RESTRUCTURING CULTURAL NORMS IN SCIENCE: AN INFORMAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM by Amanda Montague A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah March 11, 2023 Approved __________________________________________ Katarina Pantic, Ph.D. __________________________________________ Adam Johnston, Ph.D. __________________________________________ Ryan Cain, Ph.D. 2 Abstract Inequality persists in STEM fields; this thesis restructures harmful cultural norms into a new educational framework to increase access and opportunities in science. In the literature review, four harmful cultural norms were identified as well as goals to rectify the harmful structure. First, the school system creates an environment where not all students can thrive, so this curriculum is designed to be done outside of the school system. Second, science is commonly taught as a set of unquestionable facts, so this curriculum teaches the process scientists use to build scientific knowledge. Third, toxic masculinity creates roadblocks for both girls and boys, so this curriculum supports boys developing a prosocial masculine identity. Forth, the scientific brilliance of girls and women are not recognized in science environments, so this curriculum encourages participants to develop a self-affirming science identity. Additionally, an alternative way to engage in the science and engineering practices (SEPs) was developed. This project originated eight-character traits of scientists which correlate to the SEPs and teaches participants how to behave like a scientist to build scientific knowledge, they are as follows. Scientists are curious when asking questions and defining problems. Scientists are creative when developing and using models. Scientists are purposeful when planning and carrying out investigations. Scientists are clarifying when analyzing and interpreting data. Scientists are precise when using mathematics and computational thinking. Scientists are expressive when constructing explanations and designing solutions. Scientists are logical when engaging in argument from evidence. Scientists are empathetic when obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. The result is a framework to increase diversity in science as described in a sample curriculum. The curriculum encourages participants to practice both cognitive and emotional intelligence and bridges everyday inquiry with scientific inquiry. 3 Dedication This work is dedicated to my younger self. The happy little girl with pigtails who wanted to be a physicist when she grew up. 4 Note from the Author Ever since I was a little girl, I have wanted to be a physicist but the culture I grew up in taught me that women should be stay-at-home moms. When I was in high school, I asked to take physics, but my counselor refused to enroll me in the class. Even though I met the requirements he told me physics was too hard and made me pick an easier class. I didn’t dare take physics again until my 3rd year of college, then 4 years later I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in physics. At the time of my graduation, pressure from my culture was weighing heavily on me and I felt compelled to walk away from my dream of being a physicist in order to become a stayat-home mom. The roadblocks I experienced in science due to the culture I grew up in were too much for me to overcome. I hope my work creates a pathway to science that doesn’t require women, or people from other diverse groups, to overcome their cultural heritage in order to do science. We need different cultural perspectives in science. Come as you are and let’s build scientific knowledge together. 5 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for their role in my life. I couldn’t have done this without you. My committee chair, Dr. Katarina Pantic, for holding me to the highest standards and supporting me as I strived to meet them. Thank you for giving me the freedom to forge my own path forward and for staying with me through my struggles. My former committee chair, Dr. Adam Johnston, for always believing in me even when I didn’t believe in myself. My healer, Treylan Loftis, for reducing my pain and strengthening me. I am blessed by your technique, talents, and energy. My family Joseph, Charles, and Abigail Otterstrom, for your examples of authenticity, dedication, and bravery. Thank you for traveling with me on this journey. Emily & Amanda Mendonca, Steven Otterstrom, Tiffany, Ben, & Anna Otterstrom, Melody Otterstrom, Mary Otterstrom, Andrew Otterstrom, Mandy Danzig, Samuel Montague, Craig & Joyce Otterstrom and all my family and friends. The many conversations we shared truly helped and supported me. My parents, Marvin and Ellen Montague, may they rest in peace. Like the setting sun, they are no longer visible, but my world is still illuminated by their existence. The sunset of their lives is absolutely spectacular. Thank you! 6 Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 2 Dedication.................................................................................................................. 3 Note from the Author ................................................................................................. 4 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 11 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 12 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 13 Culture, community and responsibility in science .............................................................. 13 Identifying structures in science education ....................................................................... 16 Outside of school .................................................................................................................................16 Grassroots knowledge .........................................................................................................................17 Prosocial masculine identity ................................................................................................................19 Self-affirming science identity .............................................................................................................21 Science and Engineering Practices .................................................................................... 23 Method .................................................................................................................... 25 Implementing goals ......................................................................................................... 25 Curriculum framework ..................................................................................................... 28 Character Trait & Science and Engineering Practice ........................................................... 29 Curiosity & Asking Questions and Defining Problems. ........................................................................31 7 Creativity & Developing and Using Models .........................................................................................31 Purposeful & Planning and Carrying out Investigations ......................................................................32 Clarifying & Analyzing and Interpreting Data ......................................................................................33 Precise & Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking ................................................................33 Expressive & Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions.......................................................34 Logical & Engaging in Argument from Evidence ..................................................................................35 Empathetic & Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information .............................................35 Results ..................................................................................................................... 37 Framework ...................................................................................................................... 37 Introductory Lesson Design .............................................................................................. 38 Educational Game Design ................................................................................................. 41 Cumulative project challenge design................................................................................. 43 Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................ 45 Personally Empowering .................................................................................................... 45 Joyful Science Engagement............................................................................................... 47 Inclusive Environments .................................................................................................... 49 Challenging Cultural Norms .............................................................................................. 50 Increased Access and Opportunities ................................................................................. 51 References ............................................................................................................... 53 Appendix A. Introductory Lessons ............................................................................ 56 Appendix B. Educational game ................................................................................. 58 8 Appendix C. Cumulative project challenge ................................................................ 61 9 Table of Tables Table 1 .............................................................................................................................. 23 Table 2 .............................................................................................................................. 26 Table 3 .............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 4 .............................................................................................................................. 36 Table 5 .............................................................................................................................. 39 Table 6 .............................................................................................................................. 43 Table 7 .............................................................................................................................. 44 10 Table of Figures Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 2 ............................................................................................................................ 42 11 Introduction Problem Statement Women continue to be underrepresented in a number of science and engineering fields as well as in science and engineering faculties of colleges and universities (National Research Council (NRC), 2012). This underrepresentation persists in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers despite data demonstrating that the achievement gap on standardized tests have been closed between boys and girls (Todd & Zvoch, 2019). Statistics show that for every 100 bachelor’s degrees awarded to women, 74 are awarded to men and yet for every $100 earned by men, women earn $82 (Reeves, 2022). Some might believe this statistic is the result of deficiencies in individuals, but research shows that inequalities are the result of a lack of access and opportunities due to structural norms in our culture (Gorski, 2016). We should not blame women for their underrepresentation in science; we should look for reasons why women aren’t flourishing in science. Similarly, we should not blame men for their decline in earning bachelor’s degrees; we should look for reasons why men aren’t flourishing in education. There is a “culture of power” that we operate under that creates a bias beneficial to men which dissuades individuals in minority groups, including women, from identifying as scientists (Aschbacher & Roth, 2010). As a result of such culture, both girls and boys are sorted into culturally appropriate career paths. The culture girls experience in STEM can feel unwelcoming, so girls leave for more inclusive environments that recognize and value their contributions (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). Similarly, this culture creates an unwelcoming environment for boys that prevents them from entering into health care, education, administration, and literacy (HEAL) jobs (Reeves, 2022). There are many diverse structural barriers and challenges that cause gender inequality (e.g., Avraamidou, 2021; Brotman & Moore, 2008; Carlone et al., 2015; Clark 12 Blickenstaff, 2005; Kay & Shipman, 2014; Maté & Maté, 2022; Miller et al., 2018; Reeves, 2022; Svalastog et al., 2021; Todd & Zvoch, 2019; Williams et al., 2016; Witherspoon & Schunn, 2020), but we know that they are completely unrelated to the desire and abilities of those who are marginalized. As long as these structures exist, inequities will continue to exist (Gorski, 2017). The issue of gender inequality should not be viewed as a war between boys and girls, this is about creating a culture supportive of human flourishing (Reeves, 2022). Women being absent from science is not just a problem for women, it is a problem for science. Political and social power influence the questions scientists ask and pursue as well as the language they use to describe phenomena (Brotman & Moore, 2008). When we culturally restrict scientists as needing to be masculine, the field of scientific inquiry irresponsibly narrows (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). Marin and Bang (2018) argue that to advance foundational knowledge, researchers need to recognize and value culturally diverse ways of knowing. Different perspectives in science increase the questions being asked and interpretations of the results which in turn increase our collective knowledge (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). Increasing the talent pool in STEM to include more diversity could lead to more equitable economic opportunities and a wider range of viewpoints in science (Aschbacher & Roth, 2010). The diverse knowledge and skills that members of different cultural groups bring to formal and informal science learning contexts are valuable assets to build on (NRC, 2012). Purpose The aim of this thesis is to restructure cultural norms in a science curriculum to reduce gender inequality by providing an alternative way for participants to build a personal science practice and identity. It has the potential to create an environment outside of the school system 13 that will generate change in cultural norms and unwritten rules about how girls and boys engage in science. To accomplish this, I propose making a curriculum for babysitters of all genders to use while performing childcare tasks. I postulate that through this curriculum girls will be empowered to create their own self-affirming science identities while boys will be able to develop a prosocial masculine identity. This curriculum is based on the science and engineering practices described in A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012). It is designed in a simplistic and introductory way, so that a 12-year-old caring for a 3-year-old can both develop a science practice and identity. Literature Review Culture, community and responsibility in science The reasons why women do not end up in science careers are varied and complicated; there is no single answer to describe this phenomenon (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). Typically, we think that students can decide what kind of person they want to be and then engage in activities to make themselves a relevant part of the community, but research suggests women have additional social requirements (Brotman & Moore, 2008). To demonstrate the complicated nature of this phenomenon consider the following eight key strategies that women in physics found as essential for their success: seeking an environment that enables success, circumventing unsupportive advisors, combating isolation by using peer networks, consciously demonstrating abilities to counteract doubt, finding safe spaces for their whole selves, getting out to stay in STEM, remembering their passion for science, and engaging in activism (Avraamidou, 2021). Another example is that women outnumber men in enrollment and graduation in college; however, educational attainment has not led to equal inclusion of women in STEM careers (Todd & Zvoch, 2019). Persistence and a college degree are not enough for women to succeed in 14 STEM careers, as there are additional social roadblocks to their success due to cultural structures in our society. Empirical research done between 2006 and 2017 has shown that STEM social environments communicate signals that women do not belong in the sciences (Avraamidou, 2021). When a person’s credibility as a knower or reasoner is inappropriately and unwarrantedly undermined then an act of epistemic injustice has occurred, and if it continues over time, it results in epistemic oppression (Miller et al., 2018). Epistemic oppression results in a lack of confidence and explains why overqualified and overprepared women still hold back; they only feel confident when they are practically perfect (Kay & Shipman, 2014). One of the most important things women need to do to overcome the cultural barriers preventing them from succeeding in science is to stop believing that they are inferior (Williams et al., 2016). This is difficult to do since we are conditioned to deviate from our true selves to fulfill expected social roles, no matter the cost to our well-being (Maté & Maté, 2022). The trauma of epistemic oppression itself doesn’t cause learned helplessness; it is the uncontrollable environment the trauma was given in that leads to the development of a passive attitude towards epistemic oppression as a means to cope with the trauma (Seligman, 1972). Success in science is directly linked to the expectations a community imposes on what a scientist is, and the consequential support given or withheld. Global statistics show that in certain STEM disciplines, only 20% of professionals are women. Furthermore, the research shows this is not an issue of lack of interest or capability from women, but instead is solely due to structural barriers preventing women from STEM careers (Avraamidou, 2021). The history of education is not a pretty sight, as it is intertwined with the history of colonialism, racism, and sexism, as expressed through religious and state educational 15 institutions (Svalatog et al., 2021). The issue of gender inequality, for example, is a very painful subject resulting in many people avoiding the issue when they can (Reeves, 2022). Sometimes we do not look for evidence, because if we knew what was happening, we fear we would have to change our course in life (Schulz, 2011). However, to create a healthy culture, we need to recognize the painful realities our culture has created, understand it is not our fault, learn about how our culture has conditioned us to perpetuate it, and take responsibility for healing our part (Williams et al., 2016). What that means is that we need to be introspective and identify our personal role in perpetuating our culture of inequality, so we can fix ourselves, and be the change we want to see in the world. Achievement must be considered an event that is directly tied to practice, if something is not achievable today, with effort and perseverance, it may be achievable tomorrow (González-Calvo, 2020). As a society and as individuals, we have the responsibility to challenge these exclusive structures in our culture to support diversity. Current underrepresentation of women in STEM or leadership roles cannot be credibly attributed to natural causes and it is equally absurd to think that men missing in HEAL jobs is an authentic representation of the true level of interest in these jobs among men (Reeves, 2022). Those with privilege often struggle to understand that they are also oppressed by our culture (Williams et al., 2016). Gender is socially constructed by the individual’s culture. It is the cues that children get describing what it means to be male or female and it does not depend on the biology of the person (Brotman & Moore, 2008). Gender is not something you are, but is something you do, it is how you act or perform (Carlone et al., 2015). Gender roles are taught to children almost as soon as they are born, and both girls and boys are pressured to fill these roles (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). Socially constructed ideas of what it means to be male or female lead to women experiencing a “chilly climate” of social marginalization, sexism, and stereotype 16 threats when pursuing disciplines which have a male majority (Witherspoon & Schunn, 2020), men can experience different, yet similar social marginalization when pursuing disciplines which have a female majority. How one’s identity is accepted or rejected by others produces sociopolitical realities and issues related to access, privilege, and resources (Avraamidou, 2021). This thesis paper has endeavored to embrace the responsibility of reducing all gender inequality in our shared culture and community through creation of an informal science curriculum targeted at restructuring cultural norms in science education. Identifying structures in science education Outside of school To create a science curriculum with epistemic agency we need to consider our deeprooted systems that obstruct students’ agency. For example, teachers are positioned as keepers of canonical science, students are taught right ways of acting and thinking, and our typically westernized notion of science inherently privileges some knowledge and knowers over others (Miller et al., 2018). A wealth of research evidence shows that the structures and culture of schooling and university are alienating and intimidating for women (Avraamidou, 2021). Research has shown that institutional, disciplinary, cultural, and interpersonal structures in school make it virtually impossible to be “girly” and “scientific” at the same time (Carlone et al., 2015). Traditional classroom practices function as a gatekeeper to those whose community’s sense-making practices are different from the norm (NRC, 2012). When women’s aspirations were capped by a sexist society, it was nearly impossible to see that the education system, as a whole, is set up to slightly advantage girls over boys due to the fact that girls mature earlier than boys (Reeves, 2022). Education is deeply embedded in culture, has conservative traits and gatekeepers, and can be both supportive and/or suppressive of individuals, groups, communities, 17 and societies (Svalatog et al., 2021). Due to lingering cultural structures in the school system, girls’ aspirations in science are being thwarted even though girls thrive in the school environment. Therefore, to restructure cultural norms in science, this curriculum is designed to be done outside of the school system. Sources of science learning outside of school may be the only access point for many students to develop a long-term science practice (NRC, 2012). Non-school spaces are rich environments for learning that allow children to practice their own knowledge-building skills (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). Pondering about the natural world is a core tradition of science, we should encourage students to slow down and ponder questions that may fall outside the realm of state standards (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Children’s inquiry can be used as a phenomenon for science learning (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). When teachers have a learning goal for a science investigation, it restricts students’ exploration, because only ideas that lead students toward the learning goal are valued (Miller et al., 2018). Children are constantly asking “why?”. They naturally want to understand the world, but when they enter school, they are regimented and taught the correct ways to behave which reduces the independent spirit of the child and limits their curiosity (Maté & Maté, 2022). The education system has confined knowledge, so it is stagnated, a fact to memorize, even though knowledge could be free to grow actively in our daily lives to unfold with us, as we journey through life (Svalatog et al., 2021). Natural environments, outside of the school system, are an excellent source of phenomena that can support the development of personal science practice. Grassroots knowledge It is not sufficient to only consider reducing gender inequality in science, we also need to consider the development and practice of science (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). One of the concerns 18 we face in science education is how to encourage the development of mature scientific habits (Lindholm, 2018). Science in elementary school has often been portrayed as a collection of unquestioned facts, obscuring the reality that science is an active subject area involving scientific practices and processes (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Traditional cultural structures in science provide instructions and guide students to a predetermined goal, the result causes us to view unique science investigations as deficit, because students don’t reach a traditional goal (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). When we are caught up in the certainty of our own ideas, it deadens our imagination and empathy which results in blindness of other people’s knowledge (Schulz, 2011). Everyday experience and cultural knowledge, for example, provide a rich base of knowledge and experience which can be explored scientifically (NRC, 2012). Science education should provide opportunities for students to act with epistemic agency and build their own knowledge on topics from their everyday experience (Miller et al., 2018). Science has always included both a collection of hard-won facts and the process we use to build knowledge, but structures in school science classes fail to teach the practice of science. The science and engineering practices are used in this curriculum to teach participants how to build their own scientific knowledge about ideas that interest them. Creating their own meaning impacts people far more than memorizing someone else’s interpretation of the phenomenon (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Aspirations in science education include positioning students as the doers of science, so they can construct knowledge (Miller et al., 2018). When students are allowed to choose which learning activities to engage with, they make choices that make learning more relevant and meaningful to them (Hill & Brunvand, 2018). The act of doing science can inspire curiosity and encourage continued engagement in science (NRC, 2012). In order to provide children with the opportunity to explore ideas and 19 create explanations of ideas that pursue their agenda, we must shift the design of learning environments towards scientific inquiry led by children’s curiosity (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). Knowledge-driven curiosity is not an inherent, genetically driven feature, we must nurture it culturally (Lindholm, 2018). Acknowledging the wonder of children, valuing their thoughts, and providing opportunities to explore their wonders can nurture an environment where the child is empowered to explore their thinking (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Wandering through our thoughts is the starting point of a journey to discover the world (Schulz, 2011). Living knowledge is performative, lived through everyday expression, is something we are in a constant relationship with, not just passive storage of bits of data; it is formative and grows with people (Svalatog et al., 2021). Supporting the development of science practice in the environment of babysitting could create a space for children to pursue their curiosity in a scientific way. Prosocial masculine identity In this postfeminist world we need a positive vision of gender equality that includes a prosocial masculinity to oppose traditional male gender roles that create toxic masculinity (Reeves, 2022). For this thesis I define prosocial as relating to or denoting behavior which is positive, helpful, and intended to promote social acceptance and friendship. This is in contrast with toxic masculinity which is defined as a cultural concept of manliness that glorifies stoicism, strength, virility, and dominance, and that is socially maladaptive or harmful to mental health. Western culture has celebrated confident, sometimes even arrogant, white males as the ideal of intelligent scientific competence which leaves anyone unable to perform this type of identity as out-of-place (Avraamidou, 2021). Prosocial masculinity supports a cultural shift from a domineering, aggressive and arrogant masculinity to a socially minded masculinity that supports community, relationships, and mental health. There is a mechanism in our culture that 20 normalizes calamities, so that we actively enable them, deny them, or respond with passive resignation; these responses are certainly not an inborn inclination, but a result of structures in our culture (Maté & Maté, 2022). Gender inequality can be reduced by creating opportunities for boys and men to move away from toxic masculinity to a prosocial masculine identity. Prosocial masculinity, therefore, embraces the social acceptance of both males and females equally to create an environment where everyone can thrive. Culture is maintained through establishing expectations that are considered normal and natural (Maté & Maté, 2022). According to the same authors, people seem to conform to dominant ideas even if those ideas did not develop from natural means and are not good for people. As an example, traditional gender roles view males as rational thinkers and females as emotional thinkers. Consequently, boys are taught to devalue their emotions and as they do so they inadvertently devalue both the rational and emotional thinking of girls. Those with privilege close down needed conversations about culture by dismissing oppression as merely emotion when they should engage in the conversation with compassionate inquiry (Williams et al., 2016). Everyone is capable of both rational and emotional thinking and both perspectives are valuable. Our emotions have crucial survival value, because they give us vital information without which we cannot thrive. Therefore, when cultural norms require us to shut down our emotions, it disables an indispensable part of our sensory apparatus (Maté & Maté, 2022). We can use empathy as a vehicle for understanding, because acknowledging the life experiences of others will deepen the meaning of our intertwined, interdependent, living knowledge (Svalatog et al., 2021). The core practice of science, observation in nature, is a practice that allows a relationship to be built between the observer and the natural world, but to access this knowledge relationship we have to engage our entire bodies: our physical beings, our emotional self, our spiritual energy 21 and our intellect (Marin & Bang, 2018). Spiritual energy in this context refers to intrinsic motivation or the individual’s desire to engage in scientific exploration of ideas they find interesting. The science curriculum for babysitters that I am developing in this paper fosters an environment and an opportunity where boys can develop and practice a prosocial masculine identity. Self-affirming science identity Recognition beliefs, such as how one's identity is accepted or rejected by others, had the largest influence on students’ creating STEM identities because how one's identity is accepted or rejected by others produces sociopolitical realities and issues related to access, privilege, and resources (Avraamidou, 2021). Motivational factors like self-efficacy were found to have a profound impact on persistence towards earning a science degree, which suggests that perception of one’s ability to succeed in something had more weight in student’s persistence than preparation (Witherspoon & Schunn, 2020). What is more, structures in our culture teach women to underestimate their abilities despite demonstrating excellent and capable performances (Kay & Shipman, 2014). Restricted epistemic agency can cause students to lose confidence in their own knowledge and reasoning skills which can be harmful to pursuing STEM careers, because students need to perceive themselves as capable knowers and reasoners to be successful (Miller et al., 2018). Some students believe that they do not have control over how competent they are or can become, but if they develop a reflective practice, it can establish them as a professional capable of mastering their own evolution, building new skills and knowledge to extend those they have previously acquired (González-Calvo, 2020). Gender roles are cultural structures in our society that limit women in science, to change those structures we need to change our beliefs to view women as the kind of people who want to understand the world scientifically (Brotman 22 & Moore, 2008). To support women in science, we need to support girls developing selfefficacy, epistemic agency, and self-empowerment, so they can overcome the social roadblocks that they experience in science environments. Engaging in the practices of science, as it relates to questions in their lives, can help girls develop a self-affirming science identity. To reduce gender inequality in science, our goal should be to help students identify themselves as a person who does science (Brotman & Moore, 2008). Science-linked identities were formed when students realized that science could be related to questions in their lives that they could investigate (NRC, 2012). Wonder-inspired science explorations build confidence and connection because it asks students to take risks, think about the unknown, ask difficult questions and push themselves intellectually, including embracing possible failure (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Science can grant epistemic agency to its practitioners, so they can shape the community’s shared knowledge, evaluate the community’s ideas, and decide which knowledge is relevant (Miller et al., 2018). Creating an environment where students are free to experiment fosters confidence and self-esteem because it allows them to better understand the nature of their actions, and learn from their actions and from the corrections that they make (González-Calvo, 2020). Self-efficacy is built by experiencing and demonstrating personal mastery, engaging in stimulating learning experiences, and being able to socially influence others (Todd & Zvoch, 2019). Nurturing could be used as an alternative practice to make the independent, competitive work of school science more enjoyable (Carlone et al., 2015). Encouraging girls to develop a personal science practice, by using my curriculum, could provide the environment girls need to develop a self-affirming science identity. Literature on harmful structures in science education will be summarized in Table 2 in the Methods section. 23 Science and Engineering Practices The science and engineering practices described in A Framework for K-12 Science Education are the result of describing the activities scientists and engineers engage in as part of their work (NRC, 2012). The eight science and engineering practices are: asking questions and defining problems, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics and computational thinking, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (see Table 1 for definitions of these practices). Engaging in the practices of science helps students understand how scientific knowledge develops which makes science more meaningful to them (NRC, 2012). Table 1 Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) (adapted from NRC, 2012) Science practice Asking questions and defining problems Developing and using models Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Using mathematics and computational thinking Constructing explanations and designing solutions Engaging in argument from evidence Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information Definition Involves encouragement to ask general questions as well as crafting questions that can be investigated Involves understanding a phenomenon better by drawing a picture or creating a simple graph Involves organizing the inquiry, so one can identify what things are important to consider and how to consider them Involves bringing out the meaning and relevance of data which can be used to validate or improve the inquiry Involves enabling ideas to be expressed in an exact form Involves considering how well an explanation fits with the data collected and observations made Involves supporting scientific progress by critically examining explanations to determine validity Involves understanding scientific literature, evaluating processes used, and conversing with others about scientific ideas. 24 The science and engineering practices defined above can be used as a starting point to develop a science practice that will result in a meaningful scientific understanding of the world and our place in it. Human nature includes the amazing ability to be creative and use our imagination, but this can lead us to make mistakes and form misconceptions. Despite knowing humans make mistakes and are often wrong, our steady state of consciousness seems to be one of assuming that we are basically right, all the time. To improve our relationship with wrongness, we need to take an active role in building understanding for ourselves, so we can make sense of it all in our own minds (Schulz, 2011). When we endeavor to dissolve our illusions and open ourselves up to the truths that they conceal, we do ourselves and the world a profound service (Maté & Maté, 2022). Living knowledge is active, it is a practice we need to cultivate, one that grows with people in both their social and academic lives (Svalatog et al., 2021). Historically, in education we have treated students’ ideas as misconceptions which need to be replaced with correct explanations, when we should in fact value students’ erroneous ideas as a step towards constructing knowledge (Miller et al., 2018). Instead of dismissing everyday inquiry as not scientific, we can bridge everyday inquiry with scientific inquiry through the science and engineering practices described above (Keifert & Stevens, 2019), which is the goal of this project. The act of doing science by engaging in the science and engineering practices can inspire curiosity and encourage continued engagement in science (NRC, 2012). Unscripted intellectual ventures are challenging, because they require us to become comfortable with uncertainty and embrace the messiness and ambiguity of the process, but such approach to learning is essential in order to show that knowledge is more than facts needed to pass a test (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Epistemic curiosity is nourished by new knowledge and it widens our cognitive horizons, so that knowledge begins to fuel curiosity and deepens into larger questions (Lindholm, 2018). 25 Method Implementing goals In the literature review, in the section titled identifying structures in science education, I identified four harmful structures in our culture that lead to inequality in science education (see Table 2 below for a summary of the harmful structures and references). The harmful cultural structures identified were that the school system creates an environment where not all students can thrive (e.g., Miller et al., 2018; Svalatog, 2021), science is taught as a set of facts instead of as a process we use to build knowledge (e.g., Keifert & Stevens, 2019; Miller et al., 2018), toxic masculinity creates unhealthy social communities (e.g., Avraamidou, 2021; Reeves, 2022), and women are not recognized as being capable scientists (e.g., Avraamidou, 2021; Brotman & Moore, 2008). It is important to note that these harmful structures are not the result of individuals making bad choices, but rather the result of societal expectations of individuals (e.g., Gorski, 2016; Reeves, 2022). Cultural structures are a collection of values, norms, and roles established by the society which are taught to children as soon as they are born (e.g., Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Carlone, 2015). Also identified in the literature review (and summarized in Table 2) are the goals this curriculum will use to challenge those harmful structures for the purpose of restructuring cultural norms in science education through an informal science curriculum. Since the school system creates an environment where not all students can easily thrive, this curriculum is designed to be done outside of the school system (e.g. Keifert & Stevens, 2019; Svalatog, 2021). As a response to the fact that science is commonly taught as a set of unquestionable facts, my curriculum teaches participants how to build their own knowledge by engaging in the science and engineering practices (e.g. NRC 2012; Miller et al., 2018). To counter the effects of toxic 26 masculinity, this curriculum supports boys developing a prosocial masculinity through doing science in a caregiver setting and developing skills that support community, relationships, and mental health (e.g. Reeves, 2022; Svalatog, 2021). To support girls getting past the harmful social roadblocks they encounter in science environments, this curriculum encourages participants to develop a self-affirming science identity through developing a personal science practice focused on the character traits of scientists (e.g. Carlone, 2015; Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). Table 2 Summary of the Harmful Structures that enable Gender Inequality in Science Education and Proposed Method to Restructure those Cultural Norms Harmful Structure References Restructure goal References Structures in the school (Miller et al., Create an accessible system cause an 2018), science curriculum to be environment where not (Avraamidou, used outside of the all students can thrive. 2021), (Carlone et school system. al., 2015), (NRC, 2012), (Reeves, 2022), (Svalatog et al., 2021) (NRC, 2012), (Keifert & Stevens, 2019), (Gilbert & Byers, 2020), (Miller et al., 2018), (Maté & Maté, 2022), (Svalatog et al., 2021) Science is taught as a (Clark Blickenstaff, Teach science as the collection of facts and 2005), (Lindholm, process we use to build neglects to teach it as a 2018), (Gilbert & knowledge by teaching process in which we Byers, 2020), children how to make sense of the (Keifert & construct their own natural world. Stevens, 2019), knowledge using the (Schulz, 2011), science and engineering (NRC, 2012), & practices. (Miller et al., 2018) (Gilbert & Byers, 2020), (Miller et al., 2018), (Hill & Brunvand, 2018), (NRC, 2012), (Keifert & Stevens, 2019), (Lindholm, 2018), (Gilbert & Byers, 2020), (Schulz, 2011), & (Svalatog et al., 2021) 27 Traditional male gender roles lead to the development of a toxic masculinity which results in boys and men forming arrogant and dominating relationships with others making it difficult for both boys to enter into HEAL jobs and girls to be successful in STEM jobs. (Reeves, 2022), (Dictionary 2023), (Avraamidou, 2021), (Maté & Maté, 2022) Support the development (Maté & Maté, of a prosocial masculine 2022), (Williams identity that supports et al., 2016), community, (Svalatog et al., relationships, and 2021), (Marin & mental health which Bang, 2018) produce the skills needed for the social environments commonly found in HEAL jobs while also potentially supporting a welcoming social environment for girls in STEM. Women experience social exclusion in science environments which include a lack of recognition of their abilities. (Avraamidou, Support the development 2021), of a self-affirming (Witherspoon & science identity so girls Schunn, 2020), can overcome the social (Kay & Shipman, roadblocks they 2014), (Miller et experience in science al., 2018), environments. (González-Calvo, 2020), (Brotman & Moore, 2008) (Brotman & Moore, 2008), (NRC, 2012), (Gilbert & Byers, 2020), (Miller et al., 2018), (González-Calvo, 2020), (Todd & Zvoch, 2019), (Carlone et al., 2015) The purpose of this project, therefore, is to teach the science and engineering practices in an alternative way with a goal of creating a different avenue for girls and boys to participate in science that will challenge gender inequality. Restructuring access to science education has been accomplished through creating an introductory set of lessons, followed by an educational game, and a cumulative project challenge. The outcomes of this curriculum include that learners can recognize scientific behavior, behave like a scientist, and develop their own knowledge. This curriculum is based on the science and engineering practices (SEPs) defined by the NRC (2012). However, instead of teaching the actions of scientists as they do science (aka science and engineering practices (SEPs) as described by the NRC (2012)), this curriculum will develop and 28 teach character traits that describe the behaviors of scientists which are aligned to the above defined SEPs. These character traits were identified and developed for this thesis paper to reflect the SEPs and have similar outcomes. The character traits are further defined in the section entitled “Character Trait & Science and Engineering Practice” and summarized in Table 4. Character traits have the potential to connect a more diverse audience to the usefulness of science as a means of making sense of the universe. An essential part of science education is to understand how science has been extremely successful in extending our knowledge of the world and how it has achieved this success through the techniques it uses (NRC, 2012). Instead of teaching the SEPs as the actions scientists do when they do science, this curriculum will ask participants to behave in the same way scientists behave and recognize this behavior in everyday contexts. Participants will learn how scientific knowledge is developed by performing the behaviors of scientists. Curriculum framework Babysitters as young as 12 years old should be able to facilitate this educational experience as this is an introductory curriculum that does not require additional training to teach. The educational environment this is intended for is a residential setting with one to three children above the age of three with a facilitator as young as 12 years old. First, this curriculum will contain a set of eight introductory lessons (one per trait) to introduce the character traits, as a result participants should be able to recognize how scientists behave when they do science. These eight lessons will be made for each of the character traits picked to represent the eight SEPs identified by the NRC (2012). Each lesson starts with a phenomenon and participants are asked to practice the character trait while exploring the scientific phenomenon. The intended 29 outcome is that participants can identify the character trait and perform the behavior by the end of the lesson. An outline one of these lessons can be found in the results section as an example. The next stage of this curriculum is in the form of a game that I designed. This game consists of an eight-sided die, each side to correspond with each of the character traits. Participants are asked to roll the die to see which character trait they will focus on. Then, as they do an activity of their choosing, they will practice performing and recognizing the behavior described by the character trait in themselves. Its objective is to help participants practice the character traits that they were introduced to through the lessons. The game is designed to be played after participants go through all the introductory lessons on the character traits. Playing this game also teaches participants that there is not a set order to follow as scientific knowledge is developed. Any order that makes sense to the scientist is appropriate just like practicing each trait in a random order is appropriate. Finally, a cumulative project challenge is outlined where participants are challenged to use each character trait as they explore a single idea of their choosing. An example of this project is outlined in the Results section, as well. The objective of this project is to build scientific knowledge by behaving like a scientist towards understanding a topic of the participant’s choice. My hope is that participants will see the outline I provided as a suggestion and change the challenge as they see fit. The essential purpose of this challenge is that all the character traits are utilized towards understanding a personally relevant topic. Character Trait & Science and Engineering Practice For each science and engineering practice (SEP) defined by the NRC (2012), I came up with one character trait that embodies that practice (see Table 3 for definitions and alignment). Each character trait is further described in the subsections that follow to provide their definitions 30 and explain alignment with the science and engineering practices. It is important to mention here that A framework for K-12 science education by the NRC (2012) does not mention these character traits in connection with the science and engineering practices (SEPs). Alignment between the SEPs and the character traits are my idea generated as part of my work on this thesis. Table 3 Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) and Character Traits Science practice Asking questions and defining problems Definition Involves encouragement to ask general questions as well as crafting questions that can be investigated Developing and using Involves understanding a models phenomenon better by drawing a picture or creating a simple graph Planning and carrying out Involves organizing the investigations inquiry, so one can identify what things are important to consider and how to consider them Analyzing and interpreting Involves bringing out the data meaning and relevance of data which can be used to validate or improve the inquiry Using mathematics and Involves enabling ideas to computational thinking be expressed in an exact form Constructing explanations Involves considering how and designing solutions well an explanation fits with the data collected and observations made Engaging in argument Involves supporting from evidence scientific progress by critically examining explanations to determine validity Scientist Definition Character Trait Curious The desire to know more. Creative Using imagination. Purposeful Acting with intention towards a goal. Clarifying To reduce confusion and increase understanding. Precise Exactness and accuracy of detail. Effectively convey ideas and emotions. Expressive Logical Consider the reason why a statement was made. 31 Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information Involves understanding scientific literature, evaluating processes used, and conversing with others about scientific ideas. Empathetic Understand the ideas and emotions of another. Curiosity & Asking Questions and Defining Problems. Curiosity is the desire to know or learn something. Scientists are curious when asking questions and defining problems. Asking questions and defining problems involves encouragement to ask general questions as well as crafting questions that can be investigated (NRC, 2012). Curiosity is the driving force in science as individuals pursue their eager need to know. Student wondering is the motivating force that allows students to embark on a journey to build their own knowledge and deepen their inquiry by connecting science with their emotive and imaginative selves (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Curiosity is bigger than asking questions and defining problems. Curiosity gives students more freedom to explore phenomena and wonder about it in a deeper way than just asking questions because it allows them to wonder about things they can't yet formalize. Phenomenon inspired curiosity can lead children to epistemic engagement in science learning (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). The responsibility of science education should be to engage with student’s scientific wonderings and support their building of knowledge (Miller et al., 2018). Creativity & Developing and Using Models Creativity is the trait of using imagination or further developing original ideas. Scientists are creative when developing and using models. Developing and using models by drawing a picture or creating a simple graph can help students understand a phenomenon better, develop questions and/or explanations, and communicate ideas (NRC, 2012). Imagination is often 32 considered an unnecessary activity in meaningful learning, but research has shown that imaginative abilities can lead to improvements in all measures of educational achievement (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). The miracle of the mind is that we can see the world as it isn’t, we can imagine things that aren’t known (Schulz, 2011). Creativity is a facet of authenticity, leads to authorship and requires a perspective of possibility (Maté & Maté, 2022). Children are competent sense makers when they imagine themselves inside the phenomenon, use storytelling to build a theory, or imagining impossible ways of interacting with the phenomenon. The science and engineering practices do not include creativity, such as storytelling, even though it supports science learning (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). Unscripted intellectual ventures embrace creativity but are challenging because it requires us to become comfortable with uncertainty, to embrace the messiness and ambiguity of the process of doing science (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). By consenting to take part in the illusions we create in our mind we can find pleasure in being wrong, this exercise can help us recognize, move past, and possibly enjoy our next error even though it may be of significant importance (Schulz, 2011). Purposeful & Planning and Carrying out Investigations Purposeful is acting with intention towards a goal. Scientists are purposeful when planning and carrying out investigations. Planning and carrying out investigations organize the inquiry, so participants can identify what things are important to consider and how to consider them (NRC, 2012). Planning and carrying out an investigation through the lens of being purposeful towards the child’s curiosity helps organize the inquiry with the child’s curiosity leading the way. The goal is clear, personal, and based on the child’s interests. Shifting the design of learning environments towards scientific inquiry led by children’s curiosity allows children to shape the contexts in which they engage (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). Creating an 33 environment where students are free to experiment fosters confidence and self-esteem because it allows them to better understand the nature of their actions, learn from them, and from the corrections they make (González-Calvo, 2020). Working with intention towards understanding their curiosity helps the child identify what things are important to consider and how to consider them. When a child sees the purpose in an activity due to their own curiosity, it naturally gives them determination. Science education should provide students opportunities to act with agency and build their own knowledge (Miller et al., 2018). Clarifying & Analyzing and Interpreting Data Clarifying aims to reduce what is unclear to increase understanding. Scientists are clarifying when analyzing and interpreting data. Analyzing and interpreting data can bring out the meaning and relevance of data which can be used to validate or improve the inquiry (NRC, 2012). The phrase analyzing and interpreting data can be confusing and intimidating however the word clarifying can inspire individuals to make sense of their world in a similar way. Participants can reflect on their knowledge and work towards clarifying what they have learned to share with others. A reflective practice establishes participants as a professional capable of mastering their own evolution, building new skills and knowledge to extend those they have previously acquired, in addition to their own experience (González-Calvo, 2020). Building a relationship with learning, through the behavior of clarifying ideas, brings insights to the knowledge seeker by bringing them closer to the phenomenon they want to understand (Svalatog et al., 2021). Precise & Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking Precise is exactness and accuracy of detail. Scientists are precise when using mathematics and computational thinking. Using mathematics and computational thinking can be powerful tools in scientific investigation enabling ideas to be expressed in an exact form (NRC, 2012). 34 When children consider precision in their daily lives, they can build an intuitive relationship with math and computational thinking. Students have been conditioned to believe that the knowledge contained in mathematics and computational thinking consists of only the facts or processes needed to pass a test (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Traditions in math and science provide instructions to students, guiding them to what they should see, this results in viewing everyday precision and patterns as deficit because it doesn’t lead students to a traditional goal such as those defined in state standards (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). The dynamic spaces we live in, which consist of the ground we walk on, the air with move through, and the phenomena we share this space with, contains phenomena encapsulating precision (Marin & Bang, 2018). Life and knowledge are intertwined, we can build a living mathematical and computational thinking knowledge that is based on both social and academic practices (Svalatog et al., 2021). Expressive & Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions Expressive is to effectively convey ideas. Scientists are expressive when constructing explanations and designing solutions. Constructing explanations and designing solutions to make sense of the phenomenon provides the investigator an opportunity to consider how well an explanation fits with the data collected and observations made. Scientists would do well to develop communications skills to enable them to engage in dialogues with diverse audiences, communicate their findings clearly and persuasively, and use formal and informal venues (NRC, 2012). Learners should have opportunities to express ideas that pursue their agendas (Keifert & Stevens, 2019), because creating their own meaning impacts people far more than memorizing someone else’s interpretation of the phenomenon (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). In order for young children to access learning they have to engage their entire bodies: their physical beings, emotional self, spiritual energy and their intellect (Marin & Bang, 2018) which can be done 35 through opportunities to express their understanding of the world to others. Expression creates epistemic agency that positions students as builders of knowledge in the scientific community (Miller et al., 2018), as such participants should develop their expression skills so they can share their knowledge in the science community. Logical & Engaging in Argument from Evidence Logical is to consider the reason why a statement was made. Scientists are logical when engaging in argument from evidence. Engaging in argument from evidence supports scientific progress by critically examining explanations to determine validity (NRC, 2012). Participants will be asked to consider why a statement was made and if that reason was based on a creative idea or a naturally occurring pattern. Science education could be where students learn to critically examine the process by which knowledge becomes valued and devalued in a community. We can value students’ erroneous ideas as a beautiful demonstration of creativity and an opportunity to develop logic (Miller et al., 2018). When we endeavor to dissolve our illusions and open ourselves up to the truths they conceal, we do ourselves and the world a profound service (Maté & Maté, 2022). When students explore science outside the classroom, we need to consider how they will make choices to build knowledge and how they will evaluate the knowledge that they have built (Miller et al., 2018). Logically exploring arguments or explanations can build self-efficacy by having students demonstrate personal mastery of the topic, participate in stimulating learning discussions, and have opportunities to socially influence others (Todd & Zvoch, 2019). Empathetic & Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information Empathetic is the ability to understand and share the ideas and emotions of another. Scientists are empathetic when obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. 36 Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information are fundamental tasks in science used to understand scientific literature, evaluate the processes used, and converse with others about scientific ideas (NRC, 2012). The key point of empathy is to engage in a perceptual-imaginative experience to gain a rich understanding of the experience of another (Svalatog et al., 2021). The ability to deeply understand ideas empowers scientists to refine statements to increase relevance in response to questions or to ask questions of others to achieve clarification and requires more than reading and knowing the definitions of technical terms (NRC, 2012). Joint attention creates space for intersubjective sharing by creating common psychological ground that enables everything from goal-oriented collaborative activities to cooperative communication (Marin & Bang, 2018). The stories people tell are valuable resources we can use to understand science (Avraamidou, 2021). The exercise of learning and understanding the work of other scientists utilizing empathy provides children a valuable sense of achievement and leads to the same joys that accompany the mastering of a skill (Lindholm, 2018). In summation, Table 4 provides a layout with all the scientist character traits with their definitions and rationale. SEP is provided in italics. Table 4 Scientist Character Traits Scientist Character Trait Curious The desire to know more. Creative Using imagination. Purposeful Acting with intention towards a goal. To reduce confusion and increase understanding. Exactness and accuracy of detail. Clarifying Precise Definition Rationale & SEP (SEP is in italics) Scientists are curious when asking questions and defining problems. Scientists are creative when developing and using models. Scientists are purposeful when planning and carrying out investigations. Scientists are clarifying when analyzing and interpreting data. Scientists are precise when using mathematics and computational thinking. 37 Expressive Effectively convey ideas and emotions. Logical Consider the reason why a statement was made. Understand the ideas and emotions of another. Empathetic Scientists are expressive when constructing explanations and designing solutions. Scientists are logical when engaging in argument from evidence. Scientists are empathetic when obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Results Framework In the literature review, I identified four harmful structures and goals I could use to restructure cultural norms in science. In the method section, I explained how I could apply these goals in an informal science curriculum. Additionally, I developed an alternative way to engage with the science and engineering practices through the development of the character traits of scientists. My results include a sample curriculum to demonstrate the framework I developed. This curriculum has three parts; a set of introductory lessons, an educational game, and a cumulative project challenge (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Curriculum Components Introductory Lessons Educational Game Cumulative Project Challenge 38 Introductory Lesson Design In the literature review four harmful structures were identified and goals were made for this curriculum to challenge those structures. One of the harmful structures identified is that the school system creates an environment where not all students can thrive (e.g., Miller et al., 2018; Svalatog, 2021). For that reason, this curriculum has been designed to be done in a residential setting between a babysitter and the children being cared for. It is an entry level science curriculum so that a child as young as 12 years old will be able to facilitate a science experience with participants as young as three years old. Another harmful structure that leads to inequality in science education is the fact that science is commonly taught as a set of unquestionable facts (e.g., Keifert & Stevens, 2019; Miller et al., 2018)). Hence my curriculum teaches participants how to build their own knowledge by developing a science practice. This curriculum teaches participants how to behave in the same way a scientist behaves when they are developing scientific knowledge. This will teach participants how they can develop knowledge using science practices. Toxic masculinity is another harmful structure identified in the literature review (e.g., Avraamidou, 2021; Reeves, 2022) To counter the effects of toxic masculinity, this curriculum supports boys developing a prosocial masculinity through doing science in a caregiver setting and promoting skills that support community, relationships, and mental health. A specific skill included in this curriculum to aid boys developing a prosocial masculine identity is to discuss emotion as a behavior related to building scientific knowledge. Maté & Maté (2022) explain that our emotions have crucial survival value because they give us vital sensory information without which we cannot thrive. Svalatog (2021) further points out that empathy, which is valuing 39 another person’s emotions, can be used as a way to gain a rich understanding of the knowledge and experience of another. Finally, the fourth harmful structure identified in the literature review that causes inequality in science is a lack of recognition towards women’s competency. To counteract the lack of recognition women experience in science environments, this curriculum aims to empower girls to create a self-affirming science identity. This will be done through practicing character traits that were developed to teach the SEPs as the behaviors scientists do as they do science. Developing a science practice by recognizing the character traits of scientists can help girls develop the self-affirming science identity they will need to get past the harmful social roadblocks they encounter in science environments. Knowledge is power hence the ability to create personally relevant knowledge is empowering to the individual. See Table 5 below for an example of an introductory lesson. This lesson is also found in Appendix A which also includes additional examples. Table 5 Lesson Plan for “Empathetic” Character Trait Character trait SEP Objective Materials needed Activity Empathy: Lesson Plan Empathy: understand the ideas and emotions of another Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information Participants will be empathetic towards the earth and each other as they explore composting and recycling where they live. Food scraps, container, and dirt from the ground Composting is a natural process that recycles food scraps into nutrient rich soil. Place your food scraps in a container and cover it with dirt from the ground. Using dirt from the ground will speed up the process because there will be bugs in the dirt. Set the container somewhere out of the way because it might start to smell. Check on it once a week to see the progress. In one to three months your food scraps will seem like they disappeared. What actually happened is the food broke apart into small little pieces that add nutrition to the soil. 40 This is a simplistic way to compost, if you want to know more you can look up different ways other people compost. Natural processes can turn most of our garbage into soil that is healthy. However, some of our waste such as plastic, rubber, and batteries do not breakdown to support a healthy environment. This is a problem we all share, and we need a community solution. Look up how plastic, rubber, and batteries are recycled where you live. Assessment Guiding questions: Do you understand what composting is and how to do it? What can you do with waste that does not compost? What are the benefits of composting and recycling? Do you understand the emotions of another as it relates to composting and recycling? i.e., composting is comforting because the earth has natural processes that reuse organic material and recycling is hopeful that we can take responsibility for things people have made that the earth can’t reuse. Did you understand the ideas and emotions of another person like a scientist? The lesson plan starts by defining the character trait being explored. This example is the lesson for the empathetic character trait which ties to the SEP of obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. For this curriculum, I defined empathy as understanding the ideas and emotions of another. The objective for this lesson is to outline an activity that will allow participants to practice being empathetic. Food scraps, a container, and dirt from the ground are needed for this lesson. Even though I believe these are common items that most people will have, these materials might cause this lesson to be inaccessible for some. In the activity section I describe what should be done to demonstrate the phenomenon of composting. For this activity I ask participants to place their food scraps in a container and place dirt from the ground on top of it. Then they are told to set it aside and check on it once a week until they can’t see their food scraps anymore. I explain the phenomenon and point out another phenomenon, that some materials, such as plastic, rubber, and batteries, don’t compost. Then I suggest they search for the ways non-compostable items are recycled in their city. The assessment section asked if they 41 understood what composting is and how to recycle non-compostable items. Then I offer guiding questions to identify the ideas and emotions being shared in this lesson. I also added an example of some possible emotions they could understand from this activity such as comforting and hopeful. Then the final assessment question asks if participants were empathetic like a scientist. Educational Game Design My goal with this educational game is to simply empower participants to develop their own knowledge which is accomplished by teaching them how to behave like a scientist. The behaviors that will be learned are based on the character traits scientists exhibit while engaging in the science and engineering practices (SEPs). This educational game is designed to be easy for a young babysitter to learn and teach the science and engineering practices as character traits to children as young as three years old. The complexity of the game grows with the participants, because it enables them to explore their own interests at their own level of engagement. It facilitates a space for participants to create their own scientific practice, so it is personally relevant to the individual. When students are allowed to choose which learning activities to engage with, they make choices that make learning more relevant and meaningful to them (Hill & Brunvand, 2018). This game consists of an eight-sided die (see Figure 1) with an icon to match each of the eight-character traits of scientists (see Table 6). Participants will role the die and focus on the character trait it suggests. The objective of this game is to have participants practice a character trait as they are doing an everyday activity of their choice, such as going to the park, making cookies, building blocks, doing chores, etc. This game is designed to encourage participants to practice a random character trait while doing an activity of their choosing as a precursor to practicing all of the character traits on one topic of their choice. This will bridge the 42 introductory lessons with the cumulative project challenge by creating an environment to practice the character traits before they start building knowledge based on their curiosity. Figure 2 Educational Game Die 43 Table 6 Legend of Symbols CURIOSITY: The desire to know more. CREATIVE: Using imagination. PURPOSEFUL: Acting with intention towards a goal. CLARIFY: Reduce confusion and increase understanding. PRECISE: being exact and having accuracy. EXPRESSIVE: Share your ideas and emotions to another. LOGICAL: The thought process between evidence and explanation. EMPATHETIC: Understand the ideas and emotions of another. Cumulative project challenge design To create new educational opportunities and increase access in science education, this cumulative project challenge embraces diverse learning goals, specifically the learning goals created by children’s curiosity. The aim is for participants to understand how relevant science can be to them personally by creating an opportunity for them to build scientific knowledge 44 about ideas they are curious about. The structure of this project allows participants the freedom to play with science, figure it out, and gain confidence. It relieves them of the pressure to perform cultural expectations, freeing participants to explore the world scientifically as they would like. The cumulative project challenge starts with participants recognizing what they are curious about and declare it as the topic of their science exploration (see Table 7 for an example). After a topic is declared by the participant then I ask guiding questions that relate to the character traits. The first guiding question is “what do other people know about your topic?” which relates to empathy. Participants will then look up information to learn more about their topic while considering both the idea and the emotions of the author whose work they found. I go through each of the eight-character traits ending with the suggestion to share what you have learned with others. This example gives more structure than is necessary, so I added different approaches to this challenge in Appendix C. Table 7 Cumulative Project Challenge Guiding Questions 1. What are you curious about? (This is the topic you will be exploring through this challenge) 2. What do other people know about your topic? 3. What could you do that will help you understand your topic more? 3a. What is your goal? 3b. How are you going to achieve your goal? (Can you measure something?) 3c. Do it, learn from it, and document your results. Character Trait Curiosity is the desire to know more. 4. Can you measure something? Precise is exactness and accuracy of detail. 5. Does it make sense? Clarify is to reduce confusion and increase understanding. Creative is using your imagination. 6. What does it all mean? Empathy is understanding the ideas and emotions of another person. Purposeful is acting with intention towards a goal. 45 7. Is my idea of “what it all means” realistic? Logic is to consider the reason why a 7a. Identify each significant part of statement was made. your idea. 7b. Write down the reasons you believe each significant part of your idea. 7c. Are those reasons based on nature? 8. Share what you’ve learned with others. Expressive is to effectively convey your thoughts and emotions. Discussion and Conclusion Personally Empowering My curriculum has the potential to change access to science by creating an environment where the learner is empowered to explore their own curiosity. Instead of giving participants science facts to learn as science has been thought historically (Gilbert & Byers, 2020), I will ask them to behave like scientists during their everyday activities. Shifting the focus of science learning from memorizing facts to developing a science practice where participants learn how to behave in a way that develops scientific knowledge. Constructing knowledge starts with engaging with the unknown. In the past, we have treated misconceptions as something that needs to be replaced with “correct” ideas, but that approach doesn’t allow new scientific knowledge to develop (Miller et al., 2018). The starting point of constructing knowledge is to embrace the fact that we do not know the answers to the questions we ponder. My curriculum bridges the gap between everyday inquiry and scientific inquiry by creating a space for everyday inquiry to be acknowledged and recognized as a step towards building scientific knowledge or by teaching participants to recognize the intellectual substance of children’s natural sense-making abilities. It disrupts cultural traditions that place teachers as the keepers of canonical science and students as empty vessels needing to be filled with knowledge. Some knowledge is not recognized in the educational system even though this 46 knowledge is fundamental for life (Svalatog et al., 2021). Disrupting cultural norms is accomplished by showing learners how to behave in the ways by which knowledge is created, making science engaging and accessible. Historically, everyday inquiry has been viewed as deficit because children don’t reach a traditional learning goal such as those defined in school standards (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). To create new educational opportunities and increase access in science education, we need to embrace diverse learning goals including the learning goals inspired by children’s curiosity. School standards in education act as a gatekeeper to knowledge building by restricting students’ explorations and valuing only ideas found in the learning goals (Miller et al., 2018). Building a personal science practice outside of school has the potential to allow learners to set their own intentions for learning. This frees learners from being guided to an outsider’s learning goal and opens them up to new knowledge building opportunities. Unscripted intellectual ventures are challenging because it requires us to become comfortable with uncertainty to embrace the messiness and ambiguity of the process (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Relevant knowledge consists of more than facts or processes needed to pass a test, it also includes the facts and processes needed to navigate the messiness and ambiguity found naturally occurring in the universe. Empowering children to build their own knowledge and challenge the knowledge they receive from society could lead them to disrupt exclusionary cultural structures in science such as science already knows the answers to everything, and original questions are not relevant in science (e.g., Miller et al., 2018; Keifert & Stevens, 2019). Science achievement could be increased by this informal science program by creating opportunities to build knowledge in any care-giving scenario. The NRC (2012) suggested that the lack of science instruction in early elementary school grades may mean that only students 47 with sources of support for science learning outside school are being brought into that long-term developmental process. Using character traits as an access point into science learning supports science learning outside of school and teach children to develop their own lifelong science practice. Doing science in a care-giving scenario could provide children with extra validation and encouragement as well as mentoring from role models in the same social group the child lives in, some of which are main factors influencing self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Avraamidou, 2021). Diverse family environments are spaces that are rich in phenomena children could explore scientifically for the purpose of building culturally relevant scientific knowledge. When children make sense of naturally occurring phenomena through the science and engineering practices, they are practicing science. Joyful Science Engagement Engagement in educational activities is increased when participants enjoy themselves. Valuing the learner’s interest and empowering them to build the knowledge they deem important increases their feelings of joy (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). Gamification can increase the learner’s autonomy (Hill & Brunvand, 2018), as they are allowed to choose how they want to move forward while also creating a structure to guide participants to use scientific tools. Performing self-directed science using character traits that align with the SEPs can lead participants to form an identity with science. The approach of starting with wonder does not mesh well with traditional approaches to science which is to say that traditional approaches start with a learning goal and restrict scientific exploration to only the concepts only found in state standards (Miller et al., 2018). However, wonder in connection with science learning can remedy the crisis of interest in science education (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). As individuals scientifically explore 48 questions inspired by their personal experiences, they form a relationship with science that leads to a science-linked identity. A core tradition of science is pondering different phenomena in nature and yet classroom environments rarely provide opportunities for students to freely wonder about natural phenomenon (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Children’s curiosity is an effective approach to identify a phenomenon for scientific inquiry. The game in this project was developed to support learners pondering about phenomena they are curious about. Starting a science journey with the learner’s curiosity leading the way develops epistemic engagement and creates an intrinsic motivating force for the learner to develop a science practice. State standards unnecessarily limit students’ curiosity. Memorizing facts that someone else deems important takes the joy out of science. Learners should be encouraged to slow down and ponder questions that are not necessarily found in state standards. Building one’s own meaning is far more impactful in developing a lifelong science practice (Keifert & Stevens, 2019). Science is both a collection of rigorously developed knowledge and the process we use to develop that knowledge (NRC, 2012). Using SEPs to teach the process to develop knowledge has the potential to build context for the usefulness of both scientific knowledge and processes used to develop it. Using character traits instead of the SEPs add a personal connection that adds to the relevancy of scientific knowledge. Learning and building knowledge about ideas that are personal to the individual nourishes epistemic curiosity (Lindholm, 2018), which will support larger questions to develop and expand their intellectual possibilities. This curriculum is merely an entry point into science education. It is aligned with SEPs which are part of current school science standards, so when individuals shift into a formal school science program or into a more 49 rigorous personal science practice, the knowledge they developed will easily transition with them. Inclusive Environments This curriculum was developed to create an inclusive environment for both boys and girls to develop a science practice and identity. The strategies used to develop this program to include more diversity in science are beneficial for all genders including those who are not represented by a gender binary. No student should be denied educational opportunities due to any condition beyond their control (Gorski, 2016). Results from children developing a science practice in a care-giving environment may create an inclusive social norm where diverse people are fully recognized as scientifically capable because children will have access to science role models that resemble their culture and social background. Additionally, this program might lead to more interest in other formal and informal science programs. Starting with developing a curiosity driven science practice could cultivate deep satisfaction from building scientific knowledge which may lead them into exploring more rigorous topics. Engaging in a science practice that is centered on personal experiences and interests can develop passion, creativity, and excitement towards science. More diversity in science could reduce inequality throughout our culture including creating more positive associations with science in general. Our culture has suppressed diversity of thought for a long time, and it has hurt us as a whole. Education has a complicated past where many ways of being were discouraged and even punished (Svalatog et al., 2021). In the past, something as simple as being left-handed created a dynamic where the child would be punished and not valued as a capable knower and reasoner. Diversity should be seen as an asset where different ways of thinking are valued as beautiful and good. We need different and unique perspectives in science so that we can build a diverse 50 scientific understanding of the world. As educators we should not need to focus on developing the test taking skills of our students. Our focus should be to support creative thinkers as we work towards developing a rich understanding of our world. Encouraging the behaviors of scientists may provide an avenue to reassess natural sense making abilities as not only good and valuable, but also scientific. Challenging Cultural Norms Contrary to popular opinion, science is more than just information (Gilbert & Byers, 2020). Science is also a process we use to build knowledge; it is how we answer questions that we don’t have an answer for. There are many things that we don’t have an answer to. This curriculum presents the scientific process to learners in a way that will empower them to engage with things that matter to them personally in a scientific way. It’s not hard. Science has been done without modern technology for hundreds of years. We don’t need a university setting in order to do science. Science is a set of habits you can develop in your daily life to help you grow. It is not about what to think, but how to think. It will teach you how to build your own knowledge based on your own experiences and understanding. Practicing science will support gaining more understanding about things that participants value. There is a common misconception in science education that everything is already understood completely (Miller et al., 2018). This is false. There are discoveries still to be made and new areas to be explored. We don’t have all of the answers and some of the answers we think we understand are wrong. In fact, we have a lot of problems that are big, have been created for many generations, and we don’t know how to solve them. If we are going to overcome the challenges we face, we need as many people as possible engaging with the problems they care about in a scientific way. We need diverse ways of understanding our problems. We need many 51 different perspectives. The approach to science described in this thesis could prove valuable in developing and sharing diverse perspectives in a strong way, so the rest of the world will understand. Relationships are critically important to our humanity (Maté & Maté, 2022). However, the role of nurturer and caregiver has been viewed as less valuable than making money through business. We all yearn for healthy and nurturing relationships. They are at the core of what it means to be human. This educational framework provides an opportunity for participants to form a relationship with science while engaging in care-giving activities. It will create an environment where we use both our heart and our mind as we strive to reach our full potential. There are real barriers in our culture that limit all of us from reaching our highest potential (e.g., Avraamidou, 2021; Brotman & Moore, 2008; Carlone, 2015; Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Gorski, 2016; Maté & Maté, 2022; Miller et al., 2018; NRC, 2012; Reeves, 2022; Svalatog et al., 2021; Todd & Zvoch, 2019; Williams et al., 2016; Witherspoon & Schunn, 2020). The approach to science described in this thesis will allow diverse people to engage with limiting barriers in our society in a scientific way that empowers them to undo those systems of oppression. As diverse individuals empower themselves using the tools of science, it may have a rippling effect in the world, creating a positive change for all of us. Increased Access and Opportunities This curriculum is designed to support and align with current science curricula. Engaging in character traits of scientists instead of the SEPs is simply a different pathway people can take to get interested in science. It embraces the faults and flaws we have due to our humanity and uses them to develop a personal relationship with science practices. The character traits were chosen to align with the outcomes defined by the NRC (2012) with respect to science and 52 engineering practices. This approach will also pave the way for more perspectives to develop in science. For example, consider the SEP of asking questions and defining problems verses the character trait of being curious. Curiosity includes more than questions or problems because it includes things that you don’t understand well enough to formalize into a question. This allows curiosity to be expressed and valued in different forms while also providing a pathway for more precision which may lead to formalizing questions or defining problems. This creates a space for curiosity to be valued scientifically before it is formed into a formal question we can explore. This is just one of the SEPs, similar examples can be found in each of the practices. The rigor of science should be maintained. My curriculum is an entry-level curriculum, although I believe this approach could be useful in many contexts. 53 References Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students' identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564-n/a. doi:10.1002/tea.20353 Avraamidou, L. (2021). Identities in/out of physics and the politics of recognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(1), 58-94. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971-1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241 Carlone, H. B., Johnson, A., & Scott, C. M. (2015). Agency amidst formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 474-488. Clark Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386. Dictionary (2023). Oxford Languages. Oxford University Press. Dictionary boxes on Google. https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary Gilbert, A., & Byers, C.C. (2020). Enacting wonder-infused pedagogy in an elementary science methods course. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(1). González-Calvo, G. (2020). Experiences of a teacher in relation to the student’s feelings of learned helplessness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8280. 54 Gorski, P. C. (2017). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap. Teachers College Press. Hill, D. R., & Brunvand, S. (2018). Gamification: Taking your teaching to the next level: A guide for gamifying your classroom. In A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich & R. Kimmons (Eds), The K-12 Educational Technology Handbook. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks. org/k12handbook/gamification. Kay, K., & Shipman, C. (2014). The confidence gap. The Atlantic, 14(1), 1-18. Keifert, D., & Stevens, R. (2019). Inquiry as a members’ phenomenon: Young children as competent inquirers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 240-278. Lindholm, M. (2018). Promoting curiosity?: Possibilities and pitfalls in science education. Science & Education, 27(9), 987-1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0015-7 Marin, A., & Bang, M. (2018). “Look it, this is how you know:” Family forest walks as a context for knowledge-building about the natural world. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 89118. Mate G. & Mate D. (2022). The myth of normal: Trauma, illness & healing in a toxic culture. Avery. Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053-1075. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. Reeves, R. V. (2022). Of boys and men: Why the modern male is struggling, why it matters, and what to do about it. Brookings Institution Press. 55 Schulz, K. (2011). Being wrong: Adventures in the margin of error. Granta Books. Seligman, M. E. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23(1), 407-412. Svalastog, A. L., Wilson, S., & Hansen, K. L. (2021). Knowledge versus education in the margins: An indigenous and feminist critique of education. Education Sciences, 11(10), 627. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100627 Todd, B., & Zvoch, K. (2019). Exploring girls’ science affinities through an informal science education program. Research in Science Education, 49(6), 1647-1676. Williams, A. K., Owens, L. R., & Syedullah, J. (2016). Radical dharma: Talking race, love, and liberation. North Atlantic Books. Witherspoon, E. B., & Schunn, C. D. (2020). Locating and understanding the largest gender differences in pathways to science degrees. Science Education, 104(2), 144-163. 56 Appendix A. Introductory Lessons Lesson Plan for “Curiosity” Character Trait Character trait SEP Objective Materials needed Activity Assessment Curiosity Lesson Plan Curious: desire to know more Asking questions and defining problems Participants will be curious as they explore Isaac Newton’s curiosity, why do apples fall? A paper cup, hole punch, string, scissors, water. Isaac Newton was curious; why do apples fall off of trees, but the moon doesn’t fall out of the sky? In this activity we will make a toy that acts like the moon moving around the earth to explore Newton’s curiosity. Get a paper cup. Make holes on either side of the cup and tie each end of the string to a hole. The cup and string should be like a bucket now. Put water in the cup. The water is like the moon. The string and the cup are like the pull of gravity from the earth. Your hand holding the string is like the earth. Can you spin the cup around you without the water falling out of the cup? Can you spin the cup around you so that the water falls out? The goal of this activity is to be curious! So, ask more questions and explore everyone’s curiosity. The goal of this activity is to be curious, so the answers are not as important as the questions. Did you ask more questions? How did you explore your curiosity? Were you curious like a scientist? Lesson Plan for “Logical” Character Trait Character trait SEP Objective Materials needed Activity Logical Lesson Plan Logic: Consider the reason why a statement was made. Engaging in argument from evidence Participants will be logical as they learn that metal can be magnetized by a magnet. Magnet and 2 paperclips 1. Put the paperclips together as if they were magnetized and notice that they don’t stick together because they do not have the properties of a magnet. 2. Put a paperclip on the magnet so a portion of the paperclip hangs below the magnet. Then put the second paperclip on the first paperclip so it only touches the paperclip and not the magnet. Let go, now the paperclips stick together because the paperclip now has the properties of a magnet. 57 Assessment 3. While the two paperclips are connected magnetically, gently pull the paperclips off the magnet. Measure how much time it takes for the magnetism to fade in the paperclips. *Make sure everyone has a chance to do this demonstration. Identify the idea being taught in this lesson i.e., metal can be magnetized by a magnet. What are the reasons that support this idea? Are the reasons you identified based on your imagination or nature? Did you consider the reason why a statement was made like a scientist? Lesson Plan for “Empathetic” Character Trait Character trait SEP Objective Materials needed Activity Assessment Empathetic Lesson Plan Empathy: understand the ideas and emotions of another Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information Participants will be empathetic towards the earth and each other as they explore composting and recycling where they live. Food scraps, container, and dirt from the ground Composting is a natural process that recycles food scraps into nutrient rich soil. Place your food scraps in a container and cover it with dirt from the ground. Using dirt from the ground will speed up the process because there will be bugs in the dirt. Set the container somewhere out of the way because it might start to smell. Check on it once a week to see the progress. In 1 to 3 months your food scraps will seem like they disappeared. What actually happened is the food broke apart into small little pieces that add nutrition to the soil. This is a simplistic way to compost, if you want to know more you can look up different ways other people compost. Natural processes can turn most of our garbage into soil that is healthy. However, some of our waste such as plastic, rubber, and batteries do not breakdown to support a healthy environment. This is a problem we all share, and we need a community solution. Look up how plastic, rubber, and batteries are recycled where you live. Do you understand what composting is and how to do it? How can you recycle items that don’t compost? What are the benefits of composting and recycling? Do you understand the emotions of other people as it relates to composting and recycling? i.e., composting is comforting because the earth has natural processes that recycle organic material and recycling is hopeful that we can take responsibility for things people have made that the earth can’t reuse. Did you understand the ideas and emotions of another person like a scientist? 58 Appendix B. Educational game Science Match Roll the dice, find the symbol below and start earning points by matching your behaviors with the behaviors of scientists! Quick play: 1 point for recognizing a scientific behavior in another person, 1 point for being recognized as having a scientific behavior, 2 points for recognizing your own scientific behavior. First to 15 wins! Challenge: roll the dice twice and earn points for two behaviors at the same time. CURIOSITY: The desire to know more. 1 point for asking questions. 1 point for explaining what you wonder about. CREATIVE: Using imagination. 1 point for each time you use your imagination. This includes many things like telling stories, writing, drawing, building, playing music, dancing and more. PURPOSEFUL: Acting with intention towards a goal. Make a goal: 3 points for deciding what you want to do. Be intentional: 5 points for making a plan to achieve your goal. Act: 7 points for doing it! CLARIFY: Reduce confusion and increase understanding. 1 point for asking for more information, 2 points for sharing information, for the purpose of making sense of something. PRECISE: being exact and having accuracy. 1 point for each measurement. You can use a ruler, scale, stopwatch, protractor, measuring cup, or anything else you can think of. 2 points for accuracy by being specific with an idea, hitting a target, or following instructions. EXPRESSIVE: Share your ideas and emotions to another. 1 point for sharing your idea. 2 points for sharing why you think that. LOGICAL: The thought process between evidence and explanation. 1 point for recognizing a statement. 2 points for recognizing the reasons why the statement was made. 3 points for considering whether each reason is a creative reason or a natural reason. EMPATHETIC: Understand the ideas and emotions of another. 1 point for learning another person’s idea. 2 points for learning why they think that idea is true. 59 60 This educational game is based on the science and engineering practices described in A Framework for K-12 Science Education by the National Research Council. See the correlation below, the character traits are bold, and the science and engineering practices are underlined. Scientists are curious when asking questions and defining problems. Scientists are creative when developing and using models. Scientists are purposeful when planning and carrying out investigations. Scientists are clarifying when analyzing and interpreting data. Scientists are precise when using mathematics and computational thinking. Scientists are expressive when constructing explanations and designing solutions. Scientists are logical when engaging in argument from evidence. Scientists are empathetic when obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. 61 Appendix C. Cumulative project challenge Cumulative Project Challenge Lesson Plan Character trait SEP Objective Materials needed Activity Assessment Approach 1 Cumulative Lesson Plan Act like a scientist Develop a science practice Participants will act like a scientist by practicing the character traits of scientists on a topic of their choosing. Science notebook (physical or digital) for documenting your progress. See below Did you develop knowledge by behaving like a scientist? 1. What are you curious about? Curiosity is the desire to know more. (This is the topic you will be exploring through this challenge) 2. What have other people learned about your topic? Empathy is understanding the ideas and emotions of another person. 3. What could you do that will help you understand your topic more? Purposeful is acting with intention towards a goal. 3a. What is your goal? 3b. How are you going to achieve your goal? 3c. Do it, learn from it, and document your results. 4. Can you measure something? Precise is exactness and accuracy of detail. 5. Does it make sense? Clarify is to reduce confusion and increase understanding. 6. What does it all mean? Creative is using your imagination. 7. Is my idea of “what it all means” realistic? Logic is to consider the reason why a statement was made. 7a. Identify each significant part of your idea. 7b. Write down the reasons you believe each significant part of your idea. 7c. Are those reasons based on nature? 8. Share what you’ve learned with others. Expressive is to effectively convey your thoughts and emotions. Approach 2 What is your topic? How were you curious? 62 How were you creative? How were you purposeful? How were you clarifying? How were you precise? How were you expressive? How were you logical? How were you empathetic? What is your result? Approach 3 1. Topic a. Explain what you know about your topic. b. Explain your emotions about your topic. 2. Curiosity: The desire to know more. a. What do you want to know more about? b. Why do you want to know more? 3. Creative: Using imagination a. Look at your topic from different perspectives, real or imaginary. b. Allow yourself the freedom to play with your idea. 4. Purposeful: Acting with intention towards a goal a. Three parts i. Define your goal. (From curiosity above, what do you want to know more about?) ii. Be intentional. What can you do to learn more? iii. Act. Learn more, take notes, and readjust as needed. b. Three parts i. Declare why you want to know more about your topic. ii. Be intentional. Why are you going to do what you planned to do in order to learn more? iii. Act. Check to see how your emotions guide you to readjust. This project should be relevant to you personally. 5. Clarifying: Reduce confusion and increase understanding a. Does your knowledge on your topic make sense with nature? b. Are your emotions on your topic natural or manipulated? 6. Precise: Exactness and accuracy of detail. a. Can you measure something? Are there patterns you can identify? b. Name each emotion and note where in your body you feel your emotion. 7. Expressive: Effectively convey ideas and emotions a. Organize your ideas so you can effectively share what you know with others. 63 b. Organize your emotions so you can effectively communicate them with others. 8. Logical: Consider the reason why a statement was made. a. Three parts, rationally i. Identify the important parts of a statement. ii. Consider the reasons that support each part of the statement. iii. Are those reasons based on nature or imagination? b. Three parts, emotionally i. Identify the emotion of the author that accompanies the statement, ii. Consider the reasons why the emotion connects with the statement. iii. Are those reasons natural or manipulated? 9. Empathetic: Understand the ideas and emotions of another. a. Learn the ideas of another as it relates to your topic. b. Understand the emotions that accompany the ideas of another.