GSA Connects 2021 in Portland, Oregon

Paper No. 218-9
Presentation Time: 10:15 AM


CARROLL STEWARD, Kimberly, PhD Candidate , Lincoln, NE 68503; School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 523 Hardin Hall, 3310 Holdrege Street, Lincoln, NE 68583, FORBES, Cory, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 523 Hardin Hall, 3310 Holdrege Street, Lincoln, NE 68583 and CHANDLER, Mark A., Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, NASA/GISS, 2880 Broadway, New York, NE 10025

Global climate change (GCC) has become a primary threat to the development and sustainability of human society. All nations are experiencing the effects of climate, necessitating the need to address this issue that threatens the current state of human existence. Education remains the primary tool; if correctly appropriated, it can nurture a global community that is aware of and knowledgeable about climatic changes and institute environmental conservation practices to reduce or eradicate the harmful effects of climate change (Pallant, 2012). The evidence of climate education, such as the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the United States, has intensified the focus on teaching and learning of Earth's climate and GCC in a formal educational setting making its actualization in a secondary traditional science classroom possible (Bhattacharya, 2020). However, little is known regarding how these teachers implement these materials in their classrooms and how these implementations change over time. In this design-based, mixed-methods case study, we investigate two secondary science teachers' use of a research-based, NSF-supported curriculum grounded in a data-driven, global climate modeling tool over three years to address the following research questions: 1) how do two secondary science teachers implement a model-based curriculum? and 2) how do the teachers' implementation strategies evolve over the three-year study? Using a validated observation protocol for scientific modeling, we scored teachers' implementation strategies for construction and use modeling practices. Additionally, qualitative analyses were conducted on teachers' data based upon a priori codes. Our results show that significant differences were identified between teachers and curriculum (F (2, 253) = 56.31, p= <0.0001), between years (F (2, 253) = 44.70, p= <0.0001), and within the interactions of teachers and the years (F (2, 253) = 27.57, p= <0.0001). Both teachers increased in their average scores each from the first year to the third year of implementation. Initial qualitative results identified Monica as largely not relying on the provided curriculum and remained unchanged, but Julie changed her implementation strategies drastically over the three-year study period. To ensure the most equitable outcome for students, it is critical to understand teachers' use of curriculum materials and how they alter these materials over time.