Integration of Earth and space science contexts for teaching physics

Many states and school districts in the United States have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States 2013) for K-12 education. These standards categorize the sciences by physical sciences, Earth and space sciences (E&SS), and life sciences. The NGSS calls for teachers to make important conceptual interconnections among the disciplines. Even so, many districts and states have elected to distribute the E&SS-related standards across the traditional secondary science sequence of biology, chemistry, and physics. As a result, many secondary school biology, chemistry, and physics teachers are finding themselves accountable for teaching E&SS topics.

As partners in the NASA Space Science Education Consortium, an initiative that shares NASA science and technology through a variety of innovative education projects, we wondered how E&SS was being integrated into everyday coursework at the secondary education level. While our study focuses on the context of the US, multiple international initiatives benchmark their own standards against US standards, such as those in Jordan (Qablan 2018) and Australia (Marginson et al 2013). Others aim to break down the traditional disciplinary barriers among the sciences by considering the US framework (Chiu et al 2019). Our findings from the US context might benefit those researchers in other international contexts.

Science teachers (generally) and physics teachers (specifically) at all levels should be concerned with the preparation of future Earth and space scientists. Career opportunities within geosciences in the US are expected to increase by 6% from 2018 to 2028 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020a), while those within astronomy are expected to increase by 9% (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020b). These high-demand jobs frequently start with salaries above USD $100 000 (Ibid). It seems likely that such employment opportunities will be present in other countries as well. However, to pursue or even consider a career in geosciences and astronomy requires some background in E&SS, in addition to physics.

The contents of many science courses in the last four years of secondary school (high school) in the US are elective, and from the 1980s through 2010, the total percentage of US high school graduates who took a dedicated E&SS course never exceeded 25% (Gonzales et al 2011). This percentage is significantly lower than the 40% who took a physics course (White and Tesfaye 2014a). Furthermore, the physical sciences all experience significant underrepresentation of women and persons of color in the US (Merner 2014, 2015) and abroad (UNESCO 2017), a phenomenon that persists into the teaching profession itself (White and Tesfaye 2011).

Our research set out to describe the landscape with respect to physics teachers' integration of E&SS contexts into their teaching of physics. The findings from this exploration have implications for how to support comprehensive science education that emphasizes the interconnectedness of the science disciplines. The questions guiding our research include the following:

• 1.  
  What is the nature and frequency of secondary teachers' integration of Earth and space science (E&SS) topics into their physics and physical science classes?
• 2.  
  What variables influence teachers' integration of these topics?

To address these questions, we developed a detailed questionnaire (see supplementary material, available online at (stacks.iop.org/PED/55/055026/mmedia)) that we administered from October through November of 2018 to secondary physics teachers across the United States through the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) and the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA). The questionnaire collected self-reported data about teachers' comfort, interest, and priorities for using specific E&SS topics to teach physics concepts, their frequency and motives for integration, resources used, and needs they might have for deeper or more frequent integration, as well as demographics such as their geographic region and education.

The questionnaire was developed by experts in physics and E&SS education, including former high school physics and E&SS teachers who are now education researchers, as well as a member of the leadership team that directed the writing of the NGSS. Physics and E&SS topics that were used to guide core question development of this survey were based on categories present in A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council 2012), which served as the conceptual foundation for the NGSS.

The survey was distributed by e-mail to members of AAPT and NESTA, and shared publicly through their respective social media channels. We received 110 responses, including 11 from teachers outside of the US Given the small number of non-US teachers, and our desire to focus on a group of US-based teachers teaching under a similar context, we removed the non-US respondents from the sample (we will consider their responses in section 8). After also removing respondents who are not secondary physics educators, did not consent to participate in the study, or did not complete the full survey, our sample consisted of the remaining 92 respondents.

Nearly 48% of the sample pursued physics or physics education as their undergraduate field of study, with the remainder having earned their undergraduate degrees in geologic, astronomical, or atmospheric sciences (12%); another STEM field (35%); and non-STEM fields (5%). Since only about 33% of any given physics teacher in the US earned a degree in physics (White and Tyler 2015), this sample includes an overrepresentation of teachers with a physics degree. We chose not to collect traditional demographics such as sex, gender, or race, as our focus was on self-reported teaching practices and preferences.

The sample was split into two groups based upon teachers' self-reported use of Earth and space science contexts to teach physics concepts. All participants were asked to respond to the question, 'With what frequency do you currently integrate E&SS contexts into your teaching of physics?' Respondents who answered 'never,' 'once a year,' or 'a few times a year' were classified as low frequency (LF), (n = 52, 56.4%), while respondents who answered 'a few times a month' or 'weekly' were labeled high frequency (HF) (n = 40, 43.6%).

Demographic data we collected from participants included the science courses they teach; the type of school at which they teach (e.g. public, private, other); their undergraduate and advanced (if applicable) field of study; the state, federal district or territory in which they teach; whether their school had adopted the Next Generation Science Standards, if known by the respondent; whether students in their course took a statewide assessment that includes E&SS; whether statewide assessments included E&SS topics; and whether they were personally accountable for student success on those assessments.

We report on some demographic findings by group: LF and HF. LF and HF users, respectively, taught approximately the same proportion of course types, teaching Physics First (a required, first-year high school course) or a conceptual course (27% versus 24%), algebra-based physics (44% and 44%), calculus-based physics (15% versus 15%), and E&SS courses such as astronomy or environmental science (15% versus 17%). LF users were more likely to be teaching in public schools (75%), compared to HF users (60%). While still above the national average in both groups, LF users were only slightly less likely to have earned a degree in physics or physics education (43.4%) compared to HF users (52.5%). LF and HF users were almost as likely to have earned a degree in an E&SS field such as astronomy, geology, or atmospheric sciences (9% and 13%, respectively), although more LF users had earned another non-physics or non-E&SS STEM degree, such biology or chemistry, than HF users (42% versus 28%). LF users were less likely than HF users (33% versus 54%) to report that their students would be required to take a statewide assessment that included E&SS topics.

Teachers were asked to rank their comfort and personal interest in using specific E&SS scenarios as contexts for teaching physics. Additionally, they were asked the likely degree of incorporation of specific E&SS contexts into their teaching of physics given their existing time constraints. The results of the sample as a whole, as well as divided by LF and HF users, can be found in the supplementary material in table A (comfort in teaching specific E&SS topics), table B (personal interest in teaching specific E&SS topics), and table C (likely degree of incorporation of teaching specific E&SS topics given constraints in instructional time).

Results from the survey indicate that physics teachers are most comfortable using astronomical contexts, such as planetary motion, the Doppler effect, speed of light in the vacuum of space, and stellar spectroscopy to teach the physics topics of universal gravitation and optics. Teachers' interests are generally aligned with their areas of comfort, but when instructional time constraints are considered, teachers choose planetary motion and astronomical Doppler effect as contexts for incorporating E&SS into physics.

4.1. Teacher comfort

Some important patterns are revealed when the data are analyzed in groups (LF compared to HF users). A chi-square test was performed at the $\alpha = 0.05$ significance level to determine if response patterns between the two subgroups were significantly different. An analysis of teacher comfort with the presented E&SS scenarios was significantly higher for the HF user group than the LF group for the following contexts:

• 'using seismicity to teach about waves', χ²(4, N = 92) = 18.61, p < 0.01;
• 'using albedo to teach about energy systems,' χ²(4, N = 92) = 17.41, p < 0.01;
• 'using atmospheric or ocean circulation to teach about buoyancy,' χ²(4, N = 92) = 17.68, p < 0.01;
• 'using astronomy observations to teach about the speed of light,' χ²(4, N = 92) = 15.77, p < 0.01;
• 'using spectroscopy to teach about the photon model of light,' χ²(4, N = 91) = 13.46, p < 0.01; and
• 'using climate change to teach about radiative heat flows,' χ²(4, N = 92) = 17.25, p < 0.01.

It is notable that LF and HF users both report relatively high comfort in the use of astronomical contexts to teach physics, and, especially, that no significant difference in comfort exists for the use of planetary motion to teach about circular motion and gravity (figure 1).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Although not ranked as highly as astronomical contexts, HF users demonstrated a significantly higher comfort level with Earth science topics, including seismicity (figure 2), fluid flow, and energy systems—topics that are not traditionally found within typical physics curricula.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

4.2. Teacher personal interest

4.3. Teacher likelihood of incorporation under time constraints

To further elucidate how teachers are contextualizing their physics teaching within E&SS scenarios, respondents were asked to select descriptors that illustrated the nature of their use (figure 3). The survey provided a number of selections from a check-list, in addition to requesting respondents to provide a brief open-ended response. Notably, LF users were more likely to report their integration of E&SS in providing 'context to physics word problems' (31% of LF, compared to 23% of HF), while HF users were more likely to report integration by providing 'context to laboratory activities' (19% of HF, compared to 13% of LF).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

LF users show greater tendencies to use text-based contexts, while HF users reported more contextualization through lab activities and historical/place-based and problem-based scenarios. Knowing about the relatively easy access to end-of-chapter textbook problems, one can hypothesize that contextualizing physics in E&SS contexts through word problems requires less effort than preparing contextualized lab activities, historical/place-based activities, or problem-based activities. These differences suggest that it would be valuable to pursue a case study approach to better understand exactly how teachers make selections about E&SS context integration mechanisms and how those choices play out in the classroom.

In addition to considering specific, researcher-generated scenarios E&SS contexts within which selected physics concepts could be taught, the survey asked teachers to identify which physics topics they most extensively integrated with any E&SS context in general. Across both LF and HF groups, universal gravitation and circular motion were the most highly ranked for integration (see table D in the supplementary material). This finding is coherent with teachers' reports of comfort, interest, and likelihood of integration of teaching about planetary motion, given time constraints. The integration of wave properties, which would relate to the use of Doppler effect in E&SS contexts, was relatively high for the HF group, but relatively low for the LF group.

Significant differences also appeared in these data. HF users reported a higher extent of integration in every topic with the exception of universal gravitation and circular motion (which both groups rated very high extent of integration) and sound, circuits, and magnets (which both groups rated very low extent of integration).

Teachers were also asked to give a specific example about how they integrate E&SS topics into physics in a small text box. The majority of responses across the combined LF and HF groups—35%—described using various astronomical objects and processes (e.g. planetary motion) to teach universal gravitation and circular motion. Additional responses include the use of Earth's magnetic field during electricity and magnetism (14%), seismology to teach waves (12%), and astronomical phenomena (e.g. stellar or cosmological redshift) during wave properties. A few examples included the use of historical model development or breakthroughs or a discussion of both Big Bang and stellar nucleosynthesis in the formation of elements.

6.1. Reasons choosing to integrate or not to integrate

Teachers were also asked to respond to a variety of questions about their ability to locate and access E&SS-integrated physics materials. On average, HF users gave significantly higher scores for questions relating to their ability to find, use, and create resources than their LF counterparts (see supplementary table E for the overall response frequencies).

7.1. Accessibility of resources

7.2. Teacher beliefs about E&SS integration

While this survey was primarily descriptive, it did uncover a possible reason that might explain the difference between the self-reported behaviors of LF and HF users—teacher beliefs about the utility of E&SS integration. HF users agree more than LF users that the incorporation of E&SS contexts can enhance students' understanding of physics (figure 4).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

A major finding from this survey is that physics teachers in the US overall are highly comfortable with, interested in, and likely to teach the physics topics of universal gravitation and circular motion within the context of astronomy. In general, teachers show a preference for astronomy contexts. In particular, HF users are more likely that LF users to be highly comfortable with, interested in, and likely to teach Earth science contexts, with a special focus on seismicity and fluid and energy flows. However, interest levels in all topics were relatively high for all users, suggesting that most physics teachers might be personally motivated to teach with more E&SS integration if allowed the time and provided the resources to do so.

These findings about the emphasis on universal gravitation and circular motion might not be surprising, considering that the most popular textbooks in the US for high school physics (White and Tesfaye 2014b) explicitly include significant sections and problem sets dedicated to Kepler's laws and/or orbital and satellite motion (Hewitt, 2014, Giancoli 2004, Zitzewitz 2007, Serway and Faughn 2011). Further, numerous resources for teaching about orbital motion exist, including the traditional activity in which students are asked to determine the mass of a rubber stopper that is spun above one's head and the centripetal force of the string on the stopper is often described akin to the gravitational force of a star on a planet. The web is also replete with high-quality simulations that display circular motion in a planetary context, such as the 'Gravity and Orbits' interactive simulation from PhET (n.d.).

The way that US teachers are socialized in their pre-service education in undergraduate university education also might have some impact on how teachers approach E&SS contexts. University astronomy courses are often included within physics departments—this is not true of E&SS courses, which are more commonly housed in a separate department such as geosciences. Further, many Earth science relevant topics, such as fluids and thermodynamics, are sometimes viewed as at the boundary of chemistry. Although included in most introductory undergraduate coursework, these topics are often not perceived as essential in the foundational physics courses, which typically consist mostly of mechanics, electricity, and magnetism, and quantum mechanics.

The limited number (N = 11) of non-US respondents from very diverse contexts did not allow for their inclusion in the holistic analysis. Responses were obtained from Canada, Guatemala, Indonesia, Italy (3), Philippines, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. In general, responses appeared to be similar to those of US teachers. Notably, multiple respondents cited that they use NASA resources to find E&SS-integrated material.

Overall, physics teachers believe that E&SS has the potential to enhance their teaching of physics, but may need better access to more E&SS-integrated resources. NASA resources appear to fill this need somewhat, but the lack of any one consistent set of resources across the sample suggests that there are few substantial digital resources that are targeted at integration.

Given teachers' interest in integration, teacher professional development providers should collaborate with teachers to provide more support for increasing their comfort with E&SS topics beyond the scope of gravitation and circular motion, and beyond astronomy. Support is especially needed with regard to Earth systems. However, creating enhanced resources for gravitation and circular motion might be a way to increase interest overall in integration, as this seems to be an easy entry-point. These materials should be well-integrated in nature (beyond word problems) with the intention to enhance physics concepts that teachers already need to teach.

Further, educational resource providers should support teachers' awareness of existing repositories, and make their explicit connections to E&SS topics more clear. As is evident from teachers' responses, multiple resources do exist, but they are often incoherent and disconnected. A framework showcasing the links between core physics and core E&SS ideas would support teachers' and teachers' students' conceptual understanding of their relationships to one another.

Examples of explicitly physics-anchored, E&SS-integrated resources are currently being developed by the AAPT/Temple NASA Space Science Education Consortium project (n.d.). This project has prepared a variety of contextualized laboratory activities, lecture tutorials, concept questions, and homework assignments that connect physics to a variety of themed resources around solar activity, solar eclipses, and exoplanet exploration (including the Earth science topics of atmospheric sciences and geomagnetism).

While some secondary physics teachers in the US are increasingly asked to incorporate E&SS contexts into their teaching because of the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards, many teachers are personally interested in doing so. The educational community should rise up to help teachers make these critical, relevant connections among the physics, Earth science, and space science disciplines that go beyond their existing integrative practices. The integration of E&SS contexts into the teaching of physics has the potential to support all students' learning of and interest in foundational, interconnected science ideas.

This research was supported through a subcontract from the NASA Space Science Education Consortium to Temple University and the AAPT under NASA Grant/Cooperative Agreement Number NNX16AR36A. The authors would like to acknowledge useful conversations with team members Brad Ambrose, Ximena Cid, Darsa Donelan, and Shannon Willoughby.

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.