Water is a crucial topic that spans the K‐12 science curriculum, including the elementary grades. Students should engage in the articulation, negotiation, and revision of model‐based explanations about hydrologic phenomena. However, past research has shown that students, particularly early learners, often struggle to understand hydrologic phenomena and that scientific modeling remains underemphasized in elementary science learning environments. More research is, therefore, needed to understand and promote early learners' engagement in domain‐specific modeling practices. To address this need, we are engaged in design‐based research to foster and investigate 3rd‐grade students' model‐based explanations for the water cycle. Here, we report on the development of a set of empirically based learning performances that integrate core discipline‐specific concepts and the practice of scientific modeling. This framework (i) grounds the iterative adaptation and enhancement of a commonly used curricular unit focused on water and (ii) lays the foundation for ongoing development of an associated learning progression that spans K‐12 grades. Second, we report on findings from research investigating 3rd‐grade students' model‐based explanations within the context of the water cycle. Results illustrate epistemic features of mechanism‐based causal claims elementary students generate and highlight both target concepts and modeling practices emphasized in students' model‐based explanations for hydrologic cycling. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 895–921, 2015.

Within the field of science education, there remains little agreement as to the definition and characteristics of classroom inquiry. The emerging emphasis on scientific practices in science education reform discourse is underpinned by a need to better articulate the constituent elements of inquiry‐based science. While a small number of observation‐based instruments have been developed to characterize science learning environments, few are explicitly aligned with theoretical constructs articulated by the National Research Council and/or have been substantially field‐tested. We employ a newly developed instrument, the Practices of Science Observation Protocol (P‐SOP), to investigate essential features of inquiry and scientific practices in which early learners engage in elementary classrooms. This research is part of a multiyear professional development program designed to support elementary teachers (K‐5) in a large, urban school district to learn to better engage students in scientific practices. Project teachers video‐recorded enacted science lessons (n = 124) which were used as data. Findings illustrate both essential features of inquiry and scientific practices observed in elementary classrooms, as well as establish the P‐SOP as a valid and reliable observation protocol. These findings have important implications for the design of elementary science learning environments and associated research and development efforts in the field.

While research has shown that elementary (K-5) students are capable of engaging in the scientific practice of explanation construction, commonly-used elementary science curriculum materials may not always afford them opportunities to do so. As a result, elementary teachers must often adapt their science curriculum materials to better support students' explanation construction and foster student sense making. However, little research has been conducted to explore if and, if so, how and why, elementary teachers modify science curriculum materials to engage students in explanation construction. We use an embedded mixed methods research design to explore elementary teachers' (n ¼ 45) curricular adaptations and pedagogical reasoning. We collected and quantitatively analyzed a matched set of 121 elementary science lesson plans and video recorded lesson enactments to investigate the extent to which inservice elementary teachers engage in instruction to more productively support students' explanation construction. Our findings suggest that the curriculum materials heavily emphasized hands-on engagement and data collection over explanation construction and that the teachers' adaptations did not fundamentally alter scientific sense-making opportunities afforded students in the lesson plans. Interviews and other artifacts were also collected and analyzed to construct a multiple-case study of four of these elementary teachers. Findings from the case study suggest that the teachers' conceptions of explanation construction and concerns about the abilities of their students to engage in scientific explanations impacted their curricular adaptations.Elementary students, like middle-school and secondary students, should be afforded opportunities to engage in scientific practices to develop deep conceptual understanding of natural

No abstract

Developing scientific literacy about water systems is critical for K‐12 students. However, even with opportunities to build knowledge about the hydrosphere in elementary classrooms, early learners may struggle to understand the water cycle (Forbes et al., ; Gunckel et al., ; Zangori et al., ; Zangori et al., ). Scientific modeling affords opportunities for students to develop representations, make their ideas visible, and generate model‐based explanations for complex natural systems like the water cycle. This study describes a comprehensive evaluation of a 5‐year, design‐based research project focused on the development, implementation, revision, and testing of an enhanced, model‐centered version of the Full Option Science System (FOSS) Water (2005) unit in third grade classrooms. Here, we build upon our previous work (Forbes et al., a; b; Vo et al., ; Zangori et al., ; Zangori et al., ) by conducting a comparative analysis of student outcomes in two sets of classrooms: (1) one implementing the modeling‐enhanced version of the FOSS Water unit developed by the research team (n = 6), and 2) another using the standard, unmodified version of the same curricular unit (n = 5). Results demonstrate that teachers in both conditions implemented the two versions of the curriculum with relative fidelity. On average, students exposed to the modeling‐enhanced version of the curriculum showed greater gains in their model‐based explanations for the hydrosphere. Engagement in scientific modeling allowed students to articulate hydrologic phenomena by (1) identifying various elements that constitute the hydrosphere, (2) describing how these elements influenced the movement of water in the hydrosphere, and (3) demonstrating underlying processes that govern the movement of water in the hydrosphere.