4.5 Article

Using the Science Writing Heuristic to Support NGSS-Aligned Instruction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
Volume 97, Issue 2, Pages 358-367

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00472

Keywords

High School/Introductory Chemistry; Laboratory Instruction; Communication/Writing; Testing/Assessment; Physical Properties; Kinetic-Molecular Theory

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (Chicago Transformation Teacher Institutes) [DUE-0928669]
  2. I-STEM Science Area Partnership grant from the Illinois State Board of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To be literate in modern society no longer means that one can simply read and write. In our rapidly changing world where information is available with a few taps of our fingers, critical thinking and process-oriented learning have become an essential part of being literate. Therefore, when many of the states decided to create a unifying set of science standards, they included the process of how scientific knowledge is attained as one its central components, following the recommendation of a National Research Council panel. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasize the need to teach students the process of science through the science and engineering practices (SEPs). The SEPs go beyond traditional instruction of factual science and describe how scientific knowledge is attained, evaluated, and revised over time. Since the adoption of the NGSS, teachers all over the nation have been looking for ways to incorporate this instruction into their classroom. The science writing heuristic (SWH) is an inquiry-based laboratory report format that is a tool for students to use to process how scientific knowledge is gained when engaging in laboratory activities. This paper describes how the SWH was adapted into a laboratory report rubric aligned to the NGSS and incorporated into a high school chemistry curriculum to teach and assess students on the SEPs within core chemistry content.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available