Can Research On Science Learnin2 And Instruction Inform Standards For .

27d ago
812.10 KB
21 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : n/a
Upload by : Ronnie Bonney

C a n Research on Science L e a r n i n -2 a n d InstructionInform Standards f o r Science Ed cation'.)' Marcia C. LinniAndy diSessa2Roy D. Pea'Nancy R. SongtrJ'This paper summarizes discussions and debates that the authors have had over the lastfew years. The dialogue srems. in part. from our joint participation in the AmericanEducarional Research .Ah;oc :i ionSpeci:ii Inrzrest Group on Educltion i n Science andti.,? splrit o t our thinkingTechnoiogy (SIG-EST') ;e.:&:sii p. This p;tpsr cornm nicatesand does nor necessaril! : ? : - x t :he views of SIC-EST. or any other orgmization.We gratefully ackno\viecc? :he support of Yational Science Foundation Grant .\IDR9253462 in work relateci *% rnis paper. We appreciate helpful comments from EileenLewis and the Computer s.: Lznrning P:mner sroup.This material is based ucon research supported by the National Science Foundation undergrant RED-9155711. An!. op nions.findings, :ind conclusions or iecommendation expressed in this pub1ic;ttion are those of the authors and not necessarily retlect the viewsof the National Science Fcunanrion.'School of Educat on.161 1T,,irnanSchool of Educ lon.LRI;::T!L\otHull.Universl !,o l Calilorn a.Berkc!cy. C.4 93720, 5 10-613-6375)Colorado. Boulticr. CO

Linn er ai-2AbstractWe contrast the current sclence educat onreform effort with the reiorms of the 1960'sand suggest how the cunenr efforr could be enhanced. W e identify insi@ts tiom recentresearch that we believe can mform the reform process. In particular. to reach all sciencestudents and also impart a cohesive view of science. W e propose an "alternative models"view of scientific explanation and show now this view would contribute to reiorms of (a)course goals, (b) social aspects of science learning. (c) instructional practices. and (d)roles for technology.Key Words: Science. rechnoiogl,. models. standards

Linn er a:-;A broad xray of organizations are parnciping in an effort to reform science educationby sexr.2 science standards (Yationai Research Council. 1992: National ResearchCouncli. :993: Yational Science Teachers Association. 199 1; Rutherford & Xhlgren.1990). This effort has. at its core. a commitment to making science accessible to allstudents. not just future scientists (National Research Council. 1992: Yational ResearchCouncii. 1993; Rutherford & Ahlgren. 1990)As participants in the leadership of the American Educational Research AssociationSpeciai Interest Group on Education in Science and Technology (SIG-EST), we havererlecteb on this process. In this paper \ye summarize some reactions to the documentsthat have emerged from the standard-setting process. We especially seek to identifyinsights from recent research that apply to the process of setting standards. Afterconuasting the current standard-based reform with the r e f o m s of the 1 9 6 0 ' \re discuss;(a) science course goals. t b) the social nature of science learning in general and equity inpmicuix. (c) instructional practices. and Id) the roie of technology.Comparing ReformsAlthough the current standard-settins efforts are targeted to all students and not justfuture scientists, the documents that are emerging from the process are renuniscent of therefoms of the 1960's and are. therefore. subject to the same limitations. The reforms ofthe 1960's were initiated primarily to incorporate modern scientific ideas into thecumcuium and to improve the inquiry skills of future scientists (Salinger. 1991: ScienceManpo\ve: Project (Frederick L. Fitzpatrick: Director]. 1959: Welch. 1979).techno lo .as a component of science was neslecred. dthough technological tools such as films bereemphasized as enhancements to instruction.To illustrxe, Jerrold Zacharias. in setting the goals for the Physical Science StudyCommittee (PSSC), decided to devote ail of his attention to communicating modernscientific p-inciples. For example, in a biography of Zacharias. Goidstein ( 1992. p. 162)reports this summary of the PSSC view: "Modern physics was concerned withfundamer.tals. It had to d o with particles and the forces between them. and with theirmotions. not with pulleys and levers. llodern physics dealt with atoms and molecules.and witn stars and planets: the machines and engines that were central features of theexisting physics courses Lvere important but only as special applications of the science.On this there was the broadest agreement possible: if something had to be dropped forlack of :ize. it would be the applications. The fundamentals of the science musr remain."

Linn er(11-'This decision r'oc s dthe cumcuium on future scienrists. .And as might have beenexpected. followlr;; :5e reforms of the 1960's the proportion of students taking advancedscience remainedt!.:same (Salinger. 1991: Welch. 1979).Even the innovat1i.s. zreative curricula of the 1960's w r e unsuccessfui in importantways. For exampie. students studying these materiais stiil often concluded that objectsreleased from a cur:sd path would continue on a curved trajectory (hlcCloskey, 1983).Even students cornpiering college courses at institutions iike MIT retain intuitive ideasthat differ from those of expert scientists (disessa. in press). Given these diverseintuitions of stud en: completing physics courses. how can we make science moreteachable and more izarnable?It is widely believeb :hat the reform efforts of the 1960's Lvere limited in part because thenatural scientists \.i ro led the reforms paid too little attention to the feedback theyreceived from precciiege teachers ( Welch. 1979). Precoiiege teachers commonlycomplained that tne science materials developed by naturai scientists were too difficultand that students could not learn from them. In contrast. the natural scientists believedthat if the teachers xere more effective, students would be able to learn the materials.A major worry we nave is that emerging science standards describe cumculum thatindividuals who are now successful research scientists would have preferred when theywere precollege students. Such a curriculum may be laudable for those who wish tobecome scientists. )'st, for the vast majority of students who do not aspire to bescientists. [here 1s 2x1and convincing evidence that the current curricdum is flawed,uninteresting. fleet:r,,n. and fundamentally irrelevant (e.:. (Linn. 1987').A key question for :hose setting standards is how to measure these limitations. Duringthe 60s. reforms recected the perspective of the natural scientists. A challenge to thestandard setting grouu is to reexamine this decision and to incorporate the conrributionsof precollege teachers and pedagogy experts. as well as those of natural scientists.Considerable evidence from investigations in science classrooms suggests that both thescience cumculum 2nd the role of the science teacher need reformulation (e.g., (disessa.1992: Linn & Songer. 199 1; Pea &: Gomez. 1993; Songer. 1993).In addition, the erxrzing science standards documents do not appear :o consider thecurrent roles of tecixology seriously in either science or education. Fmdamentalunderstandings of :::hnology are not represented. Tzchnological toois that couldenhance learning::2 understanding and which are now integral to the research in the

Linnelui--5scientific community 1e.g. see Office or Science and Tzchnoio v-. Policy. 1991: Office or'Science and Technoioc r-. Polic),. 19921 are not acknowledged or recommended. Modesof learnins and insuucaon tnat are plausible. possible. and have been demonstrated withtechnology are also negiecled.Furthermore, the science standards documents relegate what most citizens are likely toconsider important in science :o "the back of the book." Applications of science as wellas the nature of science are separated from "fundamental understandings" of science.If scientific ideas. modes of thinking, and appiications to complex problems are notlinked and related in the standards. how can we expect them to be linked and related intextbooks, teaching, and learning? How can citizens and students appreciate fundamentalunderstandings without considering their appiications'? And. how can studentsunderstand the nature or science if the tension bst veenfundamentrli research andapplications of science is not continuously addressed'?We c d l on groups setting standards to rethink the overall organization of the standards.We believe that it is imperatiye that science. technology, the nature of science. and theapplication of science be linked. related, and sirnultaneouslv addressed in science courses.textbooks, and standards.Incorporating Recent ResearchAs reform efforts turn from ;l focus on future s;izntists to a focus on a11 citizens. recentresearch on learning and instruction and recenr insights about the social nature of learningare extremely relevant. We discuss c a1 course goals. (b) the soclal nature of sciencelearning. (c) instructional prmices. and (d) the role of technology.Course GoalsWe call on those setting the standards to adopt two criteria for the goals for sciencecourses taken by most citizens. First. the centrai target should be a scientificallycultivated sense of the e v e d a yphysical. biological. social. and political world ratherthan a schoolish version of professional science. Second. this means. in particular. thatthe cumculum should help students link scientific principles to improving their thinkingabout everyday phenomena and help students build a cohesive view of scientificknowledge.

Linn e t ui-6Science entails a diversit). of expianatlox and models. Science instructior, or' [he past hasconcentrated on the most generai. :amprenensive. and precise models. \Ian . of thesemodels are couched in formai. algebraic ianguage. These models tend to 5s zbstractcompared to the familiar forms o i z-,,er .dayexperience. Students have a kzrd timeunderstanding \vhat the models or isws zean, and a harder time applying ihtm to theirpersonal scientific dilemmas. Rather than isolating and emphasizing the abstractperspective on science. we believe :he c n i c u l u mshould encourage students to develop arepertoire of alternative models as well as an appreciation for science as a search forprogressively more powerful models.Modern psychology, cognitive science and artificial intelligence have elaborated ourunderstanding of the power of alternative models of complex phenomena. particularlyhighlighting qualitative. heuristic a d approximate models. In addition. n e have come tounderstand that students. adults and scmtists employ many of these moaeis :n theireveryday understandinz. So. these :wo rrends-expanding the repertoire of legitimateand powerful models. and uncovering thz richness in students' spontaneous modelsshould combine to alter the pedagogical agenda.We expect students have many ideas to contribute. and we can be more p:ltient aboutwaiting for the most sophisticated. abstract. "correct." and formally articulltted forms.We need to take a long-term perspective to see how, step-by-step, we can draw students'naive models out. refine and articulate them. This is a fundamental issue. since oureducational system must focus on a broad range of students and not only on an elite whowill learn science nith virtually an\, curr,culum. I r e need to be clever in designingintermediate models that are close enough to students' naive models that they seemfamiliar. plausible and uset'ul. yet can e\.oive naturally into more sophisticaxd forms.Technological tools can enhance this process (e.g., (Linn. 1992; Pea. 1992). We beginwith phenomenological models that may appear more descriptive than in scope. or even incorrect in contrast to "deeper" forms. But this appearancemay be deceptive. The first steps toward the deepest scientific understanding may be themost critical. By establishing a disposition to make sense of the science that is taught andthe science that is experienced. we set students on rt trajectory that will nor culminate atthe last formal science lesson. but rather zontinue as new scientific problems areidentified in experience.Alternative models for scientific events can be illustrated by considering perspectives onthermal events. Scientists use several alternative models to elucidate thermai zvents:

moiecziar kinetic theory. a model of heat rlow. and specific computations or' changes in.for exzmpie. calories and degrees. The heat rlow model. is often intuitively accessible :ostuaezts wno are trying to make sense of thermai events and readily simulated in theclassroom r e . g , (Lewis & Linn. in press I.Effec:i;.e teaching would seek a progression of alternative explanatory models to guideinstrucrion and link principles and applications. Thus. in early elementary years. studentsmight have a model that focuses on observable events such as (a) sweaters keep youWarner than tee shirts, (b) the same burner heats a small pot of water to boiling before alarger ?or of water at the same starting temperature. and (c) cutting up the hot lasagnainto pieces will cool it faster. Middle school students might form descriptive principlesabout such phenomena as surface area and thermal equilibrium. By high school. studentscould be inrroduced to more sophisticated models including molecular kinetic theory. Inaddition. a major focus of the curriculum. if i t were taught this way, vouldbe on thesealterxtive models and their relative usefulness to citizens and scientists. For exampie.moae!s helpful for wilderness survival might be contrasted with those helpful formaterials science.In fac: absrract scientific models are often insufficient for grappling with complexprobiems. Scientists disagree on such topics as the risks and benefits of nuclear energy.the reason dinosaurs became extinct, and the evidence for global warming. Educatedadults have difficulty explaining why Styrofoam is better than aluminum foil for keepinga dnnk cold for lunch. or why a rough, white surfxe is better than a mirror for reflectinglight fiom a flashlight to illuminate a room. There are teachable. powerful versions orscientific ideas that can help (a) transcend commonsense and na'ive models. (b) m&ebetter sense of the everyday world. and (c) provide a soiid path for those students whowill become professional scientists. We advocate what we call an "alternative models"approxh to science instruction.To achieve these goals and to clarify this alternative models perspective, we examine theOctober 1992 NRC Sampler (National Research Council. 1992) from this standpoint.The tl:ernenrac crirric ium.The current NRC sampler starts with descriptive models ofscience. Students observe and describe the similarities and differences in objects thatthey 05sen.e naturally, such as leaves or trees.The ziwnative models approach starts w i t h a similar descriptive perspective. but adds afocus on integrating descriptive explanations and warranting conclusions. Students wouid

Linn erul-;be encouraged to a p i yexplanations far more widei;; %an tr,ey commoni l are in currentelementary science courses and to seek systematic accounts of evenday scientificphenomena. For txampie. they might establish a series of materials based on their abilityto keep a dnnk coid in 3 iunch box. They would comuiie information and then seekgeneraiizations. cornpanng metals to paper to cioth. for exampie. A descriptive model ofinsulators would therefore be accorded stature in the elresof students. In contrast, at leastsome perspectives on science education accord students descriptive models of science.the status of misconceptions (e.g., Linn & Songer. 199 1: Smith. diSessa. 22 Roschelle. inpress)By labeling student ideas as misconceptions we criticize students for being accurate-observers (Lewis & Linn. in press). Thus. in the eariv. rrades. students often describephenomena in ways that could contradict the descriptions offered by scientists. Theymight say (ar obiects. vnenkicked. tend to go in the direction kicked. i b ) objects inmotion tend to come to rest. (c) sounds die out and (d'j tvooi warms ,ouup. Thealternative models approach might elaborate students descriptive model of motion untilstudents concluded that objects kicked with the same degree of force come to rest atdifferent distances depending on other conditions like the surface on which the objecttravels.Extensive evidence demonstrates that young students are capable of thoughtfulgeneralizations (Carey. 1985). Yet the standards described in the sampler seem to implythat students are limited to description that lacks functional context or explanatory intent.This is an outmoded interpretation of developmental constraints that f i l tos acknowledgethe intellectual vorkof young students and is reminiscent of the nature study movementof the 1900s and the unguideddisco meryactivities of the 1980s (Holmes. 1903:Underhill. 1941).The middle school crirricrii ini. The YRC sampler recommendations for middle schooldiffer substantiaily from the alternative models approach. The sampler suggests teaching5th through 8th graders molecular models. mathematicai formulations for mechanics, andother abstract scientific esplanations. These models do not map directly onto students'observations and start many students on the path of memorizing rather thancomprehending science. We recommend that these models be postponed to the 9ththrough 12th grades. and that. instead. in the 5th througn 8th grades. students focus onmodels that are more principled and mechanistic than those exountered in the earlyelementary grades. Students would describe the hearing and cooling of objects in terms

LinnelUL-4of heat tlow. they vouiddescrije elecmcity in terms of relative eiectricai power. and theywould develop quaiitati\.e zodels for motion. The idea of a mechanism or an explanationwould become a more cspiici: focus of the 5th through 8th grades and students wouldsystematically compile :l,.iaence that warranted their observations and conjectures.Students might disentangic t.hs effects of mass and surface area on the heating of objects.but they would still focus on neat in a macroscopic fashion rather rhan in a microscopicfashion.The high school curricrtiwn. In the 9th through 12th grades, students would encounternew level models that were more abstract and. in some courses. mathematically formal.They would return to the same issues and problems that they faced in the middle gradesand reinterpret the information and observations that they had using these new models.The advantage of alternative nodels would now become very clear because studentswould see the progression from a descriptive to a mechanistic to an abstract explanationfor the same event. Thus. they would understand a great deal about scientificinvestigation. and at the same rime. they would have a much richer. more qualitativeunderstanding of everyday scientific phenomena than is achikvea in the typicalcuniculum. This approach is reflected in the work of White on eiectricity (White &:Frederiksen. 1990); Linn on thermal events i l i n n , 1992), Minstrel1 in mechanics(Minstrell, 1982). Pea in optics (Pea. Supusic. &: Allen, in press), and Clement onmechanics (Clement. 1982).Advarzrages of rlte airernarire models approach. The alternative models approach makesthe inquiry skills described in :he sampler an integral part of science leaning rather thanan additional topic. In e v e n scientific study students would be analyzing the nature oftheir own explanations and the evidence that they used to warrant their conclusions. Inthis sense. they vouldbe actlve participants in making sense of scientific phenomena justlike scientists. Instead of trying to make sense of phenomena that they could not observe.students would be makinr sense of immediately observable phenomena up until at leastthe 9th grade.The alternative models approach also has a tremendous advantage in fostering integratedunderstanding. By helping students contrast the various explanations that theythemselves use for everyday scientific events. students are more likely to see therelevance of their own obsenations to science. Instead of encouraging students todistinguish their own observations from classroom science. which happens so oftentoday, the cumculum \voula help students integrate these obsemarions with scientific

principles. Rather than isolating idezs about scientific inquir). students n,ouid seekevidence to warrant their own moaei 2nd to distinguish among models.The greatest difficulty of an airerrmi\. modeis approach is its demand on students.Whereas abstract models introduced exiy in the curriculum cause students II .rear deal oftrouble, alternative explanations ior complex and ambiguous phenomena dqending onthe purpose of the explanation are. in fact. much more challenging. Severtheless. in ourestimation. explaining complex and ambiguous e v e n d a also much morerewarding to students. In contrast. even when students gain a glimmer of understandingof abstract scientific models. they often fail to apply this information to eveqfdayphenomena because they cannot map the abstract information onto obsened scientificphenomena (e.g., Gunstone. Gray. &L Searle. 1992). For example, using a molecularkinetic theory to explain why a metai spoon in boiling \\.ater feels hotter than a woodenspoon is far more complex than reiying on a heat-flow model. An a1tern;ltive modelsapproach to understanding motion may start with phenomenological. approuimatemodels. and later add more abstracted models as an illumination or "reexpe:ience" ofprior models. There are times when qualitative models are more useful than abstractmodels. And. as a result, the qualitative models end up supporting students as theyattempt to make sense of more abstract models. They help students acquire anintermediate competence between intuitive beliefs and more sophisticated. rlbstractmodels.lrzsrrrictional practicesThe alternative models approach offers more support for the efforts to make sense ofscience familiar to precollege teachers and educated adults than do the modsis found inthe typical science cumculum. Ttachers often construct views of themselves aspurveyors of scientific information. yet this presents an immediate difficulty because fewreachers have all the information that studenrs might \van[. The alternxive nodelsapproach changes the focus from one of providing infommion to one of supportingconjectures and seeking commonalities in evidence.Precollege teachers take the role of fostering. facilitating. 2nd supporting students as theymake sense of science. The locus of responsibilit for scientific understanding remainsprimarily with the student. Just as we expect students to continuously refine 2ndreformulate their scientific ideas. so can we expect teachers to continuously refine andreformulate their ideas about how to teach science. Teachers are most et'r'ec;i\.e \\,hen

they caz reflect. refine. and enhance their racticerather than wnen they are constanti?evaiuared. criticized. and scrutinized.There :s widespread belief that science teaching would be more effective if the teachersknew rzore science. This mav well be the case. However. the amount of science thatteachers need to know should certainly not exceed that achieved by most scientists in oursociety. Those completing teacher preparation programs must be prepared to teach anyscience 2nd often science and mathematics. X realistic view of what can be learned isneeded.It appears inevitable that teachers will be responsible for helping students understandmateriai that they themselves are also in the process of understanding. Furthermore. it islikely rnat teachers as well as students will hold descriptive and intuitive models of thephenomena relevant to the topics that they are teaching. We need methods for scienceinstruction that take advantage of these descriptive and intuitive ideas that both studentsand teachers develop over the course of their lives. These are important accomplishmentsthat need to be refined rather than ridiculed. It is both irresponsible and unrealistic todevelop science standards that are unteachable (see Smith et al., in press).Social .\'arure of Science LearningThe scientific work of gathering evidence and distinguishing among models for scientificphenomena is social in nature. In the workplace. research teams grapple with makingsense of scientific evidence. Large coilaborations such as the Human Genome Projectand the nigh energy physics groups are necessary for advance in many fields. .And.scientific disputes are a reputable investigtive tool for probing and refining bodies ofevidence.To engage students in the social aspects of science. the dilemmas must be personallymeaningful. The alternative models approach, with its emphasis on linking scientificideas to everyday phenomena makes the cuniculum more personally meaningful forstudents. Thus. the abstract models of morlon taught for frictionless surfaces in manymiddle grade science cumcula are in fact inadequate for explaining most naturallyoccumn,o phenomena. .& more sound and solid foundation for future instruction wouldbe one ivhere students worked at the intersection between their observations and thedeveiopment of a model of observed phenomena. Thus, students would focus on buildinga moaei to explain the obsemed phenomena. and then. on adjusting the model to the

realities of [hex obsen-ations. Simiiarly. thz formal natnematicaimodeis and abstractpnncipies of scienc: zre ciumsy when used to expiain most everyday tnzrinal events andmany aspecs oi sound propagation and light trlinsmission 2s well. Thus discussions ofalternative models. xplanations for naturaiiy-occumng everyday scientific phenomena.and a1ternati1.e forms of evidence reinforces for students the expioratory nature of scienceand provides a zreater appreciation of the broad range of scientific activity that exists inour society.Our advocacy of an alternative models approach includes an emphasis on d e s i g n 4 fmachines. of problem solutions, of explanations, and of investigations. Design problemsfrequently lead to effective scientific discourse. Students elaborate and refine theirscientific models in the context of familiar or easily understood goals. Here the nature ofscience and the roie of technological advance is particularlv important. Introducing theconcept of design and its social components early In the cumculum illustrates importantaspects of how science o r k Designs.exemplifies the scientific investigltion skills thatstudents are likely to use in their lives and engages students in social intzr ctionsrelevantto science.In advocating emphasis on the social nature of science Lve advocate. as well, respect forthe diversity of views and opinions held by members of the classroom community.Recent reports and studies demonstrate that women students are often shortchanged insocial settings cWellesley College Center for Research on Women. 19921. In our ownscience classroom studies we have seen opinions disregarded and student contributionsdismissed on the basis of group membership (Agogino & Linn. 1993 la .-June:Linn ixSonzer, 19911. Since fewer mPomenthan men participate in careers in science. whatseems to happen is that individuals. often unconsciously, expect less of women inscientific discussions. and are more likely to dismiss the opinions of Lvomen. Thesituation is further exacerbated by the social roles society has constructed for men andwomen. .Assertive discourse strategies that are sanctioned for men may backfire. whenused by women.Thus. at the same time as we advocate encouraging students to engage in the socialdiscourse of science. v ealso advocate diligent attention to potentiai un ntendedconsequences of such activities. Setting a goal of "science for air' creates an opportunityto ensure that ail students participate as respected members of the scientific classroomcommunity.

Linn er ul-1.;Role of Technolog!Information technologiesn::also support the xiremati\,e modeis zpproach to instruction.Emerging standards. howe:. :. are notoriously silent about the fact that informationtechnologies play fundamer.:ai roles in scientific inquiry. Scientists use computers toillustrate models to explain :kieir observations. 2nd to display data for purposes ofscientific visualization (Broaie et al. 1992: Kaufmann & Smarr. 1993). Computernetworks facilitate scientific 5iscussion senling as "collaboratories" (Lzderberg.Uncapher. & co-chairs. 1989) to support electronic communications. access to scientificdata, and remote control of supercomputers and other technological tools (Finholt &Sproull, 1990: National Scisnce Foundation. 199 1 June: Office oi Science andTechnology Policy. 1991: Office of Science and Technclocy Policy. 1992: Wolff. 1990). .We believe that such tools m x t be integrated into science educarional practice from theearliest years.These tools are becoming Tore and more avaiiable to precollege students c Friedler.Nachmias, & Linn. 1990: L m . Sonzer, Lewis. & Stem, in press: Rubin. Bruce.Rosebery, & DuMouchel. 1088: Thornton & Sokoloff. 1990). For example. students canuse spreadsheets to create roaels of scienrific concepts such as speed 2nd xxeleration(Hestenes, 1992).Indeed. great progress has bsen made in developing comprehensible but very senera1computer environments in Lvnich students can approach science as scienrists do. bydeveloping and refinin: rhsx own models (s.:. [diSessa. Xbelson. cSr Ploger.1991).Many simulations mice possible "JVhat if ." experiments to hyporhesize andexamine relationships among variables. such as predator-prey populations in ecosystems,or optical effects of different materials on light propagation iPe2. i992: Richards.Barowy, & Levin. 1992). Programs for scientific visualizations in disciplines such asclimatology, atmospheric science. and oceanography support high school students as theydevelop models to explain ziobal v a m i n g \ .eather,patterns

Committee (PSSC), decided to devote ail of his attention to communicating modern scientific p-inciples. For example, in a biography of Zacharias. Goidstein ( 1992. p. 162) reports this summary of the PSSC view: "Modern physics was concerned with fundamer.tals. It had to do with particles and the forces between them. and with their

Related Documents:

Science Color & Light Delta Science Module (DSM) 4 Science Mixtures & Solutions Kit Full Option Science System (FOSS) 5 Science Landforms Kit Full Option Science System (FOSS) 5 Science Variables Kit Full Option Science System (FOSS) 5 Science Environments Full Option Science System (FOSS) 5 Science Oceans Delta Science Module (DSM) 5

Publisher Name S. Chand & Company Ltd. No. Subject Series Title Grade ISBN Book Title 1 Science Science for 9th & 10th 9 9789384319588 Part 3 - Biology 2 Science Science for 9th & 10th 9 9789384319601 Part 1 - Physics 3 Science Science for 9th & 10th 9 9789384319595 Part 2 - Chemistry 4 Science Science for 9th & 10th 10 9789352530489 Part 1 - Physics 5 Science Science for 9th & 10th 10 .

14 Science Cambridge Primary Science Year 6 9781471884177 Hodder Cambridge Primary Science Teacher's Pack 6 15 Science Checkpoint Science Year 7 9781444126037 Cambridge Checkpoint Science Student's Book 1 16 Science Checkpoint Science Year 7 9781444143805 Cambridge Checkpoint Science Teacher's Resource Book 1 .

6. Lakhmir Singh’s Science for Class 8 7. Science for Ninth Class (Part 1) PHYSICS 8. Science for Ninth Class (Part 2) CHEMISTRY 9. Science for Tenth Class (Part 1) PHYSICS 10. Science for Tenth Class (Part 2) CHEMISTRY 11. Science for Tenth Class (Part 3) BIOLOGY 12. Rapid Revision in Science (A Question-Answer Book for Class X) 13. Science .

SCIENCE Science 6 Science 7 Science 8 Physical Science Biology Chemistry Physics Environmental Science Integrated Science I Integrated Science II Integrated Science III SOCIAL STUDIES Social Studies 6 Middle School New Mexico History Social Studies 8 U.S. History and Geography World History and Geography Modern World History U.S. Government .

Bachelor of Science Source : FSG HEA Office. 1. AS750 Master of Science (Biology) 2. AS780 Master of Science 3. AS751 Master of Science (Applied Biology) . AS760 Master of Science (Applied Physics) 13. AS761 Master of Science (Polymer Science & Technology) 14. AS762 Master of Science (Materials Science &Tec

IB History of Americas I IB Psych I (DP 6th subject option) IB History of Americas II IB Psych II (DP 6th subject option) Enhanced Science 6 Science Science 6 Science 7 Enh. Life Science 7 Science 8 Enh. Sci. 8 Physical Science 9 (for Carnegie Unit) Physical Science 9 9th Physics Environmental Science Biology Honors Bio Honors Chemistry (4x4 .

Social Science Research Program (SSRP): The overall program that includes all related activities to do with social science research. Social Science Research Strategy 2020-2024 (SSR Strategy): The document that outlines six key strategic priorities related to social science

W-253 2018 NORTH DAKOTA WEED CONTROL GUIDE Compiled by: Rich Zollinger Extension Weed Science Contributors: Mike Christoffers Research Weed Science, Weed Genetics Caleb Dalley Research Weed Science, Hettinger R&E Center Greg Endres Extension Area Agronomist, Carrington R&E Center Greta Gramig Research Weed Science, Weed Ecology Kirk Howatt Research Weed Science, Small Grains/Minor Crops

Physics 11 Physics University SPH3U Grade 10 Science, Academic 12 Physics University SPH4U Grade 11 Physics, University 12 Physics College SPH4C Grade 10 Science, Academic or Applied Science 11 Science University/College SNC3M Grade 10 Science, Academic or Applied 11 Science Workplace SNC3E Grade 9 Science, Academic or Applied

4 Table of Contents Page Number(s) Preface 6 Introduction 7-8 How to Read the Standards 9 South Dakota Science Standards Kindergarten Science Standards 10-11 First Grade Science Standards 12 Second Grade Science Standards 13-14 Third Grade Science Standards 15-16 Fourth Grade Science Standards 17-18 Fifth Grade Science Standards 19

1. Science Fiction and Extro-Science Fiction Let's examine this difference: science fiction and extro-science fiction. Generally speaking, in science fiction the relation of fiction to science seems to be the following: it

Aug 18, 2014 · The Interactive Reports system is for viewing and analyzing student assessment . Science Science Science Grade 8 Science Science Science High School Science Biology Biology Science Chemistry Chemistry . 4 Page LOG ONTO EDIRECT.

The first dimension of an ISSS. The Science and Engineering Practice describes the science task or activity Science, Physical Science) The second dimension of an ISSS, the Science Domain which includes (Earth and Space Science, Life which scientists (and Idaho science students) will engage in to explain the natural world.

Master of Science- Applied Pharmacology Master of Science- Biomedical Research Master of Science- Counselling Master of Science- Cultural Therapy Master of Science- Epidemiology Master of Science- FORENSIC SCIENCE Specializations include: Chemistry; Molecular Biology; Pathology; Toxicology

research process, the role of research, research concepts, and research evaluation. 1.2 Research as a process Research can be seen as a series of linked activities moving from a beginning to an end. Research usually begins with the identification of a problem followed by formulation of research questions or objectives.

Ecclesiastes 1:13 MOD 1 MODULE 1 THE SCIENCE OF LIFE. In this module, you will learn the answers to the following questions. The Process of Science—Why should we study science? How does science enable us to understand the natural world? How can we use science as a framework for making predictions and testing them? Are there limitations to science—if so, what are they? The Study of Life .

Science & Science Policy Phillip A. Griffiths, "Science and the Public Interest," The Bridge, Fall 1993. While science is ideally value-free and objective science policy deals with the effect of science and technology on society and considers how they can best serve the public. As such, it is highly visible, value-laden, and open to public

GITAM Institute of Science Department of Chemistry Ph.D. Entrance Test - 2020-21 Part A: Research Methodology Research Methodology: Meaning of Research, Objectives of Research, Motivation in Research, Types of Research, Research Approaches, Significance

the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) in English law. AI, once a notion confined to science fiction novels, movies and research papers, is now making a tremendous impact on society. Whether we are aware of it or not, AI already pervades much of our world, from its use in banking and finance to electronic disclosure in large scale litigation. The application of AI to English law raises many .