Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics, A Role-Playing Game for High School Chemistry Students Deborah H. Cook* Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 United States ABSTRACT: Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics, an innovative role-playing activity for high school students, was developed by the Chemical Heritage Foundation to promote increased public understanding of chemistry. The pilot program included three high school teachers and their students at three different schools and documented implementation and participants’ experiences using a third-party evaluator. The activity allows students to engage in debate regarding current science policy issues linked to competing values and interests. Developers crafted the activity so that students could learn about the chemistry of plastics, formulate arguments regarding issues affecting their daily lives and learn to relate those arguments to public policy, think critically about how the history of science and technology provides perspectives on contemporary life, and cultivate their ability to question simple narratives and consider multiple viewpoints. Analysis of students’ written products and survey responses suggest that participation increased science interest and knowledge about the chemistry of plastics. Moreover, students recommended the activity to others, found the project phases well structured, and were able to offer specific arguments for and against the use of plastics. These results strongly endorse this activity as a promising model of engaging students in thinking and discussion of contemporary scientific issues. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First year Undergraduate/General Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Communication/Writing, Enrichment/Review Materials, Polymerization, Student-Centered Learning, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Environmental Chemistry
■
INTRODUCTION Plastics play a complex and controversial role in our lives. They have made any number of goods more affordable and have helped raise the standards of living for many people in the post−World War II era. Plastics have improved health and sanitation, reduced demand on scarce natural resources, and allowed remarkable advances in medicine, transportation, communication, safety, and computing. Despite these benefits, plastics elicit environmental concerns because of their persistence as waste in our oceans and landscapes, the need for fossil fuels in their manufacture, and the toxicity of both plastics and plasticizing additives. Furthermore, plastics are a cultural symbol of artificiality, superficiality, and cheapness. Analysis of the benefits and the conflicting potential risks provides an opportunity for students to embark on sciencebased conversation and debate. Engaging high school chemistry students in real-world experiences, authentic practices, and evidence-based argument are among the expectations outlined in A Framework for K-12 Science Education1 and the subsequent Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).2 The Common Core State Standards in English, Language Arts, and Literacy3 also include scientific argumentation as a requirement for high school students to be career- and college-ready by graduation. Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics is an innovative activity designed for high school students to engage in just such learning experiences. The Case of Plastics was developed by the Chemical Heritage Foundation (CHF) in Philadelphia. CHF’s pilot program included three high school teachers and their students at three different Philadelphia-area schools, and © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
documented implementation and impact using a third-party evaluator. The activity described here allows participants to develop informed views by considering multiple sides of a debate about the benefits and trade-offs of using plastics in today’s society. The activity also provides a platform for students to engage in science-based discussion and debate regarding current policy issues that are linked to competing values and interests. The Conflicts in Chemistry developers decided on a roleplaying game format to structure the plastics debate. Examples of the use of role-playing in various college-level science courses have been reported in this Journal4−8 and elsewhere.9−13 Examples of activities using role-playing strategies also exist at the precollege level.14−24 The Reacting to the Past (RTTP) games25 developed at Barnard College in the 1990s for humanities classes and more recently for science classes also provided a model structure for developing the Case of Plastics game. The game, which is designed to help students understand and appreciate multiple viewpoints in a complex argument and to demonstrate the importance of history in contemporary issues, has four specific learning objectives. These objectives are met through a research process, written student papers, and public debate. During and after completion of the activity, students will learn to • Describe the molecular structure, the physical and chemical properties, and the development of plastics.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4007277 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
• Develop coherent arguments regarding issues that affect their daily lives and to relate these arguments to public policy. • Think critically about how the history of science and technology relates to contemporary life and provides perspective in decision making for current policy issues. • Cultivate their ability to question simple narratives and to recognize and consider multiple viewpoints, especially as they relate to the history of science and technology.
SCENARIO The game begins with a fictitious scenario presented to students in which the U. S. Congress has passed an update to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to further regulate the reduction of plastic waste. The hypothetical bill also appoints the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop regulations and protocols for the implementation of the law. Owing to the controversial and important nature of these regulations, the EPA has decided to hold a public hearing. The agency has invited important figures representing all sides of the plastics debate to present their positions. The students assume the roles of these individuals, each with a stake in plastics regulation. Divided into five different interest groupsHealth, Industry, Invention, Sustainability, and Wastethe students debate how the U. S. government should or should not regulate plastics. The students are assigned victory objectives based on their characters’ perspectives and are asked to argue for the inclusion of specific points in a final regulation. A sixth group of students, representing the EPA regulators, votes on a final regulation based on the persuasiveness of the arguments. The debate takes place in two rounds, during which the stakeholders present their arguments, advocate for their specific points, and listen to other points of view. To help prepare their arguments, students are provided materials that fall into four categories: required for all, required for the interest group, required for the specific character or role, and suggested for further research. (All materials, with the exception of the Instructor’s Manual, can be viewed on the CHF Web site.26 The Instructor’s Manual is available from CHF upon request by teachers but is not made available to students.) The game is divided into six stages with flexible timing: the introduction, hearing preparation, hearing (first-round debate), intersession, second-round debate, and reflection. The entire game was designed to take place over approximately ten 45 min class periods, either scheduled consecutively or distributed over time. There are pregame activities and optional assignments to prepare students for playing the game. These activities include reading about the science and history of plastics as well as other activities suggested in the Instructor’s Manual and in links provided on the Web site. Some of the specific chemistry content presented in the Web-based materials include descriptions of the structure of polymers, of polymerization and molecular structure and arrangement, and of the various characteristics and forms of plastics. Once students have been assigned their specific roles and groups, they are provided time to prepare their arguments and counterarguments for the first round of debate (see Figure 1). In the pilot implementation, a hypothetical regulation being proposed by the EPA was included in the introductory materials. Each of the five stakeholder groups was given a different version of the regulation that highlighted the different points that their
Figure 1. Students preparing for the first-round debate.
specific group wanted to have included in the final regulation. Each of the students playing the EPA regulators was also assigned to a specific group to learn that group’s perspectives but not to contribute to the discussion. At the conclusion of the first-round debate, the regulators were instructed to tell the stakeholder groups that none of their proposed regulations was acceptable and that the groups would have to reorganize to produce a new version that would represent a compromise of the groups’ perspectives (see Figure 2). No group was declared a winner after the first round.
Figure 2. Students receiving feedback from the EPA regulators at the end of the hearing.
The five groups of students were then reorganized into three groups. During this intersession stage, the students worked to develop presentations of the points they wanted to include in a final regulation. The intersession and subsequent second-round debate were designed to foster compromise, cooperation, and collaboration among the various stakeholders (see Figure 3). In the second round, the new groups presented their positions and specific points to include in the final regulation. After asking questions and having time for other groups to ask questions, the regulators voted to determine which group’s regulation they thought made the best argument and presented the best points for inclusion in a final regulation. Following the two rounds of debate, students were provided time to reflect on the various positions and perspectives and to write a short paper on their experiences and understandings of the issues surrounding plastics. A final postgame activity, a community program, gave students an opportunity to share their experiences and B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4007277 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
FINDINGS
Student Surveys and Responses
RBS received 96 valid responses to the baseline survey and 56 valid responses to the follow-up survey, as shown in Table 1.27 Table 1. Distribution of Student Survey Responses at Baseline and Follow-Upa Number of Surveys
Figure 3. Students during the intersession phase discussing ways to compromise on the regulation. a
SCHOOL SETTINGS
■
METHODS
Baseline
Follow-Up
39 19 38 96
18 18 20 56
Data from ref 27.
In the baseline sample, the students were predominantly female (69.8%) and identified as Caucasian (56.3%). African American students comprised 22.9% of the surveyed students, with 6.3% Asian American, 6.3% multiracial, 4.2% Latino, and 4.2% from other racial or ethnic groups. Two distinct topics were considered on the baseline survey: student interest in science and chemistry and student knowledge of plastics. The follow-up survey included a third topic, feedback on specific aspects of the game implementation. Baseline survey results suggested that a slight majority of students (53.1%) held negative or lukewarm (i.e., neutral) attitudes about chemistry as a subject. The proportion of students expressing interest in chemistry was highest at the rural public school (73.7%) and lowest at the all-female parochial school (28.2%). Analysts speculated that the difference might be attributable to gender, but further analysis showed there were no significant gender differences in the whole sample. Alternatively, the difference may be reflective of the fact that students in the rural public school were enrolled in a second-year chemistry elective course and that the urban charter school is a magnet school for science and engineering, whereas students at the all-female parochial school were enrolled in a first-year chemistry course. The attitudes toward science were slightly more positive. Only 27.1% of the students responded they felt neutral or negative about learning science. The patterns across the schools were similar to those attitudes about learning chemistry, with 73.7% of the students at the rural school reporting that they enjoyed science very much, 65.8% at the urban magnet school choosing that option, and 23.1% at the all-female parochial school making that choice. Students were also asked to report their interest in pursuing a college major in science and a career in science. The results demonstrate that 51.0% of the students were very interested in pursuing a science-related college major and 47.9% were very interested in a career related to science. The follow-up survey also included questions about students’ interest in science. The responses show that approximately onethird of the students reported an increased interest in a college major related to science (33.0%) and one-third had an increased interest in a career related to science (32.1%). The differences were not statistically significant across schools or gender. Students’ knowledge of and their perceptions of the role of plastics in society, as well as the benefits and hazards associated with plastics, were also included in the baseline and follow-up surveys. After playing the game, more students thought that
knowledge with family, other students, and community members.
■
School Type All-female parochial Rural public Urban charter magnet Total
A teacher and his/her students from each of three midsized Philadelphia-area high schools participated in the pilot activity. One school was a racially and ethnically diverse urban science and engineering magnet charter school with approximately 500 students. The second school was an urban, female-only parochial school with 600 students. The third school was a more rural public high school of approximately 670 students with a majority white population. The three teachers collaborated with the CHF team in the project’s development and implementation during the academic year 2012−2013. Six classes participated across the three schools. The teachers met with the developers at regular intervals throughout the year.
Research for Better Schools (RBS), a nonprofit research and evaluation firm, was engaged to provide feedback on the project’s outcomes. The evaluators observed the activities, collected baseline and follow-up student surveys and community-member surveys, interviewed the teachers, and reviewed a sampling of students’ written papers. RBS’s analyses were intended to provide formative feedback about implementation and scalability as well as some summative insights into students’ new knowledge of the use of plastics in society as a result of participation. RBS also investigated the extent to which teachers found implementation reasonable and well suited to the curriculum. The evaluation results were used by the developers to revise the materials for final distribution after the pilot phase.
■
STUDY LIMITATIONS This project relied upon the voluntary participation of three innovative teachers, which afforded developers an intellectually rich opportunity but reduced the generalizability of results. No comparison students were available during the pilot implementation, and scaled-up evaluation could produce more generalizable results through random assignment to an intervention and control condition. Another threat to validity in this study emerged in the research attrition of student-survey respondents between baseline and follow-up. C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4007277 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
plastics provided both benefits and risks to society, as can be seen in Table 2.
Table 3. Comparison of Students’ Selection of Their Favorite Part of the Game Statements Indicating a Part of the Game
Table 2. Comparison of Students’ Perceptions of Plastics as Beneficial and Hazardousa Baseline Responses, % (N = 96) Yes
Not Sure
No
Yes
Not Sure
Do you think plastics provide benefits to individuals and society? Do you think plastics have negative effects on individuals and society?
80.2
16.7
2.1
89.3
10.7
75.0
16.7
7.3
91.1
7.1
a
Responses,a,b N
39.3 30.4 16.1
22 17 9
10.7 3.6
6 2
Debating with my classmates Portraying the role I was assigned Researching and finding evidence to support my position Publicly presenting my position Otherc
Follow-Up Responses, % (N = 56)
Questions for Response
Responses,a,b %
No
a Data from ref 27. bTotal number of students was 56. cThe two students who chose the option “other” explained that they loved the whole game and could not pick one specific aspect as being more of a favorite than the other aspects.
1.8
Data from ref 27.
Table 4. Comparison of Students’ Selection of Their Least Favorite Part of the Game
Students were also invited to provide longer open-ended responses on both the baseline and follow-up surveys to substantiate and explain their answers. In the open-ended responses, considerable variation existed regarding students’ knowledge of plastics, thus making it challenging to draw inferences about changes in the students’ knowledge as a result of the program. However, some general trends emerged. The benefits of plastics that students tended to identify initially were the low cost and the wide range of applications, from storage containers and packaging to technology and medicine. The negative aspects of plastics that students identified initially were primarily related to environmental and health effects, including overburdened landfills, nonbiodegradability, hazards for wildlife, and effects on human health. The new knowledge students reported gaining included details about how long it takes for plastics to decompose, more awareness of potential toxicity, and the impact on water and wildlife caused by such phenomena as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Many students also indicated that after the game they were aware of more benefits provided by plastics, including their lightweight, low cost, the wide range of applications for which other substitutes are not available, and the centrality of the plastics industry to modern life and amenities. Students also reported new knowledge of nonpetroleum-based bioplastics and biodegradable plastics. A few students specifically commented on gaining chemistry disciplinary content knowledge, including the fact that plastics are polymers made from petroleum and that plastics can be depolymerized back to oil. As part of the postgame survey, students answered a variety of questions about their experiences during the play of the game. Over two-thirds (69.6%) of the students liked the game. As shown in Table 3, when asked to identify their single favorite part of the game, 39.3% reported they liked debating with their classmates best, followed by portraying the role they were assigned (30.4%). Only 10.7% selected the public presentation as their favorite part. The survey also gave students the opportunity to select their least favorite part of the game, the results of which appear in Table 4. Most students selected researching and finding evidence to support their position (29.1%). Students also reported their perceptions on how much time they spent on each portion of the game, as shown in Table 5. In general, the majority of students reported that just enough time was spent on each phase (over 80% in each category). Students had an opportunity to explain their answers if they selected too much or too little time. The areas where students reported
Statements Indicating a Part of the Game
Responses,a,b %
Responses,a,b N
29.1
16
25.5 20.0 12.7 12.7
14 11 7 7
Researching and finding evidence to support my position Publicly presenting my position Debating with my classmates Portraying the role I was assigned Otherc a
Data from ref 27. bTotal number of students who responded was 55. One student did not provide a response; the percentages are based on valid responses only. cTwo students who chose the option “other” explained that they did not have a least favorite part of the game because they liked all of the game. One noted the multiple essays as the least liked part; one that it was too short, one that the directions were confusing, and one that there was too little structure to the debate.
Table 5. Students’ Responses Concerning Time Spent on Different Phases of the Gamea Student Responses,a,b %
Statements Indicating a Phase of the Game Pregame: Your teacher introduced the topic, the game, and the Web site Phase I: You obtained materials for the first round of debate Intersession: You were regrouped and asked to develop an alternate regulation and prepare for a second round of debate Phase II: You engaged in a second round of debate and the game winner(s) were determined Postgame: You had an opportunity to write about what you learned and discuss your learning in class Community: You engaged in a town-hall meeting to present the project to the community a
Too Little Time
Just Enough Time
Too Much Time
8.9
91.1
14.3
82.1
10.7
89.3
10.7
85.7
3.6
1.8
92.9
5.4
10.7
87.5
1.8
3.6
Data from ref 27. bTotal number of students who responded was 56.
needing more time were to conduct research and to prepare for the second-round debate. Exactly 50% of the students indicated the rules of the game were clear to them, whereas 50% indicated they would like clearer rules and more guidance. When asked how fair they thought the rules were, 67.3% indicated the rules were fair, 29.1% were neutral, and 3.6% felt the rules were somewhat D
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4007277 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
unfair. Students also had the chance to provide feedback about the one aspect of the game they would change. Of the students who responded to this question, eight reported they would not change anything, whereas 12 commented they would have liked better guidance on the structure and rules. Overall, a large number of students (78.6%) reported they would recommend the game to other schools. Even more students (90.9%) thought it worthwhile to expand the game to other subject areas and issues, such as climate change or stem cell research. In the follow-up survey, 44.6% of students indicated they used knowledge from other classes (disciplines) during the game. Many of these students indicated they used public speaking, writing, and debating skills they had developed in English or debating classes. Students also reported that this project helped them with their written assignments in English class because they learned about providing evidence to back up an argument, and they reported using information from other science classes as well as mathematics classes.
Figure 4. Community event for The Case of Plastics at the Chemical Heritage Foundation.
attributed to a car accident. The plastic safety devices in the car actually saved his life. After the performance, students fielded questions from the audience that were moderated by CHF staff. Thirty community members completed the exit surveys. All of the respondents (100%) reported the students were well prepared. Three people (10%) indicated they were familiar with the content, more than half (53.3%) reported that some of the information was new to them, and 36.7% stated they learned many new facts. Most of the respondents (93.3%) felt the information was accessible.
Community Events and Feedback
The RBS evaluator attended the two community events that were held and collected exit surveys from the attendees at each event. The events, although different in nature, shared some commonalities. In each case, after formal introductions by school and CHF staff explaining the project, students were given opportunities to explain the game and what they learned from it. Students also had opportunities to interact with the audience by answering questions. One event was integrated into a Home and School meeting that provided parents with an overview of the school’s accomplishments. The Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics game was highlighted not only as a unique learning experience but also as an authentic performance assessment for the participating students. The students were excited about the project and proud to present their work. Twenty-six community members completed exit surveys. All of the respondents felt the students were well prepared, and about two-thirds (65.4%) reported that they learned many new facts. The remaining 34.6% said that some of the information was new to them. No one reported being fully familiar with the content. A large majority of the respondents (92.3%) reported that the information was presented in a format that was accessible to a general audience. The second event was held in an auditorium at CHF and drew a larger, more diverse audience consisting not only of members of the school’s community but also of CHF staff and others familiar with CHF. After the formal introductions, the students and their teacher took the stage (see Figure 4). The students, under the guidance of their teacher, had developed a script for a very dynamic performance complete with an elaborate story line, costumes, and audiovisual effects. The plot’s premise was that a renowned toxicologist mysteriously disappeared before an important presentation. His colleagues assumed him to be dead and proposed various causes for his demise, with many of the causes based on possible harms from plastics. The students, dressed in costumes representing the characters they played in The Case of Plastics, related various aspects of the toxicologist’s last sighting that may have contributed to his disappearance and possible death. During the presentation of this CSI-type scenario the students integrated various aspects of their plastics debate. In the end, the toxicologist was found alive and well, his disappearance
Teacher Reflections and Feedback
After the conclusion of all program activities, RBS used a prepared interview guide to conduct phone interviews with the participating teachers. Interview results showed that the teachers were extremely positive about their experience with the program and the benefits of the program to their students. The teachers spoke highly of the materials and support they received from the project team. All teachers shared that their students generally loved the game. In one school, the game’s Web site gained “word of mouth” popularity and was used by many other students who needed to research information on the topic of plastics. The teachers also made suggestions for modifying the game. One theme that emerged as an issue was the implementation timeline. Because of the pilot project’s overall timeline (July 2012 to August 2013) and the fact that all the materials had to be developed during this time, the school implementation period was originally planned for spring 2013 (March to May). The teachers ended up conducting their classroom activities between May and June to fit with school calendars and testing schedules. All the teachers commented that in the future they would engage their students in this activity earlier in the school year to avoid the interruption of testing schedules and numerous year-end activities. One suggestion was to use the game early in the academic year to provide an introductory activity and theme for future classroom reflection. The teachers also felt the students needed more classroom time for crossexamination and student interaction during the debate rounds. However, the teachers indicated that they might actually condense the overall time for the activity. In some cases, owing to school schedules, there was a considerable time lag between the two rounds of debate. The teacher materials provided suggested time frames for conducting the activities and also gave instructions that the teachers not intervene with the students’ presentations once game play had begun. The participating teachers indicated that E
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4007277 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
to meet its four major goals: that students learn about the chemistry of plastics, that they develop arguments regarding issues that affect their daily lives and learn to relate those arguments to public policy, that they think critically about how the history of science and technology relates to contemporary life and provides perspectives, and that they cultivate their ability to question simple narratives and consider multiple viewpoints, especially with regard to the history of science and technology. It would appear that activities of this type would be ideal for meeting the goals and requirements of the Next Generation Science Standards.
they wanted to be faithful to the suggested guidelines for the pilot model, but teachers also indicated that the students needed more guidance, clearer instructions, and opportunities for modeling or rehearsing their presentations in order to play the game effectively and to focus their arguments. These observations were supported by many of the students’ responses to the open-ended questions in the postgame survey.
■
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS On the basis of the evaluation results as well as observations by the Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics team, it would appear that students, teachers, and community members enjoyed participating in the game, and they reported high levels of engagement and satisfaction. These results were consistent across all the schools, indicating that the role-playing strategy is effective for diverse student populations and classroom settings. The game allowed students to practice and develop skills associated with presenting arguments from evidence, as well as developing their presentation skills while becoming more familiar with important issues related to plastics and contemporary science policies. By engaging in these activities, the developers hoped that students would hone their critical thinking skills. Students also indicated that they were able to transfer skills to and from other classes and disciplines, such as English, debating, other sciences, and math. Close to 80% of students recommended the continuation of the project, and over 90% recommended the expansion of the project to other schools and other topics. This finding suggests that students perceived positive benefits and serves as a strong endorsement of Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics as a promising model of engaging students in consideration and discussion of contemporary scientific issues. Students changed their perceptions regarding the benefits and risks of plastics as well as increasing their general knowledge of plastics. By the end of the game, more students thought that there were both more benefits and more risks associated with plastics. However, most students did not think plastics could or should be totally eliminated from use in contemporary life. Student survey responses as well as teacher comments during interviews indicated that students found the guidelines and directions to be insufficient and confusing. Following the pilot, the project team made significant changes both to the student and teacher materials in order to provide more clarity and focus. The revised Instructors’ Manual also suggests allowing more flexibility with regard to placement within the academic year and to the overall time spent on the game and time spent on specific phases of the game. The revised instructions also recommend that teachers take a more active role in guiding the students throughout game play in order to ensure that students remain on track and focused. However, teachers should not become overly directive and should permit students sufficient latitude to work things through on their own. In summary, Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics role-playing game is a good strategy to engage high school students from diverse backgrounds and classroom settings in debating various aspects of controversial scientific and policy issues. Students not only learned about plastics and their role in and benefits for contemporary life but also had opportunities to consider ways of solving problems associated with the use of plastics. By playing the game, students were able to hone their debating and presentation skills as well as learning to present their arguments based on evidence. The project also appeared
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Case of Plastics was developed by the Chemical Heritage Foundation (CHF) with generous support from the Heritage Philadelphia Program, a program of The Pew Center for Arts and Heritage to promote increased public understanding of chemistry. Expansion of the Web site and revisions to the teaching and classroom materials were made possible with the support of the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences. I would like to thank Stephanie Corrigan, Michael Mackintosh, and Gigi Naglak for their contributions to the success of this project, the teachers involved in the pilot program who gave generously of their time, Elena Schmidt for her evaluation expertise, and Patricia Wieland for her editorial skills.
■
REFERENCES
(1) A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Research Council (NRC); National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. (2) Achieve, Inc. Next Generation Science Standards. www. nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards (accessed May 2014). (3) National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). Common Core State Standards (in English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects and in mathematics); NGAC and CCSSO: Washington, DC, 2010. (4) Kimbrough, D. R.; Dyckes, D. F.; Mlady, G. W. Teaching Science and Public Policy through Role Playing. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 295− 296. (5) Jones, M. A. Use of a Classroom Jury Trial to Enhance Students’ Perception of Science as Part of Their Lives. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 537. (6) Jackson, P. T.; Walters, J. P. Role-Playing in Analytical Chemistry: The Alumni Speak. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1019−1025. (7) Smythe, M.; Higgins, D. A. (Role) Playing Politics in an Environmental Chemistry Lecture Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 241−244. (8) Hoggard, P. E. Trying a Case on Ethics in Science Research, A Role-Playing Exercise for Students and Faculty in a Summer Undergraduate Research Program. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 802−804. (9) King, A. From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. Coll. Teach. 1993, 41, 30−35. (10) Herreid, C. F. Case Studies in Science: A Novel Method of Science Education. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1994, 23, 221−230. F
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4007277 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
(11) DeNeve, K. M.; Heppner, M. J. Role Playing Simulations: The Assessment of an Active Learning Technique and Comparisons with Traditional Lectures. Innovative Higher Educ. 1997, 21, 231−246. (12) Fox, A. M.; Loope, L. L. Globalization and Invasive Species Issues in Hawaii: Role-Playing Some Local Perspectives. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 2007, 36, 147−157. (13) Harwood, W. S.; McKinster, J. G.; Cruz, L.; Gabel, D. Acting Out Science Using Senate Hearings to Debate Global Climate Change. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2002, 31, 443−447. (14) Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.; Simon, S.; Monk, M. Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Science. Sch. Sci. Rev. 2001, 82, 63−69. (15) Chemistry in the Community, 6th ed.; American Chemical Society (ACS); W. H. Freeman: New York, 2012. (16) Winter, J. The Ethanol Project. Sci. Teach. 2013, 80, 48−51. (17) Sampson, V.; Enderle, P.; Grooms, J. Argumentation in Science Education. Sci. Teach. 2013, 80, 31−33. (18) Llewellyn, D. Teaching High School Science through Inquiry and Argumentation, 2nd ed.; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013. (19) Llewellyn, D. Making and Defending Scientific Arguments. Science Teacher 2013, 80, 35−38. (20) Clary, R.; Wandersee, J. Arguing History. Sci. Teach. 2013, 80, 39−43. (21) Taylor, L. The Language of Argumentation. Sci. Teach. 2013, 80, 45−49. (22) Howes, E. V.; Cruz, B. C. Role-Playing in Science Education: An Effective Strategy for Developing Multiple Perspectives. J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 2009, 21, 33−46. (23) Matthews, M. R.; Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy in Science; Routledge: New York, 1994. (24) Driver, R.; Newton, P.; Osborne, J. Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 287−313. (25) Barnard College. Reacting to the Past. http://reacting.barnard. edu (accessed May 2014). (26) Chemical Heritage Foundation. Home page of Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics. http://www.chemheritage.org/ discover/online-resources/conflicts-in-chemistry/the-case-of-plastics/ index.aspx (accessed May 2014). (27) Research for Better Schools (RBS). Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics, Final Evaluation Report, RBS Publications: Philadelphia, PA, 2013.
G
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4007277 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
