When physics students experiment with computational models, they encounter new sources of uncertainty: is this surprising behavior of the model a feature or a bug? This added uncertainty comes with the risk of shutting down inquiry. Alternatively, it could be what inspires and facilitates sustained scientific investigation with the model. The outcome hinges on how students respond to epistemic emotions such as uncertainty and confusion. Do they avoid these emotions, or do they dig in? In this paper, we analyze video data of a pair of high school students working with a computational model of global warming. The analysis highlights the epistemic emotions that arise for them. We find this pair responds to surprise and uncertainty by "digging in" with spontaneous scientific experimentation, which in turn leads to conceptual learning, joy, and self-confidence. We discuss the importance of attending to how physics students respond to uncertainty while computationally modeling phenomena.

Synergistic learning combining computational thinking (CT) and STEM has proven to be an effective method for advancing learning and understanding in a number of STEM domains and simultaneously helping students develop important CT concepts and practices. We adopt a design-based approach to develop, evaluate, and refine our Collaborative, Computational STEM (C2STEM) learning environment. The system adopts a novel paradigm that combines visual model building with a domain-specific modeling language (DSML) to scaffold learning of high school physics using a computational modeling approach. In this paper, we discuss the design principles that guided the development of our open-ended learning environment (OELE) using a learning-by-modeling and evidence-centered approach for curriculum and assessment design. Students learn by building models that describe the motion of objects, and their learning is supported by scaffolded tasks and embedded formative assessments that introduce them to physics and CT concepts. We have also developed preparation for future learning (PFL) assessments to study students’ abilities to generalize and apply CT and science concepts and practices across problem solving tasks and domains. We use mixed quantitative and qualitative analysis methods to analyze student learning during a semester-long study run in a high school physics classroom. We document some of the lessons learned from this study and discuss directions for future work.

Families are an important context for learning astronomy, one that researchers on astronomy teaching and learning have largely overlooked. At public observatories, families have an opportunity to learn both the substance and practices of astronomy together. However, the typical structure of public observations (one visitor looking through a telescope while an expert explains what they see) creates tension with families engaging in the disciplinary practice of building disciplined perception through collaborative sensemaking In this paper, we report on a preliminary study in which a family pilot tested new activities to encourage collaborative sensemaking. Key factors that supported the family's collaborative learning include (1) Using activities that shift authority and control to each member of the family, (2) Having a variety of activities that can be deployed at strategic times rather than a fixed schedule, and (3) Being responsive to the family dynamics, including the emotional needs of each family member.

Educators aim to equip students with learning strategies they can apply when approaching new problems on their own. Teaching design-thinking strategies may support this goal. A first test would show that the strategies are good for learning and that students spontaneously transfer them beyond classroom instruction. To examine this, we introduce choice-based assessments (CBAs). CBAs measure how people learn when there is minimal guidance and they must make decisions as independent learners. Here, sixth-grade students completed multiple design activities that emphasized either seeking constructive criticism or exploring a space of alternatives. Afterward, they completed the CBAs, which measured strategy transfer. Results showed that lower-achieving students benefitted most from instruction, exhibiting a relative increase in their use of design-thinking strategies. In addition, strategy choices correlated with prior achievement measures and appeared to mediate performance in and learning from the CBAs. The choices to use the two strategies themselves were not correlated, which indicates that they are not subsets of a larger construct, such as growth mindset. In sum, CBAs enabled a double demonstration: design-thinking strategies may improve learning and problem solving, and design-thinking instruction may improve the likelihood of lower-achieving students choosing to use effective strategies in novel settings that require new learning.

The introduction of computational modeling into science curricula has been shown to benefit students’ learning, however the synergistic learning processes that contribute to these benefits are not fully understood. We study students’ synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking (CT) through their actions and collaborative discourse as they develop computational models in a visual block-structured environment. We adopt a case study approach to analyze students synergistic learning processes related to stopping conditions, initialization, and debugging episodes. Our findings show a pattern of evolving sophistication in synergistic reasoning for model-building activities.

A central aim of physics education research is to understand the processes of learning and use that understanding to inform instruction. To this end, researchers often conduct studies to measure the effect of classroom interventions on student outcomes. Many of these intervention studies have provided an empirical foundation of reformed teaching techniques, such as active engagement. However, many times there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the intervention had the intended effect, and these null results often end up in the proverbial file drawer. In this paper, we argue that null results can make significant contributions to physics education research, even if the results are not statistically significant. First, we review social science and biomedical research that documents widespread publication bias against null results, exploring why it occurs and how it can hurt the field. We then present three cases from physics education research to highlight how studies that yield null results can contribute to our understanding of teaching and learning. Finally, we distill from these studies some general principles for learning from null results, proposing that we should evaluate them not on whether they reject the null hypothesis but according to their potential for generating new understanding.

Synergistic learning of computational thinking (CT) and STEM has proven to effective in helping students develop better understanding of STEM topics, while simultaneously acquiring CT concepts and practices. With the ubiquity of computational devices and tools, advances in technology, and the globalization of product development, it is important for our students to not only develop multi-disciplinary skills acquired through such synergistic learning opportunities, but to also acquire key collaborative learning and problem- solving skills. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a collaborative learning-by-modeling environment developed for high school physics classrooms. We develop systematic rubrics and discuss the results of key evaluation schemes to analyze collaborative synergistic learning of physics and CT concepts and practices.

A central aim of physics education research is to understand the processes of learning and use that understanding to inform instruction. To this end, researchers often conduct studies to measure the effect of classroom interventions on student learning outcomes. Many of these intervention studies have provided an empirical foundation of reformed teaching techniques, such as active engagement. However, many times there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the intervention had the intended effect, and these null results often end up in the file drawer. In this paper, we argue that null results can contribute significantly to physics education research, even if the results are not statistically significant. First, we review social sciences and biomedical research that has found widespread publication bias against null results, exploring why it occurs and how it can hurt the field. We then present three cases from physics education research to highlight how studies that yield null results can contribute to our understanding of teaching and learning. Finally, we distill from these studies some general principles for learning from null results, proposing that we should evaluate them not on whether they reject the null hypothesis, but according to their potential for generating new understanding.

Students in inquiry science classrooms face an essential tension between sharing new ideas and critically evaluating those ideas. This tension poses affective risks that can discourage further discussion, such as the embarrassment of having an idea rejected. In this article, we analyze the discourse of three groups of undergraduate physics students in their first discussions of the semester, detailing how they navigate these tensions to create a safe space to collaboratively sensemake. We identify a discursive resourceepistemic distancingthat can protect students' affect while they share and critique ideas. We find the groups differ in how soon, how often, and how deeply they sensemake together. These differences can be explained, in part, by how they epistemically distance themselves from their claims. Implications for research include the importance of considering the coupled dynamics of students' epistemology and affect. Implications for instruction include novel ways of encouraging classroom discussion.

: Learning environments based on axiological innovations (Bang, et al., 2016) recognize the resources learners of all ages bring and value learning based in commitments to expand relationships of collaboration. We take up lines of design-based research focused on the expansive engagement of families, where our goal was to create STEM-based intergenerational learning environments that center family collaboration to transform the process of partnering and increase collective capacity to make sense of the natural world, engage in practices, and reimagine participants’ relationships to technologies (Bang, et al., 2012). The four studies that comprise the symposium shed light on the kinds of axiological innovations that guided the design of learning environments that created equitable and transformative STEM-based learning opportunities for families from nondominant communities. Through the symposium we will explore the implications of family-centered axiological innovation for learning theory and design knowledge related to the articulation of extended, cross-setting learning pathways.

In active engagement physics classrooms, students get opportunities to make sense of physics together through discussion. They do not always take up these opportunities, in part because of the risk of sharing their ideas and having them rejected by their classmates or the instructors. In this case study, I analyze videotaped discourse of a tutorial group's early discussions to investigate how students manage these risks in creating a safe space to sensemake. I find that the students and instructors alike rely on a common discursive resource - epistemic distancing - to share their ideas while protecting themselves affectively if others disagree. Epistemic distancing includes hedging, joking, deferring, and other discourse moves used to soften one's stance in conversation. I use video analysis to illustrate the effects of these moves on tutorial groups' sensemaking discussions, and discuss implications for instructors wishing to encourage sensemaking discussions in their physics classrooms.

One aim of school science instruction is to help students become adaptive problem solvers. Though successful at structuring novice problem solving, step-by-step problem-solving frameworks may also constrain students' thinking. This study utilises a paradigm established by Heckler [(2010). Some consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 32(14), 1829-1851] to test how cuing the first step in a standard framework affects undergraduate students' approaches and evaluation of solutions in physics problem solving. Specifically, prompting the construction of a standard diagram before problem solving increases the use of standard procedures, decreasing the use of a conceptual shortcut. Providing a diagram prompt also lowers students' ratings of informal approaches to similar problems. These results suggest that reminding students to follow typical problem-solving frameworks limits their views of what counts as good problem solving.

Can Tinkering Prepare Students to Learn Physics Concepts? Luke D. Conlin, Stanford University Dr. Conlin is a postdoctoral scholar in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. His work focuses on the learning of engineering and science in formal and informal environments. Doris B. Chin, Stanford University Dr. Chin is a Senior Research Scholar with the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University.

Research has documented a sharp decline in students' interest and persistence in science, starting in middle school, particularly among students from underrepresented populations. In working to address this problem, we can learn a great deal from positive examples of students getting excited about science, especially students who were previously disengaged. In this paper, we present a case study of Estevan, an 8th grade student who came into Ms. K's science class with a reputation as a potential "problem student," but left as a leader of the class, even making plans to pursue a career in science. Through analysis of interviews and classroom interactions, we show how Estevan's love of science can be partially explained by an alignment between his identity as a lover of challenges and his epistemology of science as involving the challenge of figuring things out for yourself. This alignment was possible in part because it was supported by his caring teacher, who attended to his ideas and constantly challenged him and the rest of her students to figure things out for themselves instead of just "giving them the answers."

The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) is increasingly used as an instructional framework to help elementary and secondary teachers support English language learners (ELLs). This useful tool has helped teachers gain the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they need to support ELLs learn subject-area content and skills while learning English, but the SIOP can still be improved to enhance teacher learning. Specifically, the authors of this study worry that the SIOP prompts teachers to focus on themselves rather than attending and responding to students' thinking, actions, and sense-making in the classroom. They provide three suggestions that could complement the current SIOP model: (1) additional features that help teachers attend and respond to students' contributions, (2) supplementary reflective prompts to help teachers consider how their instructional choices impact students, and (3) principles from successful professional development programs that support teachers' abilities to respond to students during moment-to-moment instructional interactions.