I first encountered the KLEWS teaching strategy in an article in Science and Children (NSTA 2015), “KLEWS to Explanation-Building in Science.” I shared the article and modeled the strategy with teachers who wanted to support their K–5 students in the science practice of constructing explanations. I really liked the KLEWS chart. About a month ago, I had the opportunity to collaborate with other educators (read as: I needed help) while developing a first-grade lesson about sound. I discovered how KLEWS charts honor students’ ideas about phenomena, support students in developing explanations and models, and help teachers and students connect today with yesterday, and decide where to go next (coherence). Now I L-O-V-E the K-L-E-W-S chart!
The KLEWS chart is a revamped version of the KWL chart (What do we know? What do we wonder? What did we learn?) for science. Columns were added for evidence and science ideas and words (Hershberger and Zembal-Saul 2015).
I reached out to my friend Beth Pesnell for help. Beth is a former elementary school teacher and K–8 math and science curriculum specialist (she is currently pursuing a Ph.D.). She assured me first-grade students could draw a model. “Give them a blank piece of paper!” she said excitedly.
Beth also knew I wanted to give students the opportunity to revise models at different points in the multi-day lesson and asked if I had considered using a KLEWS chart. She listened to my ideas about the lesson and together we made the following plan (details are limited due to space constraints).
Kate and Beth’s Plan
Post the KLEWS chart in the room.
Read The Listening Walk to the class. (This book does not steal students’ “ahas” about how we hear or how sounds are made.) The book ends by asking, “How many different sounds can you hear right now? Close your book and count them!”
Ask students, “What do you think we know about how we hear?” Record their responses under K.
Introduce the phenomenon (Evelyn Glennie playing drums with Oscar the Grouch); ask students to share their thinking with a partner.
Ask students to draw (individually) a model to explain how Evelyn Glennie hears with her feet.
Tell students to put their models away (or collect them) (don’t ask them to share yet).
Give students the opportunity to explore sound at different stations around the room.
Say to students “You probably have some new ideas about sound and how we hear. What would you like to change or add to your model?” Give students time to revise their models.
Ask students to join their predetermined groups and share what they changed or added to their model, and explain why.
Ask students to share with the class what they heard other students say they added to their model and why. Record their responses in the L column. (I was intentional about where each response was recorded – keeping them next to/in line with related “things we think we know” in the K column.)
Each time a response is recorded in the L column, ask students for evidence to support the learning. Record the evidence under E, keeping it next to/in line with to the L response it supports.
In the S column, record the big science ideas students may have verbalized or described in their learning statements. Concepts are recorded in the S column throughout the lesson, when students connect the ideas with their learnings (L column).
As new “wonderings” are expressed, record them in the W column. (Again, I was intentional where I recorded their questions in this column.)
This learning experience and model will help inform the engineering design found in 1-PS4-4.
Wow! I was excited to teach the lesson, but also a bit nervous because I hadn’t used the KLEWS chart like this before. I was unfamiliar with the intentionality of where ideas are recorded in the columns, the fluidity between columns, and the navigation back and forth between the chart and student models as the lesson progressed. I wondered if I could find a video to help me visualize how to use the KLEWS chart (spoiler alert: I did).
I found a Teaching Channel blog post titled KLEWS: Supporting Claims, Evidence and Reasoning. The blog instructs educators on how to begin using the KLEWS chart in their classrooms by inviting us to watch third-grade teacher Maria Katsanos and her students using the KLEWS chart for the first time in the classroom. In a series of videos, we see Katsanos use the KLEWS chart to plan her lesson, support student sense-making, and reflect on how it required her to change the way she thought about teaching science. (Thanks to Katsanos for bravely trying something new with an audience for the benefit of other educators and their students.)
As I watched Katsanos and her students, I made notes on my lesson: What should I listen for in students’ conversations? What questions could I ask to get students thinking about their evidence? Which anticipated student “learnings” might lead to concepts/words to record in the S column? I suddenly realized I was collaborating with Maria Katsanos like I had with my friend, Beth Pesnell.
Now I was really excited to teach this lesson.
Before teaching this lesson in the classroom, I planned to use it as an immersion experience for elementary teachers who were new to three-dimensional teaching and learning in service to phenomena. On the morning of the workshop, a teacher expressed concern that she didn’t teach science every day and didn’t know how to help students connect their sense-making from one class period to the next. It was a great question! And when the answer occurred to me, I smiled. Let’s just say I helped her and her colleagues get a KLEWS.
Do you want to collaborate on a KLEWS lesson? Whether you have questions that need answering or expertise to share, join the conversation by commenting below.
Resources:
More about Evelyn Glennie (children’s book)
Millman, I. 1998 Moses goes to a concert. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
More About KLEWS Charts
Zembal-Saul, C., K. L. McNeill, and K. Hershberger. 2013. What’s your evidence? Engaging K–5 students in constructing explanations in science. Pearson.
Hershberger, K , and C. Zembal-Saul. 2015. Methods and strategies: KLEWS to explanation-building in science. Science and Children 52 (6): 66–71.
Kate Soriano has more than 20 years of experience teaching K–12 students science in both formal and informal educational settings. Currently, she is supporting teachers in their transition toward the Next Generation Science Standards. Soriano is an NSTA NGSS Professional Learning Facilitator and Instructional Coach. She also serves on the EQuIP Peer Review Panel for Science. She holds a BS in geology and geophysics from Boston College, an MS in geology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and an MA in education from Humboldt State University.
Note: This article is featured in the May issue of Next Gen Navigator, a monthly e-newsletter from NSTA delivering information, insights, resources, and professional learning opportunities for science educators by science educators on the Next Generation Science Standards and three-dimensional instruction. Click here to sign up to receive the Navigator every month.
I first encountered the KLEWS teaching strategy in an article in Science and Children (NSTA 2015), “KLEWS to Explanation-Building in Science.” I shared the article and modeled the strategy with teachers who wanted to support their K–5 students in the science practice of constructing explanations. I really liked the KLEWS chart. About a month ago, I had the opportunity to collaborate with other educators (read as: I needed help) while developing a first-grade lesson about sound.
Ed News: How U.S. STEM Practices Compare Internationally
This
week in education news, new research finds that the level of level of teacher
experience is positively associated with levels of student achievement,
particularly for black and Latino students; City
of Chicago asking school board to approve $135 million in contracts to four
vendors with experience creating curriculum; teachers are presented with
new strategies and not given the time and support to unlearn their old
practices; study finds integrating the arts into
science lessons helps the lowest-performing students retain more content; high
school and college STEM students build electric cars for kids with disabilities;
experts recommend when children
engage with immersive media in their near and distant future, their experiences
should be positive, productive and safe; and educators looking to engage
students more deeply in STEM subjects may want to consider including humor and
outside-the-box projects.
The OECD recently issued its new book-length report, “Measuring Innovation in Education 2019.” The authors offer some fascinating peeks at how the OECD nations compare when it comes to K-12 policy and practice. Today, I’ll flag five big questions that they help to answer in the case of STEM. (Note: All of the following results were calculated using TIMSS data.) Read the article featured in Education Week.
A new report released by the Learning Policy Institute, “California’s Positive Outliers: Districts Beating the Odds,” indicates students of color — and, indeed, all students — perform better when served by teachers with better qualifications. Further, the research for the report found the proportion of teachers holding substandard credentials is negatively associated with student achievement, and that these teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools in California with higher populations of students of color and low-income students. Read more in the article featured in Education DIVE.
The city is asking the school board to approve $135 million in contracts to four vendors with experience creating curriculum. Through what the district is calling the “Curriculum Equity Initiative,” the companies will work with local officials and educators over two years to create materials that are challenging and sensitive to the varied needs of Chicago students. Read the article featured in Chalkbeat.
From its many prestigious universities down to its public education system, the Keystone State offers students of all ages the opportunity to learn and thrive. But as public school staff work to expand their students’ minds, school administrators are finding the need to expand their school buildings to accommodate growing populations. Read the article featured on Nasa.gov.
“Unlearning” says that in order for people to transform their practice, they must confront and move beyond their previously held beliefs, assumptions, and values. In other words, it’s a shift in identity. Experts say the method is ripe for teacher professional development: Too often, teachers are presented with new strategies and not given the time and support to unlearn their old practices. Read the article featured in Education Week.
Integrating the arts into science lessons helps the lowest-performing students retain more content, and doesn’t require much funding to do. Read the article featured in District Administration.
A group of high school and college students from Connecticut have come together to build something extraordinary: Fully-functioning electric carts for families who may not be able to afford adaptive wheelchairs. STEM students from New Britain High School and technology education students from Central Connecticut State University built the carts from scratch together. Read the article featured on CBSNews.com
At every step in the college-going process, students from low-income families face a bumpier road than their wealthier peers. That was one finding in the 2019 Condition of Education—the National Center on Education Statistics’ massive compendium of annual education indicators, from enrollment to staffing to achievement—which was released Tuesday morning. Read the article featured in Education Week.
While the long-term effects on development remain unclear, experts recommend limiting time and ensuring that immersive media experiences are “positive, productive and safe.” Read the brief featured in Education DIVE.
Meeting student demand for “participation in fun, science-related projects and competitions” may not be as difficult as it sounds. Read the article featured in Education DIVE.
Stay
tuned for next week’s top education news stories.
The Communication, Legislative & Public Affairs (CLPA) team strives to keep NSTA members, teachers, science education leaders, and the general public informed about NSTA programs, products, and services and key science education issues and legislation. In the association’s role as the national voice for science education, its CLPA team actively promotes NSTA’s positions on science education issues and communicates key NSTA messages to essential audiences.
The mission of NSTA is to promote excellence and
innovation in science teaching and learning for all.
This
week in education news, new research finds that the level of level of teacher
experience is positively associated with levels of student achievement,
particularly for black and Latino students; City
of Chicago asking school board to approve $135 million in contracts to four
vendors with experience creating curriculum; teachers are presented with
new strategies and not given the time and support to unlearn their old
practices; study finds integrating the arts into
science lessons helps the lowest-performing students retain more content; high
school and college STEM students build elect
Finding STEM Success in the Post-Secondary Classroom
The 8th Annual STEM Forum & Expo, hosted by NSTA,
this July in San Francisco offers a post-secondary track to help educators
create STEM-rich learning environments for students. STEM plays a vital role in
post-secondary education, whether it’s in the introductory classroom where students
are learning about the value of STEM or upper-level classes where students are
preparing for STEM-related careers.
The sessions in the post-secondary track at the STEM Forum & Expo will help educators incorporate the value of STEM in their classrooms. For all of the sessions in the track, and to tailor the conference program for your own needs, browse the sessions online and search by date, conference strand, grade level, and more.
Here
are a few of the post-secondary sessions offered:
Thursday, July 25, 9:30–10:30 a.m., Rm. 3022, Moscone
Center West
Preparing Students for Actual Science
Join for a discussion of how students are trained to be
scientists emphasizing intuition and non-specialized knowledge rather than
using the scientific method to make discoveries.
Speaker: Ed Fenimore, Emeritus Fellow
Friday, July 26, 9:30–10:30 a.m., Rm. 3022, Moscone
Center West
Activism in the Science Classroom: Where to Draw the Line?
As instructors, we want to reflect on how to balance
activism and adversarial attitudes among students and faculty in the science
classroom. How do we present the science and address student claims supported
by examples in the media?
Speakers: Annissa Furr, Professor, Kaplan University; Tyra
Hall-Pogar, Professor, Purdue Global University
Friday, July 26, 1:30–2:30 p.m., Rm. 3022, Moscone Center
West
Nontraditional Students: New Prospects for Qualified STEM Educators at
Rider University
The speakers will share the unique experiences of two
undergraduate scholars and their nontraditional paths to careers in STEM
education.
Speakers: Laura Ramirez, Undergraduate Student, Rider University; Kimberly Konczyk, Student, Rider University
Educators from all grade levels will gain valuable STEM
teaching strategies and resources at the
8th Annual STEM Forum & Expo, hosted by NSTA. This unique, focused event brings together
(informal and formal) educators and representatives from exhibiting companies
who are interested in, and who have tools and resources to share that will
ensure successful implementation of STEM education into our schools and
communities. It is intended to provide resources for educators and
organizations seeking to learn more about STEM education, associated outreach
programs, partnerships, schools, and curricula.
The 8th Annual STEM Forum & Expo, hosted by NSTA,
this July in San Francisco offers a post-secondary track to help educators
create STEM-rich learning environments for students.
I am working on a lesson plan for the life cycle of a plant for kindergarten. Do you have any activity ideas? — K., Oregon
If you’re teaching about life cycles of flowering plants you should incorporate all the life stages.
Start by growing plants from seeds—particularly large, easily available seeds like peas or beans. I’m sure you’re aware of the zip-top plastic bag and wet paper towel activity. (Soak the peas or beans overnight.) Students will see where plants come from and you can discuss the different parts of an adult plant. Have students identify the same structures in the plants and trees they see on a nature walk.
Flowering plants create the next generation via their flowers. You can purchase inexpensive, fresh flowers and dissect the different parts. (Ask students about potential allergies.) Make sure to cut open the ovary, a harder, thicker section just below the petals. This contains tiny unfertilized ovules— waiting for pollen to develop into seeds. Use magnifiers to examine the ovules and look closely at the other structures on the flowers.
Buy fresh pea pods, bean pods, and fruit. Open them to see the seeds. Where do the fruit and pods come from? Flowers! Photos of fruit trees in bloom or a nature walk during the blooming season will connect the two. You can have great discussions about the fruit we eat! Consider incorporating a talk about pollinators, particularly bees.
A search of The Learning Center will provide you with ideas, lessons and articles on this subject.
If you were to walk into our classroom years ago, you would see students from all walks of life, and with a range of ability levels. All of the students were blended together to learn science and were eager to be engaged. We were teaching units that were not sequenced, and our focus was on memorization and expecting student to regurgitate information to perform well on a state assessment. The pressure to ensure the entire curriculum was covered and high test scores maintained meant that student understanding became secondary.
The NGSS have brought a breath of fresh air into our classroom. We now look at every student differently and expect all of them to learn many science and engineering skills that can help them meet their personal post-secondary goals, regardless of whether they go into the sciences.
Since the NGSS were released in 2013, we started working in our PLCs and planning how we can integrate the science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. We wanted to explore how the notion of phenomena and “figuring out” fit it into what we were already doing. We attended more training and met with peers, and we thought we finally understood, even experiencing our own “aha” moments. But it wasn’t until we experienced a phenomenon as student learners in a training session that we understood how the three dimensions support one other.
It occurred when a peer spoke about the phenomenon of a young man who had died from drinking too much water and wondered if it was possible for water to cause death. She had us use a model to illustrate how the kidneys functioned and experience the same models completed in her class. By connecting the science idea to the kidneys’ function we were able to look through the lens of the crosscutting concept to explain the science more deeply. This “aha” moment began a chain of events where we both began to learn how we could transform our classroom to one in which all students feel invested in and connected to their science education.
Today we are enthusiastically learning and applying what we have learned about the NGSS. We first tried our hands at using some of our old resources to see if they fit with the new way of starting with phenomena, then going into a storyline, but it didn’t feel right. We were using the practices and crosscutting concepts and teaching the DCIs, yet it felt disjointed. We realized we needed a model of what this looked like in the classroom, so a friend pointed us to www.nextgenstorylines.org, which is a fantastic resource. We found our new love!
Our first storyline centered on a young girl named Addie, and it was through her storyline that we were able to see what a genuine phenomenon looked like to the students. We realized rather quickly that our units lacked coherence and didn’t effectively integrate the dimensions. They were often choppy and students didn’t see how each piece of the dimensions could support their learning. We learned in an actual NGSS storyline the students are learning about the phenomena and the lessons they are taught are intentionally selected in the sequence to support students building the science ideas to grasp the phenomena.
Tackling a storyline was challenging at first, but now we are on our third cycle of Addie’s storyline, and we have added two other storylines under our belt. Our motivation is more than just using ready-made units; it was our students who made it clear what we were doing mattered. When we first introduced the phenomena of either Addie or the children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), our students immediately started asking questions. They were truly interested and began to build their understanding. Their focus started to be about collecting evidence to support their ideas.
Our students had a voice in their learning, and we made every piece of information an intricate part of the puzzle. Together we worked to ensure we could all see the big picture. One of our favorite things has been for us to see where our kids first started in their thinking, and then looking at their completed models. We marvel at how much they have learned through authentic experiences.
We are especially moved by the inclusivity of these units. When we are intentional about weaving the three dimensions together and connecting to a phenomenon we make room for every student in the classroom to be empowered and to take risks while learning about science. We don’t teach at our students in our classes now, teaching is more of a partnership with them. Our students have a voice, and we move together collaboratively to figure out the science we need to explain the phenomena we have all experienced. To be honest, this is precisely what we have always imagined teaching and learning should feel like. We engaged our students through the use of modeling throughout the storyline to allow student to explain their learning combined with many other practices intertwined. We would love to hear from you! Have you used storylines in your classroom? What practices or crosscutting are you using to support your students? We want to celebrate with you, please share with us here!
Student Initial Model
Student End of Storyline Model
Michelle Schuster is a high school biology teacher in Florence, Kentucky. This is her 20th year teaching at Boone County High School where she is also an alumni. Schuster holds a bachelor’s degree in biology and a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction. She is a member of the Boone County Science Teacher Leader Committee where she serves as an ambassador for her school aiding in the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards within the district. She works as an Online Advisor for the National Science Teacher Association in the NSTA Learning Center; where she contributes to discussions in online forums with educators across the county. Schuster has been team teaching biology with Jessica Holman for four years. Schuster pours her drive and passion for science into every lesson her students experience.
Jessica Holman is a special education teacher at Boone County High School. She has worked in education for 10 years in both North Carolina and Kentucky. Holman holds a bachelor’s degree from Winston Salem State University in special education and a master’s degree in teacher leadership with a certification in instructional technology. She is active in her role as a science teacher leader in her school district; she collaborates with peers and works to integrate instruction into her blended learning classroom. Holman has worked with educators across the state of Kentucky to communicate educational strategies that support the learning and growing of fellow educators. She is motivated by the opportunity for equitable education through the implementation of the NGSS and works hard to ensure every student feels accepted and encouraged to learn science.
Note: This article is featured in the May issue of Next Gen Navigator, a monthly e-newsletter from NSTA delivering information, insights, resources, and professional learning opportunities for science educators by science educators on the Next Generation Science Standards and three-dimensional instruction. Click here to sign up to receive the Navigator every month.
If you were to walk into our classroom years ago, you would see students from all walks of life, and with a range of ability levels. All of the students were blended together to learn science and were eager to be engaged. We were teaching units that were not sequenced, and our focus was on memorization and expecting student to regurgitate information to perform well on a state assessment. The pressure to ensure the entire curriculum was covered and high test scores maintained meant that student understanding became secondary.
As several reports have shown, it is critical for teachers to understand instructional strategies that are consistent with the NGSS vision, as well as to have the skills to implement them in their classrooms. I had the privilege of working with two early-career eighth-grade teachers at South Warren Middle School in Bowling Green, Kentucky, as part of an NSTA coaching pilot program. A lesson I learned from this opportunity was that there are many paths toward realizing the vision of the NGSS in the classroom, but, as the ancient Latin adage says, experientia docet (“experience teaches”).
Find Your Starting Place
Both teachers were receptive to trying different instructional strategies but found that understanding these strategies and designing instruction was one thing, while implementing them was something totally different. We were focused on working toward the performance expectation, MS-LS3-1. (Develop and use a model to describe why structural changes to genes (mutations) located on chromosomes may affect proteins and may result in harmful, beneficial, or neutral effects to the structure and function of the organism.)
To clarify our understanding of the disciplinary core idea, we consulted the Framework, Evidence Statements, and chapter 8 of the NSTA Press book, Disciplinary Core Ideas: Reshaping Teaching. In making sense of the standard, questions arose, such as How do we help students figure this out? Shouldn’t they know about the different types of mutations first? Isn’t this too abstract for middle school students?
As a fan of the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) materials, I knew they included a lab that addressed the standard, which I shared and offered to team-teach. Since each teacher was at a different point in their district’s learning sequence for this standard, Kaylee Okenye agreed to try Lab 15, Mutations in Genes: How Do Different Types of Mutations in Genes Affect the Function of an Organism? (Enderle, 2015, pp. 248–262), with her students. Lab 15 uses a free simulation from the Concord Consortium (available at http://concord.org/stem-resources/mutations) that allows students to test DNA base substitutions, deletions, and insertions and gauge the impact by observing changes in the amino acid sequence and the protein’s structure.
Find Your Collaborator/Sounding Board/Comfort Zone
Okenye has a strong background in biology and would be at ease fielding questions from the students about the content as they arose. I could provide the support for helping students use the appropriate practices and crosscutting concepts, at the element level, as they worked to figure out the effects of gene mutations on protein structure. Having used the ADI materials many times, I could also suggest scaffolds based on Okenye’s knowledge of her students. Table 1 provides a summary of the experiences we designed.
Table 1. Summary of Lesson and Scaffolds Used
Day
What Students Did
Scaffolds Used
1
Read and annotate background information
Design investigation and set up data table
Sign off on investigation proposal
Begin data collection
Exit Slip (using one of the Checkout Questions pg. 261)
The group proposal served as an important formative assessment for us. Groups could not begin to carry out their investigation until we signed off on their proposal. This allowed us to uncover student thinking using probing questions about content, practices, and crosscutting concepts.
Although students knew textbook definitions for independent and dependent variables and controls, they struggled to identify them for this investigation or to use them to design a method for recording their data. Because every group had difficulty with this, we called everyone together and provided a way to think about organizing data, which also helps to sort independent from dependent variables. Table 2 is an example of one group’s data table after this support.
Table 2:
With screen shots of the protein resulting from different mutations:
Examination of the exit slips revealed that the majority of students’ mental models held the common misconceptions that all mutations are harmful and that deletion of a base was responsible for the most harmful changes. Their responses reinforced the need to provide scaffolding for using evidence to support a claim and that core ideas are needed to tie the evidence to their claim (reasoning). This is something the argumentation session would target.
Students’ questions spoke volumes about not only their comfort level with this shift in instruction but also their growing understanding. Questions ranged from, Is this what you want on the data table? and How many times do we need to run the simulation? to Why doesn’t the protein structure change each time there is a mutation? and What causes a mutation to happen?
Okenye had several concerns. She said she felt that the first day was a “train wreck” and observed “Students were lost at first. They weren’t making connections, didn’t know how to design an experiment, and didn’t know how to set up a data table.” In hindsight, she thought we should have “provided more scaffolding” because it was the first time students had planned and carried out an investigation.
She noted that “in the past, students had to memorize the steps to the scientific method and learn vocabulary, but they didn’t get any practice in designing an experiment. Test prep has required cramming content and left no time for experimentation.” To further add to the confusion, “groups had varied data sets. One group would say that an insertion was more harmful than a deletion, because it changed the protein length. Another group would say that their data didn’t show that.”
From my perspective, the team-teaching and use of quality instructional material was very successful. Okenye was implementing a three-dimensional lesson at the element level. We were working on classroom discourse, and students were being challenged cognitively.
It is often uncomfortable to embrace the productive struggle that is necessary for learning. Sometimes, it is a fine line between struggle and frustration. But I wouldn’t describe day one as a “train wreck.” I would describe it as a classic example of productive struggle. When we were debriefing, Okenye stated that, “If students were asked to plan another experiment and to design a data table, they would be able to do it.”
Through argumentation, students had a wealth of evidence to support a claim that “…structural changes to genes (mutations) located on chromosomes may affect proteins and may result in harmful, beneficial, or neutral effects to the structure and function of the organism,” because of the varied data sets each group had. To make sense of this rich data, they needed to understand and apply the underlying core ideas. Of course, this is very different from conducting a cookie-cutter, verification lab in which success is determined by reaching the pre-drawn conclusion.
Take-Home Message
When I think about what professional learning experiences are required to help teachers implement the NGSS, the Beatles’ song, “The Long and Winding Road” often plays in my head. There are many paths for teachers to take, but experiencing instructional strategies that are consistent with the NGSS with your students may straighten some of those curves. Experientia docet.
Please share your experiences and/or comments about your journey implementing NGSS. Feedback and suggestions are greatly appreciated, too!
References
Duncan, R., J. Krajcik, and A. Ravit eds. 2016. Disciplinary Core Ideas: Reshaping Teaching and Learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Enderle, P. (2015). Argument-driven inquiry in life science: Lab investigations for grades 6-8. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Also available online at https://doi.org/10.17226/21836.
National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Also available online at https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Also available online at https://doi.org/10.17226/18802.
NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (insert specific section title(s) being used if not referring to entirety of the NGSS). Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/.
Diane Johnson is a Master Teacher for the MSUTeach program at Morehead State University and a Regional Teacher Partner for PIMSER (Partnership Institute for Math and Science Education Reform) at Eastern Kentucky University. Johnson taught high school science for 25 years and served as an instructional supervisor for five years in Lewis County, Kentucky. Additionally, she is a member of Achieve, Inc’s Peer Review Panel and one of NSTA’s Professional Learning Facilitators. Johnson holds a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in biology, and a second master’s in supervision, and is ABD in science education. Follow me at @MDHJohnson and jdiane72@gmail.com
Note: This article is featured in the May issue of Next Gen Navigator, a monthly e-newsletter from NSTA delivering information, insights, resources, and professional learning opportunities for science educators by science educators on the Next Generation Science Standards and three-dimensional instruction. Click here to sign up to receive the Navigator every month.
As several reports have shown, it is critical for teachers to understand instructional strategies that are consistent with the NGSS vision, as well as to have the skills to implement them in their classrooms. I had the privilege of working with two early-career eighth-grade teachers at South Warren Middle School in Bowling Green, Kentucky, as part of an NSTA coaching pilot program.
My kindergarten students believe that small objects are always light and big objects are always heavier. How can I address this misconception? —L., Wyoming
Excellent question! This is a major misconception many adults have about density: the characteristic relationship between the mass and volume of materials.
I think the best way to tackle this is to have a hands-on activity. Buy or make identical-sized blocks, cylinders, or balls of different materials: plastic, wood, soap, iron, aluminum, styrofoam, plasticine, and so on. Although we are saying size, we are actually referring to volume.
Using the same series of materials, make shapes in larger sizes. The more sizes you can get the better.
Have students hold the same-sized cube of iron and aluminum in their hands. They should observe a difference albeit subjective. Use a double-pan balance or make a simple teeter-totter device to compare masses of objects objectively. Have them rank the different blocks from heaviest to lightest.
Can they balance a small, “heavy” object with a few “lighter” objects? At some point, the students should realize that many “light” things (or a single larger “light” item) can have the same weight (mass) as a smaller “heavy” object.
Now blow up a balloon! How does that compare to any of your other materials? It’s bigger, but I bet it’s lighter than almost everything else.
Hopefully this will lead to a better understanding of the density of different materials.
My kindergarten students believe that small objects are always light and big objects are always heavier. How can I address this misconception? —L., Wyoming
Excellent question! This is a major misconception many adults have about density: the characteristic relationship between the mass and volume of materials.
What if you could challenge your 11th graders to figure out the best response to a partial meltdown at a nuclear reactor in fictional Gammatown, USA? With this volume in the STEM Road Map Curriculum Series, you can!
Radioactivity outlines a journey that will steer your students toward authentic problem solving while grounding them in integrated STEM disciplines. As are the other volumes in the series, this book is designed to meet the growing need to infuse real-world learning into K–12 classrooms.
What if you could challenge your 11th graders to figure out the best response to a partial meltdown at a nuclear reactor in fictional Gammatown, USA? With this volume in the STEM Road Map Curriculum Series, you can!
Radioactivity outlines a journey that will steer your students toward authentic problem solving while grounding them in integrated STEM disciplines. As are the other volumes in the series, this book is designed to meet the growing need to infuse real-world learning into K–12 classrooms.
Why Are Bees so Buzzworthy? Next Time You See One You’ll Know
Award-winning author Emily Morgan’s new book Next Time You See a Bee is the perfect resource to help children appreciate bees. It’s not meant to be a dry reference, though. Morgan tells readers right up front, “The Next Time You See* books are not meant to present facts to be memorized. They are written to inspire a sense of wonder about ordinary objects or phenomena and foster a desire to learn more about the natural world. Children might initially be afraid of bees. However, when they learn how important bees are to humans and the planet, their fear will hopefully develop into appreciation.”
The book is filled with gorgeous pictures, so even if your students aren’t able to get outside, they can still “experience” the wonder of bees. But if you’re able to follow the author’s recommendations, then do get outside with the kids. Morgan asks readers to watch, find, count, listen, feel, look, touch, observe… but mainly to enjoy and be amazed! Proper cautions are given about being respectful of the bees and to give them enough space. Readers who are fearful of bees are reminded that bees won’t hurt them if left alone.
And yes, the worrisome decline of bee populations is tackled. This is done in an age-appropriate way that addresses the issue, gives vetted science content, and connects readers to their own place in the ecosystem. Simple ideas like planting bee-friendly flowers or using paper tubes to give bees a nesting area will give students a way to be part of the solution (not just for the bees, but for plants, humans, and for all of nature).
Several other pollinators are mentioned, such as butterflies, birds, and wasps, so students get a wider picture of how pollinators and flowers work together. But bees are the most prolific. Once this is established, the author offers information about their bodies and features that make this so.
At one point, Morgan tells us “Bees have no idea how important they are to the plants they visit.” But by the time your students are done reading this charming new title, they will have no doubt as to why!
*Next Time You See a Bee is the newest book in the NSTA Press Next Time You See book series. The series also includes Next Time You See a Sunset, which was named an Outstanding Science Trade Book for Students K–12 and was the winner of the REVERE Award from PreK–12 Learning Group, Association of American Publishers!
People with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) become more widely recognized as part of our population every year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, about 1 in 59 children in the United States is on the autism spectrum (CDC 2018). In 2011 and 2012 more than 455,000 U.S. students received special education under the disability category of autism (DOE 2013). Although support for these students is increasing in schools nationwide, students with ASD are still currently underserved in community settings outside of the classroom, participating less frequently in social activities and experiencing limited variety in nonschool related activities (Little et al. 2014).
Informal learning centers such as museums have made creative strides to become more inclusive, but people with ASD still experience barriers in such settings (Lussenhop et al. 2016). One common barrier is that youth with ASD are often prevented from participating in field trips alongside their fellow schoolmates during regular venue operating hours, due to perceived difficulty with accommodating these children’s needs in community settings. Students with ASD deserve the opportunity to visit and learn from informal science educational institutions and to be included in their local community, not separated from it (Hall 2010).
As part of its mission to encourage young people of all backgrounds to explore and develop their interests in science and technology, in 2013 the Museum of Science, Boston (MOS), established the Buddies Exploring Science Together (BEST) Program, in collaboration with the occupational therapy program faculty and graduate students at Boston University’s Sargent College (BU OT), as well as Boston Public Schools (BPS). The BEST Program supports students with ASD so that they can engage in field trips to the MOS during regular operating hours over the course of multiple months. The program aims to increase student interest in science and provide opportunities for students with ASD to socially participate in a community setting. This novel approach has resulted in science learning opportunities and positive social outcomes for these students, as demonstrated by program evaluations conducted by BU OT graduate students and MOS research and evaluation staff. Additionally, this is a highly replicable partnership program for other communities to modify and implement.
How the BEST program works
The BEST Program is structured to meet the needs of students with ASD and support these students in achieving the following four goals:
Engage in science learning opportunities, which connect to everyday life
Be with and/or socially communicate with others in a naturally occurring community setting
Be interested in and excited about science
Feel included in a community setting
The BEST Program takes place at the MOS from January through April of each school year. The program consists of six field trips to the museum and multiple visits to the classroom, including two initial observational visits from BU OT, a previsit by MOS educators and BU OT a week before the first field trip, a midvisit by MOS educators, and finally, a postprogram visit by BU OT to reflect on the experience. The midvisit is to provide continuity during the BU spring break in March.
The BPS classrooms involved are ASD Strand classrooms, which means all of the students in the classroom are students with ASD. In 2019 two BPS schools participated in the BEST Program: Orchard Gardens K–8 School, which brought 10 students from one middle school classroom (grades 5–8), and Jackson/Mann K–8 School, which brought 16 students from two middle school classrooms (grades 5–8). Students from Orchard Gardens visited on Wednesdays and students from Jackson/Mann visited on Thursdays for the duration of the program. A teacher and three to five paraprofessionals/one-on-one assistants visited along with students from each class. In addition, two BU OT students worked with each class, totaling six BU OT students, with two participating on Wednesdays and four on Thursdays. Finally, three MOS educators rounded out the team for each program day. The ratio of adults to students was approximately 1:1.5.
Two BEST Program BPS students build and test their arch bridge design during an MOS midvisit to their classroom, in preparation for an engineering-themed module at their next MOS field trip.
The participating BPS schools’ special education faculties choose topics to support their science curriculum needs and—in collaboration with the BU OT students—MOS educators then create specific weekly themed program modules based on these science topics. For example, BPS students who learn about the solar system in their classroom can then apply and further their knowledge by participating in a planetarium show at the MOS. Each year prior to the start of the program, BEST Program adult participants—MOS educators, BU OT professors and students, and BPS special education faculty—meet to identify science topics and plan learning activities for the year, based on the requests of the BPS teachers. The BPS teachers and special education faculty members place a great deal of value on the program, as described by one special education teacher who participated in 2015:
“I’ve been teaching for nine years and this is the single most important thing that has happened in my career in teaching as far as having integration of community outing, learning about curriculum, and socializing skills.”
Each week of the BEST Program, the BU OT students engage the students with ASD in an individualized goal-setting process and read customized social stories at their schools prior to getting on the bus to travel to the museum. Social stories are designed to prepare students for an upcoming experience by reviewing what to expect or anticipate and identifying strategies for managing behavior during novel social situations (Kokina and Kern 2010). An example of the first four pages of a social story can be found below.
An example of the first four pages of a social story, created by BU OT graduate students during the 2018 BEST Program.
When the BPS students arrive at the MOS, the BU OT students and MOS educators colead a welcome session and the BU OT students follow up with a warm-up activity—typically, a brief social activity related to the science theme of the day. A warm-up activity for an animal-themed day, for example, could include the BPS BEST Program students each naming their favorite animal, either vocally or via a communication tool such as a tablet, and then demonstrating an action that represents that animal. For each animal named, the whole group would then copy the action the student demonstrates while a BU OT student reiterates, “(Student name)’s favorite animal is a dolphin!”
Every MOS visit includes museum presentations, hands-on and socially interactive activities, or exhibit exploration—all collaboratively designed to promote social interaction and science learning. Experiences have included planting seeds and observing their growth, flower dissection and pollination, participation in an interactive Super-Cold Science presentation, a visit to a planetarium show, weekly weather observations with meteorological tools, participation in a Theater of Electricity presentation, and a visit to the MOS Live Animal Care Center.
An example of a visual schedule that BEST Program students can follow along with and modify as the day progresses.
The program also uses tools to support student learning and communication, such as electronic tablets for visual aids; customized, sequenced instructions for experiments; word banks with images for observations, created with the image-software BoardMaker; and visual schedules of the field trip activities that students can follow along with and modify as the visit progresses.
An example of a set of activity instructions created with Boardmaker. The activity explained here is the Extreme Trampolines Design Challenge at the MOS, which BEST Program students participated in alongside the general public.
This program has historically been funded via a variety of grants and currently receives most of its funding from a generous grant from the Liberty Mutual Foundation. Everything is fully funded for the visiting students, including admission, bus travel, lunch, and any add-on venues, such as tickets for the Charles Hayden Planetarium or the Butterfly Garden. This grant also supports program material purchases and some MOS staff time.
The BEST Program’s philosophy
The overarching philosophy of the BEST Program is to create an inclusive environment within the typical daily atmosphere of the MOS. Supporting students with ASD as they socially interact in a naturally occurring community setting has been shown to be desired by school personnel and students’ families, and is therefore a major goal of the BEST Program (Lussenhop et al. 2016). Rather than host students with ASD during a separate time or at a separate location from other MOS visitors, the BEST Program scaffolds students’ visits to support their participation in museum activities along with the general museum field trip population. This approach to inclusion is an alternative to the often-used model of offering early access or after-hours experiences.
According to the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education’s Access Inquiry Group, the inclusion of people with disabilities means that their surroundings enable them to physically interact with the space, cognitively engage with the materials, and socially interact with one another (Reich et al. 2010). Science centers and museums provide ideal environments to foster social engagement for a wide range of audiences because of the interactive nature of their exhibits and the field’s push toward universal design (Reich et al. 2010). In addition, there is emerging evidence that individuals impacted by ASD are more likely than others to have an aptitude for analyzing or constructing rule-based systems to explain the world around them. These abilities are particularly relevant for STEM-related (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields (Wei et al. 2013). Thus, a science center/museum provides a highly interesting and motivating context for students with ASD to socialize and succeed in a community setting, while reinforcing their interests and aptitude for understanding science.
At the MOS, BEST Program students explore the exhibit halls, participate in hands-on activities, and attend live presentations alongside the general museum visitor population (see video below). As outlined in the previous section of this article, the BEST Program includes specifically designed elements to support students in exploring scientific phenomena and interacting socially within the context of a typical field trip at the museum. It is these elements that translate the program’s philosophy into measurable success. This distinctive and innovative methodology places the program in a prime position to change and advance museum practices nationwide to be more inclusive.
The collaboration
To achieve this goal of inclusion in a museum setting, the BEST Program relies on the MOS’s community partnerships with BPS K–12 education professionals and the BU OT graduate program. The connections between social and science learning for students with ASD are expertly brought together by this full team of professionals.
Three BEST Program BPS students work together at the MOS to complete a circuit—an example of the natural relationship between social and science learning.To engage in the MOS Exhibit Halls, two BPS students receive support from a BU OT graduate student as they observe a live animal.
Occupational therapy practitioners focus on supporting “engagement in meaningful occupations.” They analyze the demands of an activity, a person’s abilities, and the context or environment in which the occupation or activity takes place, and then intervene to support participation. The term “occupation” in the profession’s name refers to all the activities that occupy people’s time, enable them to construct an identity, participate as fully as possible in society, and provide meaning to their lives (Cohn, Schell and Crepeau 2010). As such, occupational therapy practitioners have a unique perspective and valuable skills particularly well-suited to collaborating with museum and K–12 professionals to create experiences that promote inclusion and belonging for students.
The BU OT graduate students observe students with ASD in their classroom settings to understand the BPS students’ learning styles and interests, and analyze possible MOS experiences and exhibits to include in the BEST Program. The BU OT graduate students then make recommendations to the MOS educators regarding strategies for structuring the field trip learning experiences to facilitate social interaction and science learning. BPS teachers provide valuable insights as to how MOS educators and BU OT graduate students can best engage the students with ASD, both individually and together as a class. BPS teachers also provide integral structural components and curriculum connections to science learning. MOS educators provide expertise on the museum itself, such as how best to use its spaces and what kinds of presentations and activities are available; they also lead science activities and coordinate program logistics and funding. Collaboration between all partners—the science center, the school system, and the occupational therapy program—is essential for the BEST Program to run successfully.
A BEST Program BPS student using a microscope to examine some of his favorite toys up close in the MOS Suit Cabot Laboratory—an unprompted idea he had when he saw that the microscope and monitor attachment were capable of making objects appear larger.
Program evaluation
Each year, evaluation of the BEST Program has shown that the program promotes social participation and engagement in science learning activities for students. Program evaluation was conducted collaboratively by BU OT graduate students and MOS research and evaluation staff, and has used several different data collection methods, including:
weekly naturalistic and systematic observations of behaviors of BPS students (in 2015 this was 14 students; in 2018 this was 20 students);
weekly self-reflections of students with ASD regarding their social and science goals, sense of belonging at the MOS, and interest in MOS activities;
group debrief sessions among professionals; and
pre- and post-teacher surveys about students’ behaviors in museum and classroom settings, which were created by adapting standardized surveys from the literature.
The naturalistic observations were a part of the evaluation of the 2015 and 2018 BEST Program. In these observations, students’ engagement in program activities were rated on a scale that ranged from “disengaged” to “neutral” to “engaged,” according to defined criteria. To define behaviors that would indicate engagement in the science museum environment, evaluators drew on data from the 2014 BEST Program evaluation, as well as other research conducted collaboratively by MOS staff and BU OT faculty about how family groups with a child with ASD engage in the museum (Lussenhop et al. 2016). Evaluators took care to note and honor the multiplicity of options for engagement, as forms of engagement are variable and each student has a unique communicative style. Examples of ways in which MOS evaluators could observe whether students were engaged included:
students completing the steps of the activity;
observing experiments, animals, or actions of others;
responding to educator questions; or
focusing on and using an exhibit component.
Evaluators also noted when students had positive reactions to the activities or made some kind of connection between museum activities and familiar situations, objects, or experiences.
This systematic method for observing student engagement demonstrated that during the 2015 BEST Program, all 14 observed students engaged in science learning activities, almost all (13 of 14) students had positive reactions to these activities, and half made connections between science and their everyday lives. Two students participated in the program but were not observed, as their parents or guardians opted not to consent to their participation in the evaluation. In the 2018 program these findings persisted: All 20 observed students engaged in science learning activities, almost all (17 of 20) displayed positive reactions to the activities, and eight out of 20 students were observed making connections to their everyday lives. In 2018 six students participated in the program but were not observed, as their parents or guardians opted not to consent to their participation in the evaluation.
Examples of positive engagement can illustrate the program’s success for a range of students. For example, in 2015 one student in the program used an electronic tablet to communicate and rarely contributed to group discussions. However, during the sixth and final MOS visit, during a Super-Cold Science presentation, the MOS educator leading the program asked students to make a prediction about a balloon she was using in the show. The student excitedly raised her hand and used her tablet to make a prediction that the balloon would be wet. The student’s teacher shared in the 2015 staff debriefing session that the week after the last MOS visit, the student used her tablet to say, “Bus. Bus. Dinosaur. Butterfly.” She then pointed to her coat because she was ready to go to the museum again. Her teacher said, “For her to even want to say something—that never happened at the beginning of the year.”
Students were also observed making connections between the science learning activities and everyday life in 2015 and 2018. In 2018 at an exhibit about dinosaurs, one student was looking at a model of dinosaur teeth. “These teeth might come loose,” he told one of the teachers. “They’re like my teeth.” He opened his mouth and pointed to his own teeth. During the animal-themed week of the program, another student was touching animal furs at a table while her class was taking turns walking through the Live Animal Care Center. She stroked a skunk fur and said, “That’s a skunk; you have to take a bath in tomato juice,” making a connection to the experience of being sprayed by a skunk.
In 2015 and 2018 BPS teachers were asked to provide an assessment of their students’ observed behaviors before and after the BEST Program. The assessment included behaviors such as how much interest a student shows in science, how the student connects science to everyday life, and social participation (such as joining in an activity with peers or taking turns). Teachers assessed students’ social behavior by completing a pre-post survey that was adapted from the Autism Social Skills Profile (ASSP), a standardized measure of social functioning for children with ASD (Bellini and Hopf 2007). The ASSP behavioral item list was adapted to include the social behaviors most likely to occur during the BEST Program. In addition, two behaviors related to science engagement (i.e., shows interest in science, connects science to everyday life in school) were added to the measure. Students’ behaviors are scored on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicating “never” or “almost never” exhibits the skill or behavior, and 4 indicating “very often” or “always” exhibits the skill or behavior. In 2015 the ratings on all the social behaviors measured by the adapted ASSP averaged higher after participation in the BEST Program than before the program (see Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1
These findings held true in 2018 for all the same behaviors that were measured in 2015—average ratings for all social behaviors measured by the adapted ASSP were higher after the program. In particular, in 2018 average teacher ratings showed the biggest change for students showing interest in science and initiating greetings with others. Average teacher ratings also increased for students connecting science to everyday life in school. Teachers also reported that their students were engaging in social and science-related behaviors more often after participating in the BEST Program.
Figure 2
Students themselves also reflected on their museum experiences toward the end of each field trip. During every MOS visit, following all the museum activities, the BU OT graduate students engaged the BPS students in a brief activity to support them in reflecting on the goals they had set for the visit and their sense of belonging at the MOS that day. This reflection was scaffolded with visual images of the students’ goals. The students either pointed to the image that portrayed their performance or used the visual cue to discuss their performance and perspective of belonging at the MOS. In 2015 students’ ratings for statements such as “I like science” and “I think about science when I’m not in school” both averaged at least 3 on a 4-point scale, where a 1 represented “disagree a lot” and 4 represented “agree a lot.” In 2018 the reflection changed to yes or no rather than a 4-point scale. Students answered “yes” or “no” to four statements:
“I felt like I got along with others at the museum.”
“I felt like I was part of the group.”
“I liked the way I interacted with the group.”
“I liked what we did at the museum.”
Across the six weeks, the number of “no” answers from students steadily decreased, from five “no” answers in week 1 to just one “no” on one of the four statements in week 6. Students’ positive feelings about museum activities and their social interactions appeared to increase as the program progressed.
Essential elements
The BEST Program is particularly unique in that it benefits not only the visiting students, but all members of the BEST Program partnership. While the students with ASD are able to visit a museum, the OT graduate students are learning the value of engaging youth with ASD in community-based contexts and how to support them in doing so. Museum staff have the opportunity to gain experience in working with and developing programs for students with ASD, while K–12 professionals gain confidence in bringing their students on successful field trips.
The BEST Program can help inform best practices in informal science education, as well as be an example for similar partnerships in other communities. As every community has differing needs, community partnerships may implement such a program in modified ways. However, the essential elements of the BEST Program are as follows:
The program consists of at least four consecutive trips to the museum/science center to increase comfort levels, provide consistency and predictability, and encourage a sense of community belonging for the student participants.
The program is implemented by a museum/science center in partnership with a college or university OT program and K–12 education professionals to collaboratively design student experiences focusing on both science and social goals.
Students visit during regular museum/science center operating hours, integrated alongside typical visitors and participating—with support—in the general museum community whenever possible.
Students engage in goal-setting and view customized social stories prior to each museum/science center visit, which help students anticipate and prepare for their visit.
Given the resources and interactive features of museum/science center exhibits, activities are carefully designed to facilitate science learning and social interaction.
Students engage in reflection on their performance and goal achievement following each visit to the museum/science center.
The BEST Program shows that with care and collaboration, students with ASD can be supported inclusively in informal learning settings and benefit from such inclusion. Additionally, it demonstrates how a thoughtful partnership between multiple institutions can creatively address the needs of underserved students in their shared community. The BEST Program is a demonstrably successful approach for communities looking to support students with ASD in science engagement and social participation.
Katie Slivensky (kslivensky@mos.org) is the school and youth programs coordinator at the Museum of Science, Boston, in Boston, Massachusetts. Ellen Cohn (ecohn@bu.edu) is a clinical professor and the entry-level OTD program director in the Dept of Occupational Therapy in the Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at Boston University in Boston, Massachusetts. Alexander Lussenhop (alussenhop@mos.org) is a research associate at the Museum of Science, Boston, in Boston, Massachusetts. Christina Moscat (cmoscat@mos.org) is the program manager of school and youth programs at the Museum of Science, Boston, in Boston, Massachusetts.
citation: Slivensky, K., E. Cohn, A. Lussenhop, and C. Moscat. 2019. The BEST partnership program: Supporting students with ASD by Connecting schools, museums, and occupational therapy practitioners. Connected Science Learning 1 (10). https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-april-june-2019/best-partnership-program
Bellini, S., and A. Hopf. 2007. The development of the autism social skills profile: A preliminary analysis of psychometric properties. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 22 (2): 80–97.
Cohn, E.S., B.A.B. Schell, and E.B. Crepeau. 2010. Occupational therapy as a reflective practice. In Handbook of Reflective Inquiry, ed. N. Lyons, pp. 131–157. New York: Springer.
Hall, E. 2010. Spaces of social inclusion and belonging for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 54 (I): 48–57. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01237.x.
Kokina, A., and L. Kern. 2010. Social story interventions for students with autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 40 (7): 812–26.
Little, L.M., J. Sideris, K. Ausderau, and G.T. Baranek. 2014. Activity participation among children with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 68 (2): 177–85.
Lussenhop, A., L.A. Mesiti, E. Cohn, G. Orsmond, J. Goss, C. Reich, A. Osipow, K. Pirri, and A. Lindgren-Streicher. 2016. Social participation of families with children with autism spectrum disorder in a science museum. Museums & Social Issues 11 (2): 122–37. doi: 10.1080/15596893.2016.1214806.
Reich, C., J. Price, E. Rubin, and M. Steiner. 2010. Inclusion, disabilities, and informal science learning: A CAISE inquiry group report. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
U.S. Department of Education (DOE). 2013. Digest of education statistics 2013. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Wei, X., J.W. Yu, P. Shattuck, M. McCracken, and J. Blackorby. 2013. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) participation among college students with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 43 (7): 1539–46.
Learn how the Buddies Exploring Science Together (BEST) Program supports students with autism spectrum disorder on a series of consecutive field trips.
Learn how the Buddies Exploring Science Together (BEST) Program supports students with autism spectrum disorder on a series of consecutive field trips.
Join
I am working on a lesson plan for the life cycle of a plant for kindergarten. Do you have any activity ideas?
Diane Johnson is a Master Teacher for the MSUTeach program at Morehead State University and a Regional Teacher Partner for PIMSER (Partnership Institute for Math and Science Education Reform) at Eastern Kentucky University. Johnson taught high school science for 25 years and served as an instructional supervisor for five years in Lewis County, Kentucky. Additionally, she is a member of Achieve, Inc’s Peer Review Panel and one of NSTA’s Professional Learning Facilitators. Johnson holds a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in biology, and a second master’s in supervision, and is ABD in science education. Follow me at @MDHJohnson and 
My kindergarten students believe that small objects are always light and big objects are always heavier. How can I address this misconception?
