GSA Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, USA - 2019

Paper No. 181-11
Presentation Time: 11:30 AM


CARROLL STEWARD, Kimberly1, BHATTACHARYA, Devarati2, FORBES, Cory2 and CHANDLER, Mark3, (1)Natural Resources, University of Nebraska- Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68503, (2)Natural Resources, University of Nebraska- Lincoln, 518 South Hardin Hall, 3310 Holdrege Street, Lincoln, NE 68583, (3)Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025

Increasing emphasis has been placed on promoting climate literacy in K-12 classrooms. Two significant standards documents - the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the Essential Principles for Climate Literacy (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009) - have afforded the opportunity to develop climate education interventions that are grounded in scientific modeling. K-12 teachers are utilizing these climate-focused curricula and resources to support students’ model-based learning about climate concepts. However, little is known about how teachers implement these curricular interventions. In this design-based, mixed-methods study, we investigate two secondary science teachers’ use of a new, NSF-supported curriculum grounded in a data-driven, global climate modeling tool to address the following research questions: (1) how two secondary science teachers implement a model-based curriculum?; (2) if and how much divergence occurs from the provided written curriculum?; and (3) how the teachers’ implementation strategies change over time? Using a validated observation protocol for scientific modeling, both the written curriculum (Fleiss-κ = .520) and the teachers’ observations (Fleiss-κ = .420) were quantitatively scored by multiple members of the research team for the presences of four modeling practices. Qualitative analyses were conducted on teachers’ interviews and daily reflections based upon a priori codes reflected in the categories of the observation protocol =. Results show that the curriculum was more closely followed in year one than year two, and the while divergence occurred in both years, it was not equal between teachers. Commonly-observed divergences from the curriculum created by teacher one were incorporated into the year two practice of teacher two. While the curriculum was not adapted with an increasing focus on model-based teaching practices from year one to year two, both teachers increased both the frequency and rigor of opportunities for students to use the climate model to reason about Earth’s climate. These results have implications for teaching and learning about Earth’s climate system in secondary science classrooms.