University of Akron Energy Learning Research Paper For this assignment, you will review the literature on a topic of your choice, related to one of the fol

University of Akron Energy Learning Research Paper For this assignment, you will review the literature on a topic of your choice, related to one of the following themes that we explored in the course (select one). You can use the course readings for initial ideas, but you are required to find other literature as well.

1. Students’s conceptual understanding and misconceptions about a science topic; you can choose a specific topic in your area of Biology (e.g. Natural Selection, Energy, etc.) or give an overview of key ideas in Biology and how to teach them for conceptual understanding.

2. Teaching about the Nature of Science: what do we mean by Nature of Science? what are some students’ misconceptions about the Nature of Science? what key ideas about the Nature of Science are important to teach and why? what are some strategies?

3. Equity in Science Education

4. Integrating technology in the science classroom

5. Teaching about socio-scientific issues

Requirements for the paper:

Consult a minimum of 10 research articles (published in peer reviewed science education journals) around the same topic. You should focus on research articles, and not websites/blogs.
Your references need to be recent (within the last 10 years).
Read each article and take notes on key ideas that experts in science education are presenting about your topic.
Synthesize the articles in your paper by presenting findings thematically. Write an outline first!
Do NOT present a summary of each article separately. Instead, provide a synthesis of key ideas, or issues that you found in the literature.
Your paper should be 6-10 pages (excluding references), double spaced, and formatted using APA style.

This is a good resource for APA style: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html

i choose 5 articles and i want from you pick another 5 artical

and write a research paper and flow the instruction please Having students compare the effects of
different energy sources on the environment
Amy Pallant, Sarah Pryputniewicz, and Hee-Sun Lee
March 2017
61
he energy sources we use to generate electricity are
changing due to concerns about pollution and climate
change, the rise of affordable renewable energy, and
the current availability of low-cost natural gas. Because the
infrastructure to supply energy requires an enormous investment, our decisions today will have long-term effects. When
considering our energy future, we must consider:
◆◆
Should we subsidize renewable energy?
◆◆
How will our transportation systems change?
◆◆
◆◆
How do we deal with the variability of electricity output
from renewable energy sources like wind and solar
when power demand is consistent?
Can we develop battery technology to store energy
during low-demand periods?
These questions have no easy answers. Making energy
choices means considering multiple factors, exploring competing ideas, and reaching conclusions based on the best
available evidence.
This article describes a five-day online energy module
(see “On the web”), developed by the Concord Consortium
(an educational research and development organization) in
which students compare the effects of various energy sources on air quality, water quality, and land use. The module’s
interactive models explore hydraulic fracturing, real-world
data on energy production and consumption, and scaffolded
argumentation tasks to help students examine evidence and
discuss the issues associated with claims based on models and
data. The free module, which aligns with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013; see box p. 68),
runs on computers or tablets.
FI G U R E 1
CONCORD CONSORTIUM, BASED ON DATA FROM U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
How electricity sources for New York have changed from 2001 to 2010.
62
The Science Teacher
The Future of Energy
sources from 2001–2010 to determine the sources used in
their own state. Pie charts (Figure 1) allow students to
identify changes in each state’s sources of electricity
and to quickly compare electricity sources in different states.
Next, students compare electricity use in the United States with that in the rest of the world. The module asks: With a growing global population and an
increased demand for electricity, how can we continue
to meet the demand while minimizing negative environmental impacts?
Arguing with evidence
Scientific argumentation has been defined as making and
defending claims with supporting evidence (Berland and
McNeill 2010; Osborne 2010). Science teachers increasingly
focus on developing students’ argumentation skills. A scientific argument typically includes:
◆◆
◆◆
the claim—a conjecture, conclusion, principle, or answer
to a research question;
evidence—data or findings from students that have been
collected and analyzed; and
reasoning—statements that explain the importance and
relevance of the evidence and how the evidence supports
the claim (McNeill and Krajcik 2007).
In the energy module, students construct
scientific arguments based on this claim,
evidence, and reasoning (CER) framework
(McNeill and Krajcik 2007). Additionally,
students characterize and consider the limitations of evidence from the models and data
when developing their arguments, which is
known as uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation (Lee et al. 2010).
Our energy choices have direct and indirect effects on our health, environment,
and economy. The United States uses coal,
oil, natural gas, nuclear fuel, hydroelectric
dams, and renewable resources to generate electricity. Each source has advantages
and disadvantages. Students must carefully examine the evidence when considering complex, nuanced questions such as:
“Will we have enough affordable energy
in the near future?”
Comparing electricity sources
The energy module first asks students,
working in groups of two or three, to
analyze an interactive map of electricity
Teaching hydraulic fracturing
In the second and third activities, students learn about hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a method of extracting natural gas from shale, to make evidence-based arguments about
F IG UR E 2
This model allows students to extract natural gas
from shale using directional drilling and hydraulic
fracturing methods.
CONCORD CONSORTIUM
◆◆
Our energy choices have direct and
indirect effects on our health,
environment, and economy.
The United States uses coal, oil,
natural gas, nuclear fuel, hydroelectric
dams, and renewable resources to
generate electricity.
March 2017
63
energy choices. Research suggests that natural gas, a cleaner
fuel than coal or oil, could lead to a “greener” energy future.
The United States recently became the largest producer of
natural gas worldwide due to horizontal drilling and fracking, according to the Energy Information Administration
(EIA 2014). As of May 2016, 67% of all natural gas in the
United States came from hydraulically fractured wells (EIA
2016). There are 8.727 trillion cubic meters (308.2 trillion cubic feet) of proved natural gas deposits in the United States—
enough to provide electricity to U.S. homes for 31 years at
the current rate of natural gas electricity generation and for
11 years if all electricity were generated by natural gas—and
as much as six times that in unproved deposits (EIA 2015).
Fracking has become contentious in the United States. It
could harm the environment, even though it is cleaner and
cheaper than coal.
FI G U R E 3
U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL ENERGY REVIEW 2011, TABLE 11.3.
An example of an argumentation task.
64
The curriculum aims to help students switch from gut responses about fracked natural gas and other energy sources
to an analytical approach in which they consider the pros and
cons of each energy choice. Students use interactive models
(Figure 2, p. 63) and real-world data to learn how shale gas is
extracted. They also evaluate the environmental impact of using shale gas to generate electricity. Students consider the effect
of pollutants entering the atmosphere as a result of natural gas,
the potential release of methane into the atmosphere during
the drilling process, the impact of fracking sites on the surface,
and the ways in which drilling could affect the underground
water supply. Students could also investigate potential correlations between fracking and increased earthquake activity.
Evaluating and exploring energy
In the fourth activity, students evaluate other energy sources by
analyzing data on air quality, land use and habitat disruption,
water use and water quality, and the relative
cost of energy. Finally, in the fifth activity,
students explore energy efficiency.
Throughout the module, students must
consider multiple pieces of evidence. For
instance, when considering how electricitygenerating sources affect air quality, one
might choose renewable sources because
they produce fewer emissions. Similarly,
if considering mostly cost, students might
conclude that cheap fossil fuel plants were
the best choice. When considering multiple
factors, however, a cost-effective source
that is less harmful to the environment
emerges as the priority. That’s why it is
essential to consider everything—environmental impacts, demand, and price—to
make prudent, evidence-based arguments
about energy sources.
Strategies for scientific
arguments
To help students with the complexity of
the energy question, we embedded eight
four-part argumentation tasks in the energy module. In each argumentation task,
students are asked to:
1. make a claim (claim);
2. explain the claim based on evidence
(explanation and reasoning);
3. express their level of certainty with the
claim and evidence (certainty rating); and
4. describe their sources of certainty
(certainty rationale).
The Science Teacher
The Future of Energy
In one argumentation task (Figure 3), students view
a graph of atmospheric methane levels in the United
States from 1980 to 2009 provided by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration and are told that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas began in Texas in
the 1990s and in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania
in 2007. Students are asked to predict future methane
levels in the United States as more natural gas wells
are drilled.
Although the argumentation task has four items, it is best
considered as a whole. The explanation justifies the claim
based on students’ understandings and interpretations of data.
Because the data sets are limited, students are inevitably unsure about parts of their answers. Additionally, the science
behind the questions may be uncertain, as scientists are still
collecting and analyzing data about energy sources. The certainty rating and certainty rationale allow students to report
their claims and explain the reasons for their uncertainty.
Students must consider multiple pieces
of evidence. If considering air quality,
one might choose renewable sources
because they produce fewer emissions.
If considering mostly cost, students
might conclude that cheap fossil fuel
plants were the best choice.
FI G U R E 4
Rubric for students’ explanations.
Level 0
Description
Sample answers for methane argumentation task
Students write “I don’t know”
or are off task.
I’m not sure.
I don’t know. I just pick anything.
Level 1
Students’ explanations include The graph shows a slow decrease.
only incorrect evidence from
the graph or data shown.
Level 2
Students include evidence
from the graph but do not
support their claim with
evidence.
The more we drill, the more that will get released into the
atmosphere.
Level 3
Students identify adequate
evidence to support claim.
Hydraulic fracturing started in the 1990s, and there seems to be no
increase due to that drilling. More fracking happened in 2007, and
there wasn’t much change after that either.
Level 4
Students use theory or
established knowledge to
identify detailed evidence to
support claim.
The more we drill for gas, the more potential to put more methane
into the air. There’s an increase in the methane level since 2007, which
means that methane must have escaped from the drilling.
Level 5
Students use theory or
established knowledge to
identify comprehensive
evidence to support claim.
The graph shows that there is not much change in the methane level
since fracking started. There is a little bit of an increase since 2007, so
this suggests that increased drilling only minorly affects the methane
level. Most of the gas that they are drilling is probably captured. But if
there are leaks, the increased drilling can increase the methane levels.
Looking at the graph from 1980 on up to 2009, the million metric tons
of methane have not changed much but have stayed the same.
March 2017
65
Students then interpret the data in the graph showing that
the methane level has remained mostly steady since 1980,
despite more hydraulic fracturing. One student explained:
“According to the graph, the Marcellus Shale drilling in
Pennsylvania has led to an upturn in the graph. I think that
the line following will continue to go up because of this.”
Another student responded: “From 1980 to 2005, the
amount of methane has neither decreased or increased in
the graph.”
Based on the data in the graph, students can reason that
fracking must not be the only source for atmospheric methane. How many of those sources are natural (unrelated to
human actions)? How much of the methane is attributable
to natural gas drilling (not just from fracking)? The next
prompts ask students to consider their levels of certainty
about their claim and explanation.
Students can note that the data in the graph only goes to
2009, just two years after widespread hydraulic fracturing
started in Pennsylvania. They can observe that it is difficult to
predict what future methane levels might be. As an extension,
students can conduct further research to discover evidence
of increasing atmospheric methane since 2009 (See “On the
web”). Examples of students’ certainty rationales include:
“I’d like to know the exact year Texas began horizontal
drilling and hydraulic fracturing. It would change my answer
if I knew they started in the early 1990s.”
“Actions can be taken to reduce the amount of methane in
the air. Also, other fuel sources may be located making natural
gas obsolete.”
“You can see on the graph that methane levels are gradually
increasing. Then, if we get more drilling sites, there will be an
even larger increase because we are extracting more methane
to the surface.”
FI G U R E 5
Rubric for certainty rationale.
Category
Sample answers for methane argumentation task
Level 0
No information: Students wrote “I don’t
know,” wrote an off-task response or
restated the claim.
I’m not really sure.
Level 1
Certainty related to personal skills and
knowledge: Students did not understand
the question, did not possess general
knowledge or ability, or did not make sense
of the data.
I’m not positive about the Earth and how everything
works.
Certainty based on science provided by
the curriculum: Students referred to or
elaborated on scientific knowledge or data.
The more drilling that is done, the more methane gas is
going to be released.
Certainty related to factors beyond what was
provided by curriculum: Students recognize
limitations of data, elaborate why scientific
phenomena addressed are uncertain,
or mention current state of scientific
knowledge or data collection are limited.
The amount of methane could also increase if we use
more of it.
Level 2
Level 3
I do not know much about this topic.
Drilling began in the 1990s, and the graph shows that the
levels did not either drastically rise or fall after that time
period.
I can’t be too sure whether methane would be absorbed
by the same carbon sinks as carbon. But I am pretty sure
that the methane would go into the atmosphere.
To make money they need that methane so they’re
not going to let it go. So they are going to take every
precaution necessary.
I’d like to know the exact year Texas began horizontal
drilling and hydraulic fracturing. It would change my
answer if I knew they started in the early 1990s.
66
The Science Teacher
The Future of Energy
Evaluating arguments
Using the argumentation task in Figure 3 (p. 64) as an example, we can characterize students’ argumentation performances. Students’ explanations of claims and certainty rationales are scored with separate rubrics (Figures 4, p. 65, and 5,
respectively). The more evidence students use and the more
they consider limitations of the data, the more sophisticated
their scientific arguments and the higher their scores.
Conclusion
We analyzed pre- and post-test responses to claim, explanation, certainty rating, and certainty rationale items for 1,573
students from three middle schools and seven high schools.
After using the energy module, students significantly improved their scientific argumentation abilities. Today’s students will have to make many important decisions about
environmental issues over the course of their lives. Decisions
are best made when one carefully considers all of the evidence, weighing the pros and cons of each choice, and evaluating confidence levels. By focusing on scientific arguments,
teachers can help students make rational, informed decisions
about energy sources in the future. ■
Amy Pallant (apallant@concord.org) is a principal investigator
on the High-Adventure Science project, Sarah Pryputniewicz
(spryputniewicz@concord.org) is a research assistant, and HeeSun Lee (hlee@concord.org) is a senior research scientist at the
Concord Consortium in Concord, Massachusetts.
Acknowledgment
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-0929774 and DRL1220756.
On the web
Atmospheric methane levels: http://bit.ly/NOAA-methane
Concord Consortium online energy module: http://activities.
concord.org/sequences/123
Teacher guide: http://nationalgeographic.org/lesson/what-are-ourenergy-choices
References
Berland, L.K., and K.L. McNeill. 2010. A learning progression
for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and
designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education
94 (5): 765–793.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. International energy
statistics: Gross natural gas production.
http://bit.ly/2htTSQ
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2015. Assumptions to the
annual energy outlook 2015: Oil and gas supply module. http://bit.
ly/2irAMsN
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2016. Hydraulically
fractured wells produce two-thirds of U.S. natural gas production.
http://bit.ly/2hpp54e
Lee, H.S., M.C. Linn, K. Varma, and O.L. Liu. 2010. How do
technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom
learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (1): 71–90.
McNeill, K.L., and J. Krajcik. 2007. Middle school students’ use
of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific
explanations. In Thinking with data, eds. M. Lovett and P. Shah,
233–265. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
NGSS Lead States. 2013. The Next Generation Science Standards: For
states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. 2010. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative,
critical discourse. Science 328 (5977): 463–466.
March 2017
67
The Future of Energy
Connecting to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013).
Standards
HS-ESS3 A: Natural Resources
Performance Expectations
The chart below makes one set of connections between the instruction outlined in this article and the NGSS. Other
valid connections are likely; however, space restrictions prevent us from listing all possibilities. The materials/lessons/
activities outlined in this article are just one step toward reaching the performance expectations listed below.
HS-ESS3-1. Construct an explanation based on evidence for how the availability of natural resources, occurrence of
natural hazards, and changes in climate have influenced human activity.
HS-ESS3-2. Evaluate competing design solutions for developing, managing, and utilizing energy and mineral resources
based on cost-benefit ratios.
Dimension
Name and NGSS code/citation
Specific connections to classroom activity
Science and
Engineering
Practices
Developing and Using Models
• Develop and use a model to describe
phenomena.
• Develop a model to describe unobservable
mechanisms.
• Use a model to provide mechanistic accounts
of phenomena.
Constructing Explanations and Designing
Solutions
• Construct an explanation based on valid and
reliable evidence obtained from a variety of
sources (including students’ own investigations,
models, theories, simulations, peer review).
(HS-ESS3-1)
Analyzing and Interpreting Data
• Analyze data using tools, technologies, and/or
models (e.g., computational, mathematical) in
order to make valid and reliable scientific claims
or determine an optimal design solution.
Engaging in Argument From Evidence
• Construct an oral and written argument or
counter argument based on data and evidence.
Students use online interactive models to
explore how hydraulic fracturing releases natural
gas from deep shale formations.
ESS3.A: Natural Resources
• Resource availability has guided the
development of human society. (HS-ESS3-1)
• All forms of energy production and other
resource extraction have associated economic,
social, environmental, and geopolitical costs
and risks and benefits. New technologies and
social regulations can change the balance of
these factors. (HS-ESS3-2)
Students investigate different energy sources and
how they produce electricity.
Disciplinary
Core Idea
Crosscutting
Concepts
68
Students use an interactive computational
model and re…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment