NASA Flight Planning Branch Space Shuttle Lessons Learned

Planning products and procedures that allowed the mission Flight Control Teams and the Astronaut crews to plan, train and fly every Space Shuttle mission were developed by the Flight Planning Branch at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. As the Space Shuttle Program came to a close, lessons learned were collected from each phase of the successful execution of these Space Shuttle missions. Specific examples of how roles and responsibilities of console positions that develop the crew and vehicle attitude timelines have been analyzed and will be discussed. Additionally, the relationships and procedural hurdles experienced through international collaboration have molded operations. These facets will be explored and related to current and future operations with the International Space Station and future vehicles. Along with these important aspects, the evolution of technology and continual improvement of data transfer tools between the Space Shuttle and ground team has also defined specific lessons used in improving the control team s effectiveness. Methodologies to communicate and transmit messages, images, and files from the Mission Control Center to the Orbiter evolved over several years. These lessons were vital in shaping the effectiveness of safe and successful mission planning and have been applied to current mission planning work in addition to being incorporated into future space flight planning. The critical lessons from all aspects of previous plan, train, and fly phases of Space Shuttle flight missions are not only documented in this paper, but are also discussed regarding how they pertain to changes in process and consideration for future space flight planning

Using an Observation Protocol To Evaluate Student Argumentation Skills in Introductory Biology Laboratories

ABSTRACT Argumentation is vital in the development of scientific knowledge, and students who can argue from evidence and support their claims develop a deeper understanding of science. In this study, the Argument-Driven Inquiry instruction model was implemented in a two-semester sequence of introductory biology laboratories. Student’s scientific argumentation sessions were video recorded and analyzed using the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom observation protocol. This protocol separates argumentation into three subcategories: cognitive (how the group develops understanding), epistemic (how consistent the group’s process is with the culture of science), and social (how the group members interact with each other). We asked whether students are equally skilled in all subcategories of argumentation and how students’ argumentation skills differ based on lab exercise and course. Students scored significantly higher on the social than the cognitive and epistemic subcategories of argumentation. Total argumentation scores were significantly different between the two focal investigations in Biology Laboratory I but not between the two focal investigations in Biology Laboratory II. Therefore, student argumentation skills were not consistent across content; the design of the lab exercises and their implementation impacted the level of argumentation that occurred. These results will ultimately aid in the development and expansion of Argument-Driven Inquiry instructional models, with the goal of further enhancing students’ scientific argumentation skills and understanding of science