Preparing Our Next Generation of Science Teachers: What Should a Science Teacher Know and Be Able to Do?

By: Patricia D. Morrell, Ph.D., Head, School of Education, University of Queensland
Meredith Park Rogers, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Science Education, Indiana University-Bloomington
Eric J. Pyle, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, James Madison University
Gillian Roehrig, Ph.D., Professor of STEM Education, University of Minnesota
William Veal, Ph.D., Professor of Science Education and Chemistry, College of Charleston

Noyce scholars at 2019 Noyce Summit. Photo by Colella Digital.

With the advent of the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2012), it was suggested that the instruction of science education in K-12 classrooms make a radical change; more specifically, there was a shift from focusing on Scientific Inquiry to learning about science from the perspective of three-dimensions. Three-dimensional thinking about science consists of science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Hence, new science teacher program preparation standards needed to be drafted to meet this change in science education ideology. In response, the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) partnered with the Association of Science Teacher Education (ASTE) to prepare a new set of standards for science teacher preparation (SSTP). Previous standards for science teacher preparation were used for accreditation of preservice programs. The new SSTP will be used for program recognition.

Throughout 2016-2018, the joint NSTA/ASTE taskforce worked to mold the standards around the Framework’s 3-dimensional learning expectations to create K-12 coherence for science teacher preparation. As a result of this effort, new standards were approved by the NSTA and ASTE Boards of Directors in the summer of 2018, and these are now available through the NSTA website and the ASTE website.

The purpose of this blog is to introduce these new 2020 NSTA/ASTE Standards for Science Teacher Preparation. The aim of these revised Standards is to assist teacher preparation programs with (re)designing their programs to reflect changes in expectations for K-12 classroom science teachers as outlined in the Framework.

Research Base Informing New Standards for Science Teacher Preparation
The new SSTP were developed from a broad research base in science teaching and learning. They comprise six main areas for which the following section will give an overview of the research base driving each of the 2020 NSTA/ASTE Standards for Science Teacher Preparation: Content knowledge, content pedagogy, learning environments, safety, impact on student learning, and professionalism.

The new SSTP follow. Each Standard is introduced by a discussion of the research base for each area.

Standard 1: Content Knowledge – Research Base
Science content is often the first domain of knowledge that is thought of when one considers the preparation of new teachers of science. The impact of science content knowledge on new teachers’ practice has been the subject of an increasing base of research (National Research Council, 2007, 2010, 2015), encompassing not just the basic facts of science, but also how science is practiced and how content should be organized with respect to learners’ developmental sequencing (NRC, 2010, 2015). Strong content knowledge is cited as a primary characteristic of a teacher’s competence (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Diaz, et al., 2006; Grossman, Schoenfield & Lee, 2005; Kellough, 2003), feelings of being prepared (Banilower, et al., 2013), and self-efficacy (Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006). New teachers with strong science content knowledge inclusive of engagement with the practices of science can also critically assess scientific claims and gain flexibility in the use of scientific explanations (Chinn et al., 2008; Duschl & Duncan, 2009; Herrenkohl & Guerra, 1998; NRC, 2015; Radinsky, Oliva, & Alamar, 2010; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992; Sandoval & Millwood, 2005).

Standard 1 Content Knowledge is the only standard that has an addendum. In it, the team worked to specify, based on the Framework, what disciplinary knowledge (working across the 3 dimensions of the Framework) is needed at four teaching levels (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12) and in earth and space science, life science, physical sciences (physics and chemistry individually at the secondary level). These can be found at the ASTE and NSTA websites. The addendum was created as a checklist of questions that can determine the extent of content knowledge that a preservice teacher has about disciplinary knowledge in the four domains. Rather than questions that require short answers of facts, most questions require an answer that reflects the interconnected nature of science concepts.

Standard 1: Content Knowledge

Effective teachers of science understand and articulate the knowledge and practices of contemporary science and engineering. They connect important disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and science and engineering practices for their fields of licensure. (See for example: Darling-Hammond, 2006; Grossman, Schoenfield & Lee, 2005; Kellough, 2003.)

Preservice teachers will:
1a) Use and apply the major concepts, principles, theories, laws, and interrelationships of their fields of licensure and supporting fields. Explain the nature of science and the cultural norms and values inherent to the current and historical development of scientific knowledge.
1b) Demonstrate knowledge of crosscutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, practices of science and engineering, the supporting role of science-specific technologies, and contributions of diverse populations to science.
1c) Demonstrate knowledge of how to implement science standards, learning progressions, and sequencing of science content for teaching their licensure level PK-12 students.

Standard 2: Content Pedagogy – Research Base
Science teachers need to develop students’ skills and dispositions to use scientific and engineering practices to further their learning and to solve problems. Students need to experience instruction in which they (1) use multiple practices in developing a particular core idea and (2) apply each practice in the context of multiple core ideas. Developing lesson plans is one of the fundamental skills that all science teachers need to have to teach all types of students using formats that emphasize a variety of student-centered and 3D approaches in which students experience science by collecting empirical data (Ross & Cartier, 2015; Fick, 2018). In science, teachers need to be able to develop a variety of lessons and activities that can occur within a classroom, laboratory setting, or outside (e.g., Hainsworth, 2018). In addition, science teachers need to be able to develop lesson plans that integrate technology and allow students to use technology to collect and analyze data.

Standard 2: Content Pedagogy

Effective teachers of science plan learning units of study and equitable, culturally-responsive opportunities for all students based upon their understandings of how students learn and develop science knowledge, skills, and habits of mind. Effective teachers also include appropriate connections to science and engineering practices and crosscutting concepts in their instructional planning. (See for example: Gess-Newsome, 2009; Meadows, 2009; Polman & Pea, 2001; Shulman, 1986.)

Preservice teachers will design lessons:
2a) Using science standards and a variety of appropriate, student-centered, and culturally-relevant science disciplinary-based instructional approaches that follow safety procedures and incorporate science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts.
2b) Incorporating appropriate differentiation strategies, wherein all students develop conceptual knowledge and an understanding of the nature of science. Lessons should engage students in applying science practices, clarifying relationships, and identifying natural patterns from empirical experiences.
2c) Using engineering practices in support of science learning wherein all students design, construct, test and optimize possible solutions to a problem.
2d) Aligning instruction and assessment strategies to support instructional decisionmaking that identifies and addresses student misunderstandings, prior knowledge, and naïve conceptions.
2e) Integrating science-specific technologies to support all students’ conceptual understanding of science and engineering.

Standard 3: Learning Environment – Research Base
The learning environment required by the Framework and represented by NSTA-SSTP requires teacher candidates to support K-12 student participation in a learning community characterized by frequent opportunities to perceive and interpret phenomena via evidence-based reasoning in diverse settings. The reform-based views of equitable learning environments for 3-D science learning articulated in the crosscutting methods supported by culturally responsive teaching and found in diverse settings for learning science (Hernandez, Morales, & Shroyer, 2013; Kolonich, Richmond, & Krajcik, 2018). The prior knowledge and unique life experiences that all learners possess are required elements of an inclusive and equitable learning environment. This necessitates developing preservice teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to teach diverse learners and use culturally responsive pedagogy to accommodate diverse learner needs and avoid prejudices, stereotypes and biases that marginalize learners (Whitaker & Valtierra, 2018).

Standard 3: Learning Environment

Preservice teachers will design lessons:
3a) Plan a variety of lesson plans based on science standards that employ strategies that demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of how to select appropriate teaching and motivating learning activities that foster an inclusive, equitable, and anti-bias environment.
3b) Plan learning experiences for all students in a variety of environments (e.g., the laboratory, field, and community) within their fields of licensure.
3c) Plan lessons in which all students have a variety of opportunities to investigate, collaborate, communicate, evaluate, learn from mistakes, and defend their own explanations of: scientific phenomena, observations, and data.

Standard 4: Safety – Research Base
For students to develop a full picture of science; that is, science content, process and “understanding how scientists work” (NRC, 2012, p. 43), science instruction is increasing its emphasis on hands-on activities in classrooms, laboratories, and the field. This focus on doing science has highlighted the importance of safety in preservice science teacher preparation. It is important that teacher candidates understand their responsibilities as in loco parentis; that they have a duty of care for their students to protect them from foreseeable risks (NSTA, 2015). The Council of State Science Supervisors (n.d.) summarizes the duty of care to include instruction, supervision, and maintenance of facilities and equipment. With the inclusion of engineering practices in science standards, the breadth of safety concerns has grown. Teachers need to be aware of safety precautions that must be taken in using tools and materials they might now use in classroom activities (Love, 2014; Roy, 2014).

Standard 4: Safety

Effective teachers of science demonstrate biological, chemical, and physical safety protocols in their classrooms and workspace. They also implement ethical treatment of living organisms and maintain equipment and chemicals as relevant to their fields of licensure. (See for example: Barrier, 2005, Love, 2014; Roy, 2011, 2012.)

Preservice teachers will:
4a) Implement activities appropriate for the abilities of all students that demonstrate safe techniques for the procurement, preparation, use, storage, dispensing, supervision, and disposal of all chemicals/materials/equipment used within their fields of licensure.
4b) Demonstrate an ability to: recognize hazardous situations including overcrowding; implement emergency procedures; maintain safety equipment; provide adequate student instruction and supervision; and follow policies and procedures that comply with established state and national guidelines, appropriate legal state and national safety standards (e.g., OSHA, NFPA, EPA), and best professional practices (e.g., NSTA, NSELA).
4c) Demonstrate ethical decision-making with respect to safe and humane treatment of all living organisms, in and out of the classroom, and comply with the legal restrictions and best professional practices on the collection, care, and use of living organisms as relevant to their fields of licensure.

Standard 5: Impact on Student Learning – Research Base
One important measure of the effectiveness of a classroom teacher is the impact on student learning. Classroom assessments are an integral part of reform-based science instruction and learning (Buck, Trauth-Nare, & Kaftan, 2010; NRC, 2014). These assessments should include both formative and summative tasks in which the teacher and students can reflect on instruction and learning. Teachers need the ability to implement and assess 3-D science learning. The NRC (2014) book entitled, “Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards’” provides concrete examples of 3-D assessments that can be used with crosscutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and science and engineering practices. When applied appropriately, assessments can determine the extent of learning about the nature of science, process skills, and content knowledge (Wertheim, Osborne, Quinn, Pecheone, Schultz, Holthius, & Martin, 2016). Reflecting on practice and assessment results help teachers to alter lesson plans so that learning is optimized.

Standard 5: Impact on Student Learning

Effective teachers of science provide evidence that students have learned and can apply disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and science and engineering practices as a result of instruction.
Effective teachers analyze learning gains for individual students, the class as a whole, and subgroups of students disaggregated by demographic categories, and use these to inform planning and teaching. (See for example: Afonso & Gilbert, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012.)

Preservice teachers will:
5a) Implement assessments that show all students have learned and can apply disciplinary knowledge, nature of science, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts in practical, authentic, and real-world situations.
5b) Collect, organize, analyze, and reflect on formative and summative evidence and use those data to inform future planning and teaching.
5c) Analyze science-specific assessment data based upon student demographics, categorizing the levels of learner knowledge, and reflect on results for subsequent lesson plans.

Standard 6: Professional Knowledge and Skills – Research Base
As we move into the 21st Century, the expectations of what students will need to know and be able to do is extensive, and as such the expectations of what teachers will need to know and be able to do is also extensive (Davis et al., 2006). Darling-Hammond and Oakes (2019) note that teachers, to be effective today and into the future, “must become ‘adaptive experts’”. To become adaptive experts and address the challenges they face in the classroom, teachers need to continually seek ways to build on their knowledge and competencies as professionals. Therefore, it is critical that preservice teachers have the opportunity in their teacher education programs to experience the kinds of pedagogies of practice (Grossman, 2018) that will lead them to develop a professional mindset of becoming an adaptive expert and reflective practitioner. A reflective practitioner can develop a plan for consistent monitoring of progress towards teaching goals, identify potential areas of improvement through this monitoring process, and make evidence-based decisions about future instruction (Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019).

Standard 6: Professional Knowledge and Skills

Effective teachers of science strive to continuously improve their knowledge of both science content and pedagogy, including approaches for addressing inequities and inclusion for all students in science. They identify with and conduct themselves as part of the science education community. (See for example, Bybee, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Desimone & Garet, 2015; Grossman et al., 2005.)

Preservice teachers will:
6a) Engage in critical reflection on their own science teaching to continually improve their instructional effectiveness.
6b) Participate in professional development opportunities to deepen their science content knowledge and practices.
6c) Participate in professional development opportunities to expand their science-specific pedagogical knowledge.

Vetting of the Standards
These standards were shared with professional disciplinary organizations for feedback as well as presented at regional and national NSTA and ASTE conferences and made available for sharing on-line. The final drafts were discussed with and approved by the Boards of both NSTA and ASTE in 2018.

Value of the SSTP to Stakeholders
We see these standards being used for a variety of purposes.

- Teacher Education Programs – The SSTP were primarily designed for Educational Preparation Programs to use for program review and (re)design. Ultimately, these Standards may be used for National Recognition of science teacher preparation programs.
- Teacher Educators – The SSTP are being used by higher education faculty to help with science content courses designed for teacher candidates.
- Teacher Candidates and Teachers – The SSTP are useful for teacher candidates and in-service teachers to reflect on their own knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

References

Afonso, A. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Pseudo-science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 329–348.

Banilower, E.R., Smith, P.S., Weiss, I.R., Malzahn, K.A., Campbell, K.M., and Weis, A.M.
(2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel
Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Barrier, R. (2005). Making sense of safety. The Science Teacher, 72(6), 30–33.

Buck, G.A., Trauth-Nare, A., & Kaftan, J. (2010). Making Formative Assessment Discernable to Pre-Service Teachers of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 402–421.

Bybee, R. W. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st century perspectives. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary school science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Chinn, C., Duschl, R., Duncan, R., Pluta, W., Buckland, L., Ruppert, J., Bausch, A., and
Freidenreich, H. Promoting Growth in Scientific Reasoning: A Year-Long Microgenetic Study of Middle School Students Learning through Model-Based Inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York (2008, March).

Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., & Betty, A. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28, 81–96.

Council of State Science Supervisors. (nd). Science & safety, Making the connection. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449028.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Oakes, J. (2019). Preparing teachers for deeper learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Davis, E.A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607-651.

Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 252-263.

Duschl, R., & Duncan, R.G. (2009). Beyond the fringe: Building and evaluating scientific
knowledge systems. In T. Duffy and S. Tobias (Eds.), Constructivist Theory Applied to
Instruction: Success or Failure? (pp. 311-332). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

Fick, S. J. (2018). What Does Three-Dimensional Teaching and Learning Look Like?: Examining the Potential for Crosscutting Concepts to Support the Development of Science Knowledge. Science Education, 102(1), 5–35. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1163558&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A Model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill Including PCK. In Loughran, J., Friedrichsen, P. J., & Berry, A (Eds), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 28-42). New York: Routledge.

Gerlovich, J. A., McElroy, D., Parsa, R., & Wazlaw, B. (2005). National school science safety indexing project: A beginning. The Science Teacher, 72(6), 43–45.

Grossman, P. L. (Ed.) (2018). Teaching core practices in teacher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A., & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. (pp. 201–231). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Hainsworth, M. (2018). It’s Easier than You Think! Exploring an Outdoor Pedagogy for Teaching Science. Primary Science, (153), 31–34. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1180383&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Hattie, J.A.C. Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What Does the Research Tell Us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. (2003, October). Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/.

Hernandez, C.M., Morales, A.R., & Shroyer, M.G. (2013). The development of a model of culturally responsive science and mathematics teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8, 803-820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9544-1.

Herrenkohl, L.R., & Guerra, M.R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and
student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 433-475.

Kellough, R. D. (2003). Secondary school teaching. Allyn & Bacon.

Kolonich, A., Richmond, G., & Krajcik, J. (2018). Reframing inclusive science instruction to support teachers in promoting equitable three-dimensional science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(8), 693–711. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1500418.

Love, T.S. (2014). Safety and liability in STEM education laboratories: Using case law to inform policy and practice. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(5), 1-13.

Meadows, L. (2009). Change in secondary science settings: A voice from the field. In J. Gess- Newsome, J. A. Luft, & R. L. Bell (Eds.), Reforming secondary science instruction (pp. 3–12). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Science in action—hands-on and interactive computer tasks from the 2009 Science Assessment. Available from ERIC (ED532949). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R.A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2010). Chapter 7: Preparing Science Teachers. In Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy (pp. 125-152). Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 2014. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18409.

National Research Council. (2015). Science Teachers Learning: Enhancing Opportunities, Creating Supportive Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association (2010). NSTA position statement: Principles of professionalism for science educators. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/professionalism.aspx.

National Science Teachers Association Safety Advisory Board. (2015). Field trip safety. Retrieved from http://static.nsta.org/pdfs/FieldTripSafety.pdf.

Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238.

Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2010). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an
idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642.

Rosebery, A.S., Warren, B., & Conant, F.R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61-94.

Ross, D. K., & Cartier, J. L. (2015). Developing Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices While Planning Using the Learning Cycle. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(6), 573–591. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1078884&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Roy, K. (2011). Lab safety – A shared responsibility. Science Teacher, 78(9), 8.

Roy, K. (2012). STEM: A question of safety. Science Scope, 36(1), 84-85.

Roy, K. (2014). Tooling up for safer STEM activities! Science Scope, 38(4), 4-6.

Sandoval, W.A.& Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.

Stepans, J. I., & Schmidt, D. L. (2009). From Wyoming to Florida, they ask, ‘‘Why wasn’t I taught this way? In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Inquiry: The key to exemplary science (pp. 57–70). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Wertheim, J., Osborne, J., Quinn, H., Pecheone, R., Schultz, S., Holthuis, N., & Martin, P. (2016). An analysis of existing science assessments and the implications for developing assessment tasks for the NGSS. Report by the Stanford NGSS Assessment Project Team. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity.

Whitaker, M.C., & Valtierra, K. M. (2018). The dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal for Multicultural Education, 12(1), 10-24.

Patricia D. Morrell, Ph.D., Head, School of Education, University of Queensland
p.morrell@uq.edu.au

Patricia Morrell is Head of the School of Education at the University of Queensland, Australia. Prior, she was a Professor in the School of Education and Director of the STEM Education and Outreach Centre at the University of Portland, Oregon. Her research interests include best practices for the development of preservice and inservice science teachers, as well as curriculum development and assessment. Her research has been supported by $4 million in grants, and she has over 70 published articles, books, book chapters, curricula, and proceedings. She is currently the Past President of the Association for Science Teacher Education.

Meredith Park Rogers, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Science Education, Indiana University-Bloomington
mparkrogers@gmail.com

Meredith Park Rogers is an Associate Professor of Science Education at Indiana University – Bloomington. Her research interests include science teacher education and in particular elementary teacher professional knowledge development from the perspective of both pre-service and in-service teachers. In collaboration with a variety of colleagues, she has received a combination of federal, state and foundation grants totaling over $5 million to fund her work in this area. This work has produced to date nearly 40 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Meredith is a former board member of the Association for Science Teacher Education.

Eric J. Pyle, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, James Madison University
ejpyle.mgb@gmail.com

Eric J. Pyle is a professor of geology at James Madison University, specializing in geoscience education, field learning, assessment, and teacher preparation. His work has been supported by over $5 million of grant funding, resulting in over 90 articles, book chapters, curricula, and abstracts. He was a contributor for A Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards. He is a past president of both the Virginia Association of Science Teachers and the West Virginia Science Teachers Association. He is a past board member of the National Science Teaching Association for Preservice Teacher Preparation, and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London.

Gillian Roehrig, Ph.D., Professor of STEM Education, University of Minnesota
roehr013@umn.edu

Gillian Roehrig is a Professor of STEM Education at the University of Minnesota. Her research interests are in science teacher education and integrated STEM education. Her research has been funded by over $30 million in federal, state and foundation grants, and she has 105 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. She is a former President of the Association for Science Teacher Education and a former board member of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

William Veal, Ph.D., Professor of Science Education and Chemistry, College of Charleston
vealw@cofc.edu

William Veal is a Professor of Science Education and Chemistry at the College of Charleston. His research interests are in reform-based science education, beliefs, and pedagogical content knowledge. His collaborative research has been funded by federal, state, and local grants totaling over $6 million, and has resulted in over 40 publications. He is a former President of the American Association of Teaching and Curriculum.