits will include materials for suggested activities and lesson plans appropriate for teachers to bring into the classroom based on the current state science curriculum. To ensure the long-term success of this program, efforts are also being focused toward improving the educational merit for both the primary students and the graduate/undergraduate student instructors. In order to better evaluate the impact of the program on the primary students, we anticipate incorporating brief pre- and postvisit assessments that will measure the students’ knowledge of polymer science with respect to the specific module themes and terminology. In addition to communication workshops to improve graduate/undergraduate student presentation skills, we will be partnering with University of Michigan preservice teachers, especially those focused on science education. This valuable partnership would provide preservice teachers with the knowledge and tools to teach polymer education as they go forward into the workforce while

■

IMPACT AND RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM The success and impact of this program on the participants was measured through anonymous surveys of both primary instructors and volunteer presenters at the conclusion of the academic year. To maximize response rates, a short survey was distributed to the primary instructors, whereas a longer survey was circulated to the volunteer presenters. Of the 15 educators visited, there was a 40% response rate well-distributed across the geographical region covered (two in Greater Ann Arbor, three in Detroit, and one in Dearborn). Educators were asked to report the numbers of external education programs in their classrooms annually in order to evaluate the current supply of similar educational initiatives. The majority of educators (five of six responding) indicated that they received 0−4 such visits a year, supporting the notion that the majority of schools visited had limited education resources. When asked to rate the quality of our polymer education program that had visited their classroom, educators rated it a 9.5 out of 10, and several provided gratifying feedback comments, including reports of a schoolwide initiative jumpstarted by the Recycling and Remanufacturing module. Several teachers also commented on the module’s fit into their classroom both pedagogically and in the appropriateness of the language. Notably, 87% of the respondees indicated they were interested in having the program return in the future. Postvisit analysis of the 27 volunteer presenters indicated that the population was predominantly graduate students (21 out of 27), with smaller fractions of faculty (three out of 27), undergraduate students (two out of 27) and staff (one out of 27). Student (graduate and undergraduate) volunteers originated from several academic disciplines/majors, including 70% Macromolecular Science and Engineering, 13% Materials Science and Engineering, 13% Chemical Engineering, and 4% Chemistry. All of the faculty volunteers had affiliations with the Macromolecular Science and Engineering Program in addition to appointments with Biomedical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry, and/or Biologic and Materials Sciences. On average, volunteers participated in two visits, with a mode of one visit (52%) and a maximum of nine visits (7%). F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

education.alaska.gov/akstandards/standards/Science_ Performance&GLEs.pdf (accessed June 2017). (7) Arizona State Board of Education. Arizona Science Standard Articulated by Grade Level. https://cms.azed.gov/home/ GetDocumentFile?id=550c5129aadebe15d072a8d1 (accessed June 2017). (8) California Department of Education. Next Generation Science Standards for California Public Schools, Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/ngssstandards.asp (accessed June 2017). (9) Colorado Department of Education. Colorado Academic Standards in Science. https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/ documents/coscience/documents/science_standards_adopted_2009. pdf (accessed June 2017). (10) Florida Department of Education. Sunshine State Standards: Science. http://www.heartlanded.org/mathscience/documents/ science_k-12_standards.pdf (accessed June 2017). (11) Georgia Department of Education. Georgia Performance Standards for Science. https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/ Pages/BrowseStandards/ScienceStandards.aspx (accessed June 2017). (12) Idaho State Department of Education. Idaho Content Standards: Science. https://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/shared/ science/ICS-Science-Legislative.pdf (accessed June 2017). (13) Indiana Department of Education. Indiana’s Academic Standards for Science2016. http://www.doe.in.gov/standards/sciencecomputer-science (accessed June 2017). (14) Louisiana Department of Education. Louisiana Student Standards for Science. https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/ default-source/teacher-toolbox-resources/k-12-louisiana-studentstandards-for-science.zip (accessed June 2017). (15) Minnesota Department of Education. Minnesota Academic Standards in Science. http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/ idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName= 005263&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition= primary (accessed June 2017). (16) Mississippi Department of Education, 2010 Mississippi Science Framework. http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/curriculum-andinstructions-library/2010-science-framework.pdf (accessed June 2017). (17) Nebraska Department of Education. Nebraska Science Standards. https://www.education.ne.gov/science/Documents/ ArticulatedScienceSinWord.pdf (accessed June 2017). (18) New Hampshire Department of Education. K-12 Science Literacy New Hampshire Curriculum Framework. https://www. education.nh.gov/instruction/curriculum/science/documents/ framework.pdf (accessed June 2017). (19) Ohio Department of Education. Ohio’s New Learning Standards: Science Standards. http://education.ohio.gov/ getattachment/Topics/Ohios-Learning-Standards/Science/ ScienceStandards.pdf (accessed June 2017). (20) Oklahoma State Department of Education. Oklahoma Academic Standards for Science. http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/ Oklahoma%20Academic%20Standards%20for%20Science.pdf (accessed June 2017). (21) Pennsylvania Department of Education. Academic Standards for Science and Technology and Engineering Education. http://static. pdesas.org/content/documents/Academic_Standards_for_Science_ and_Technology_and_Engineering_Education_(Secondary).pdf (accessed June 2017). (22) South Dakota Department of Education. South Dakota Science Standards. http://doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/documents/ sdSciStnd.pdf (accessed June 2017). (23) Tennessee Department of Education. Tennessee Academic Standards for Science. https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/sbe/ attachments/TNScienceStandards_FinalApproved.pdf (accessed June 2017). (24) Utah State Board of Education. Utah Core State Standards for Science. https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/7da8a852-d681-4a6e9b3f-fe010427f62b (accessed June 2017).

also sharing their knowledge of pedagogy and instructional technique. The Supporting Information serves as a stand-alone guide for conducting these modules in the classroom. Accompanying presentations are available on request.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805. Stand-alone guide for conducting the modules in the classroom (PDF, DOCX)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Rose K. Cersonsky: 0000-0003-4515-3441 Timothy F. Scott: 0000-0002-5893-3140 Author Contributions §

R.K.C. and L.L.F. contributed equally to this work.

Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge funding from the University of Michigan’s Macromolecular Science and Engineering Program, Center for Educational Outreach, and Rackham Graduate School and the American Chemical Society. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant 1462267 (to T.F.S.), the Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant DGE-1315231 (to L.L.F.). We also thank the University of Michigan’s XPlore Engineering Event for inviting us to participate and providing pictures from the event. We especially thank our volunteers and participating teachers.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Wyoming Department of Education. 2016 Wyoming Science Content and Performance Standards. https://edu.wyoming.gov/ downloads/standards/2016/2016WYScienceCPS.pdf (accessed June 2017). (2) New York State Education Department. New York State P-12 Science Learning Standards. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/sci/ documents/p-12-science-learning-standards.pdf (accessed June 2017). (3) New Mexico State Department of Education. New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance Standards. http://www.ped.state.nm.us/MathScience/dl08/Standards/ ScienceStandardsV2.pdf (accessed June 2017). (4) South Carolina Department of Education. South Carolina Academic Standards and Performance Indicators for Science. http:// ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/file/agency/ccr/Standards-Learning/ documents/South_Carolina_Academic_Standards_and_ Performance_Indicators_for_Science_2014.pdf (accessed June 2017). (5) 2012−2015 Alabama State Science Course of Study Committee and Task Force. 2015 Alabama Course of Study: Science. http://www. alsde.edu/sec/sct/COS/2015%20FINAL%20Science%20COS%20101-15.pdf (accessed June 2017). (6) Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. Alaska Science Performance Standards/Grade Level Expectations. https:// G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(25) Virginia Department of Education. Science Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/ testing/sol/standards_docs/science/2010/complete/stds_all_science. pdf (accessed June 2017). (26) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ scitech/2016-04.pdf (accessed June 2017). (27) Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 6−12 Science Grade-Level Expectations. https://dese.mo.gov/sites/ default/files/curr-mls-standards-sci-6-12-sboe-2016.pdf (accessed June 2017). (28) North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Science:: Standard Course of Study. http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/ science/scos/support-tools/#standards (accessed June 2017). (29) Montana Office of Public Instruction. Montana K-12 Science Content Standards Framework. http://opi.mt.gov/PDF/Standards/ 10ContStds-Science.pdf (accessed June 2017). (30) North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. North Dakota Science Content and Achievement Standards. https://www.nd.gov/ dpi/uploads/87/science.pdf (accessed June 2017). (31) Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Science. https://dpi.wi.gov/science/ standards (accessed June 2017). (32) NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2013. (33) Texas Education Agency. 19 TAC Chapter 112. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/ tac/chapter112/ (accessed June 2017). (34) Educational Testing Service. General Science: Content Knowledge (The Praxis Study Companion). https://www.ets.org/s/ praxis/pdf/5435.pdf (accessed June 2017). (35) Educational Testing Service. Middle School Science (The Praxis Study Companion). https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/5440.pdf (accessed June 2017). (36) Bonwell, C. C.; Eison, J. A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom; ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University: Washington, DC, 1991. (37) Bonwell, C. C.; Sutherland, T. E. The active learning continuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1996, 1996 (67), 3−16. (38) Waldrop, M. M. The Science of Teaching Science. Nature 2015, 523 (7560), 272−274. (39) Osborne, J.; Simon, S.; Collins, S. Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25 (9), 1049−1079. (40) Nadelson, L. S.; Callahan, J.; Pyke, P.; Hay, A.; Dance, M.; Pfiester, J. Teacher STEM Perception and Preparation: Inquiry-Based STEM Professional Development for Elementary Teachers. J. Educ. Res. 2013, 106 (2), 157−168. (41) Fishman, C. Message in a Bottle. Fast Company 2007, 117, 111−121. (42) Holdhus, K.; Høisæter, S.; Mæland, K.; Vangsnes, V.; Engelsen, K. S.; Espeland, M.; Espeland, Å. Improvisation in Teaching and EducationRoots and Applications. Cogent Educ. 2016, 3 (1), 1204142. (43) Lorenzini, R. G.; Lewis, M. S.; Montclare, J. K. CollegeMentored Polymer/Materials Science Modules for Middle and High School Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8), 1105−1108. (44) Waldman, A. S.; Schechinger, L.; Govindarajoo, G.; Nowick, J. S.; Pignolet, L. H. The alginate demonstration: Polymers, food science, and ion exchange. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (11), 1430−1431. (45) Xu, Z. Y.; Ozek, U.; Hansen, M. Teacher Performance Trajectories in High- and Lower-Poverty Schools. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2015, 37 (4), 458−477. (46) Deming, D. J.; Hastings, J. S.; Kane, T. J.; Staiger, D. O. School Choice, School Quality, and Postsecondary Attainment. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104 (3), 991−1013.

(47) Harwell, M.; LeBeau, B. Student Eligibility for a Free Lunch as an SES Measure in Education Research. Educ. Researcher 2010, 39 (2), 120−131. (48) Snyder, T. D.; de Brey, C.; Dillow, S. A. Digest of Education Statistics 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, 2016. (49) Prince, M. J.; Felder, R. M. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J. Eng. Educ. 2006, 95 (2), 123−138.

H

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00805 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX