<p> This is a descriptive, exploratory, qualitative, collective case study that explores the pedagogical practices of science teachers who do not hold natural science degrees. The intent of this study is to support the creation of alternative pathways for recruiting and retaining high-quality secondary science teachers in K-12 education. The conceptual framework is based on Social Cognitive Theory &amp; Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997) and Problem-Solving &amp; Transfer (Berg &amp; Strough, 2011; van Merrienboer, 2013). The research questions are: What does science instruction look like in classrooms where science teachers without natural science degrees are teaching? and How do these natural science teachers without natural science degrees believe their prior experiences inform their instruction? The participants were 4 science teachers from middle and high schools in Southern California. The instruments used in this study were interviews, observations, and document analysis. The research revealed that science teachers without natural science degrees utilize techniques that make them high-quality teachers. The current qualifications for science teachers should be revisited to consider utilizing self-efficacious teachers with an interest in science and a passion for teaching students. Science teaching competency can be measured by more than natural science degree attainment.</p><p>

<p> The purpose of this study was to describe the co-construction of three 4-H STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) learning by design programs by volunteer educators and youth participants in the 4-H Youth Development Program. The programs advanced STEM learning through design, a pedagogical approach to support youth in planning, designing, and making shareable artifacts. This pedagogical approach is a special case of project-based learning, related to the practices found in the science learning through design literature as well as the making and tinkering movements. Specifically, I explored adult volunteer educators&rsquo; roles and pedagogical strategies implementing the <i> 4-H Junk Drawer Robotics</i> curriculum (Mahacek, Worker, and Mahacek, 2011) and how that, in turn, afforded and constrained opportunities for youth to display or report engagement in design practices; learning of STEM content; strengthening tool competencies; dispositions of resilience, reciprocity, and playfulness; and psychological ownership. The curriculum targeted middle school youth with a sequence of science inquiry activities and engineering design challenges.</p><p> This study employed naturalist and multiple-case study methodology relying on participant observations and video, interviews with educators, and focus groups with youth within three 4-H educational robotics programs organized by adult 4-H volunteer educators. Data collection took place in 2014 and 2015 at Santa Clara with an educator and seven youth; Solano with three educators and eight youth; and Alameda with an educator and seven youth.</p><p> Data analysis revealed six discrete categories of pedagogy and interactions that I labeled as <i>participation structures</i> that included lecture, demonstration, learning activity, group sharing, scripted build, and design &amp; build. These participation structures were related to the observed pedagogical practices employed by the educators. There was evidence of youth engagement in design practices, STEM content learning, strengthening of tool competencies, learning dispositions, and psychological ownership - however, their expression, manifestation, and opportunities were afforded and/or constrained by the various participation structures. Furthermore, conflicts were evidenced in the use of participation structures; emphasis of educators on formal reasoning and planning versus youth preference for hands-on tinkering; and tensions amongst youth peers while engaging in design teams. Two themes emerged regarding the educators&rsquo; pedagogy: adaptations in response to structural and curricular constraints and pedagogical approach influenced by self-identification with a professional field of engineering.</p><p> This study contributes to our understanding of STEM learning through design in out-of-school time. This research helps clarify the tensions among major co-actors, youth, educator, and curriculum, as the learning environment was co-constructed and how that, in turn, afforded opportunities for youth to learn and develop. This study illuminated the complex negotiations between these co-actors and explored questions about who can and does decide the nature of the activity structures. These co-actors were not without conflict, thus suggesting that these spaces and pedagogies do not exemplify STEM teaching on their own, but neither do they preclude practices that deepen young people's interest and motivation for STEM learning.</p>

This investigation was an attempt to understand creativity, the creative personality, and the productively creative scientist. It was also an attempt to understand and utilize personality measures which are valid and effective for identifying, significantly predicting, and selecting creative scientific talent. The purpose of the study was to replicate a 1972 study by Frank Barron and Jack Chambers, which identified behavioral characteristics common to creative scientists. The present study tested the validity of the instrumentation used in 1972 as a predictor of success in a particular field. To provide a theoretical background for the study, the review of the literature included both a historical survey on the studies of scientific talent and a literature search of research on the creative and productive scientist and the unified psychograph of this type of scientist. Literature on the assessment and measurement of creativity and identifying behavioral characteristics and traits of the productive creative scientist was reviewed. This began with Galton (1874) through Jack Chambers (1972) and Torrance (1987). Also reviewed were the methodologies of investigating personality structure. The replication of the Barron and Chambers' study was with a population of prominent scientists who are members of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. A questionnaire was used to gather the data--the 16-Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell & Stice, 1957). A personal letter was sent along with the questionnaire explaining the purpose, procedures, the protection of privacy and confidentiality of anonymity of response.

This research explores changes in students' cognition while using multiple portrayals available in STELLA, a computer-based simulation construction kit. A case study was conducted with four high school students. The researcher videotaped the students constructing and testing their own simulation models and conducted clinical interviews probing student thinking in order to identify learning environment attributes from which cognitive shifts could be inferred. Videotaped sessions were transcribed and analyzed. Students evidenced progression through increasingly sophisticated assumptions and encountered learning barriers that made this environment challenging. STELLA portrayals were useful for inferring student mental representations of dynamic systems and STELLA appeared to enable students to move their frame of reference gradually to a dynamic perspective. STELLA's multiple portrayals highlighted diverse dimensions of the information and facilitated shifts in thinking by juxtaposing an individual's cognitive representations. Educational implications for other computer portrayal tools are discussed.

<p> Prominent Feature Analysis (PFA) is a reliable and valid writing assessment tool, derived from the writing it is used to assess. PFA, used to assess on-demand expository essays in Grades 3&ndash;12, uncovers positive and negative characteristics of a sample. To extend PFA to a new academic level and genre, I assessed scientific writing of 208 undergraduates, identifying 35 linguistic and 20 scientific prominent features. An essay could earn up to 28 positive (24 linguistic and four scientific), and up to 27 negative marks (11 linguistic and 16 scientific). The minimum prominent features number in a paper was 3, the maximum was 25 (<i>M</i> = 12.45, <i>SD</i> = 3.88). The highest positive and negative prominent features numbers noted were 17 (<i>M</i> = 4.11, <i>SD</i> = 3.96), and 16 (<i>M</i> = 8.34, <i> SD</i> = 3.25) respectively. </p><p> Rasch analysis revealed a good data-model fit, with item separation of 5.81 (.97 reliability). The estimated feature difficulty of items spanned over 10 logits; common errors were easier to avoid than &ldquo;good writing&rdquo; characteristics to exhibit. Significant correlations among linguistic, but not between linguistic and scientific features, suggest writing proficiency does not assure excellence in scientific writing in novices. Ten linguistic features significantly strongly and moderately inter-correlated with each other, appearing to represent writing proficiency. Student GPA correlated significantly with the raw prominent features scores (<i>r</i> = .37; <i>p</i> &lt; .01), and negatively with the sum of negative linguistic features (<i>r</i> = &ndash;.40, <i>p</i> &lt; .01), providing support for scale&rsquo;s validity, and suggesting that good students are better at avoiding common writing errors than less able learners. Additionally, PFA scores positively significantly correlated with composite ACT scores. </p><p> To investigate PFA&rsquo;s ability to track change in writing over time, I compared 2 sets of prominent features scores of 25 students. In comparison with earlier essays, later (longer) essays exhibited significantly more positive, <i> and</i> more negative features. Prominent features scores did not correlate significantly between the sets. This suggests, that while PFA is a valid and appropriate tool for analysis of undergraduate scientific writing, it was not suitable for tracking change in writing ability in this small sample.</p><p>