Modeling Workshop Project_PI: Prof. David Hestenes



A slight edit in Dec. 2008 of a report submitted on Sept. 4, 2001 to the Arizona Community Foundation.

MEMO

To: Susan Perkins, Program Officer, Arizona Community Foundation

From: David Hestenes and Jane Jackson, Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe

Jane.Jackson@asu.edu 480-965-8438

Subject: Final report for the ACF 2000 grant, “Physics Modeling Workshop for School Technology Infusion”

Arizona students’ gain in understanding of the force concept doubles after one year of teachers' full implementation of the Modeling Method of Instruction, compared to traditional instruction.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP

Since 1989, the National Science Foundation–funded Modeling Workshop Project based at ASU [1,2] has evolved into a nationwide program to train high school physics teachers as leaders of science teaching reform and as local experts on best use of technology in science teaching.

In consequence of its well-documented success, the Modeling Workshop Project has stimulated formation of the Arizona Science and Technology Education Partnership (AzSTEP), which aims to institutionalize the reforms and methods of the Modeling Workshops in a statewide program for professional development of inservice science teachers.

The mission and service of AzSTEP are professional development of inservice and preservice science teachers, and collaboration with school districts: advice on planning and implementing science education reform. In every high school of the state, AzSTEP aims to establish and maintain at least one fully equipped classroom with an expert teacher who keeps up-to-date in the rapidly evolving uses of technology in science teaching.

Already more than half of the high school physics teachers in the state are engaged in AzSTEP. These teachers are being cultivated as a cadre of leaders for science education reform at all grade levels. AzSTEP is steadily building a strong presence in schools and school districts throughout Arizona, but especially in Maricopa County; two-thirds of Maricopa County physics teachers have participated in at least one Modeling Workshop, resulting in documented large increases in student understanding.

Twenty-six inservice and preservice teachers participated in the 18 day Arizona Community Foundation funded Physics Modeling Workshop in mechanics in July 2000. The workshop was held in the physics classroom of peer leader Sheila Ringhiser at Washington High School in Glendale. The workshop co-leader was Bill Doerge, formerly the physics teacher at Central High School in Phoenix.

Nine participants (1/3) were women. Six taught this year at schools with large percentages of disadvantaged minority students. One taught in Yuma, one in Sierra Vista, and the rest in the Valley.

Teachers had 30 hours per week of instruction plus homework. Two follow-up day-long Saturday sessions were held in September and October, for a total contact time of 120 hours. The course carried four semester hours of graduate credit in physical science at ASU.

1. HOW FUNDS WERE USED

All of the $24,000 directly benefited the teachers.

Participant stipends: $9350

Peer leader fees: $8600

Participant workshop materials, whiteboards, computer lab interfaces, probes: $4990.94

Laser printer for Sheila Ringhiser's classroom (in lieu of facility use fee): $1008

Mailing: $37.68.

2. OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING

Medtronic Foundation: part of a $15,000 grant for classroom technology for physics teachers in the Valley was used to buy computer lab interfaces and probes for 4 teachers.

Arizona StRUT, a corporate-funded business, donated 23 refurbished computers to 4 needy teachers.

3. EXTENT TO WHICH OUTCOME OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN REALIZED

Twenty-one inservice teachers were supported with $25/day stipends. Of these, four participants taught only subjects other than physics this year: math (2), biology (1), and physical science (1).

One physics teacher was able to participate only the first week, for PUHSD required him to attend 2 weeks of induction workshops thereafter. One physics teacher quit teaching in December 2000, and one died suddenly in February 2001. One did not respond to our request for data. One preservice teacher student-taught in the physics classroom of an expert modeler this year; she is included in our analysis of 14 practicing physics teachers.

A. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS: STUDENTS

What matters most is: do the students learn more, due to their teacher's workshop experience? To answer this question, we attempted an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction in the classes of all participants. Since the workshop focused on mechanics, we assessed student understanding of the force concept (which has several dimensions). The evaluation instrument, Force Concept Inventory (FCI), is well established, with an extensive data base to support objective evaluation comparing results from high schools and colleges throughout the country. [1,3,5,6,7] Unfortunately, in spite of our efforts, only 7 of the 14 teachers gave the FCI in the 2000-01 school year.

Student class average scores for the 258 students of the 7 teachers who sent us data are:

FCI 2001 post-test: 57%

normalized gain (Hake factor, see Ref. 5): = 0.42

These numbers are significantly higher than a comparable group of 26 Arizona teachers who participated in Eisenhower funded modeling workshops at ASU and NAU in 1998; for those groups,

FCI 1999 post-test: 49%

= 0.32

These FCI scores are a large improvement over the abysmal baseline posttest scores of 40% - 42% (=.2) under traditional instruction before the teachers’ modeling workshop, both in Arizona and nationwide. (The typical FCI pretest class average is 26%, a nearly random score.)

In sum, these 7 teachers' class FCI results are evidence that student understanding of the force concept doubles, as measured by , after one year of full implementation by the teacher. These data are in agreement with our results for 20,000 high school physics students nationwide.

A proviso: six of the seven teachers who submitted FCI student scores said that they implemented Modeling Instruction regularly. In fact, nine of our 14 teachers reported this; the other five said that they implemented Modeling Instruction frequently, sometimes, or (for one teacher) seldom. We expect that students of the latter 5 teachers didn't learn as much as they could have, because their teachers didn't implement the modeling method regularly. Our evidence from more than 20,000 students is that teachers who implement Modeling Instruction the most fully have the highest student FCI posttest scores.

Three levels of physics are offered in many high schools: regular (which uses only algebra), honors (which uses trigonometry), and Advanced Placement or second year physics. Of the 14 teachers who taught physics this year, 65% taught regular, 30% taught honors, and one-fifth taught AP or second year physics. (These are typical percentages.) The FCI data have been broken down by course type and are shown in Table 1 (available in print from Jane Jackson).

B. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS: TEACHERS

Assessment of teacher understanding of the force concept was via the FCI and the Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT) [8]. These two tests were given at the start of the workshop and again at a follow-up day in October, two months into the academic year. For the 10 teachers who participated in the workshop and the follow-up, and who taught physics in 2000-01, average scores are:

FCI: 73% initially; increased by 10 percentage points to 83%,

MBT: 61% initially; didn't change, although some teachers' scores greatly increased.

These results show that the workshop resulted in improved teacher understanding of the force concept but didn't sharpen teachers’ problem solving skills, for that is the focus of the MBT. This workshop group started out considerably weaker than the 1998 groups. (The 26 Arizona teachers in the 1998 workshops had an initial FCI average score of 90% and an initial MBT average score of 68%; their FCI average increased by 6 percentage points and their MBT by 10 percentage points, but over one year, rather than two months.)

Figures 1 and 2 (available in print from Jane Jackson) show the teachers’ FCI and MBT scores. Four of the 14 physics teachers are not included, for they did not attend the follow-up day. Included on the figures are a math teacher, a biology teacher, and a preservice teacher.

C. QUALITATIVE RESULTS

The commitment of the participants and their high schools to technology infusion and educational reform was assessed by several qualitative measures, including:

(a) Installation of computer hardware and software for the teacher's classroom.

(b) Implementation of the Modeling Method in the teacher‘s physics classes.

(c) Technology training of other science teachers in the participant’s school.

(d) Adoption by local teachers in other sciences (and at other grade levels) of some of the teaching techniques and technology (this can only be measured long-term).

In July 2001 these data were gathered by e-mail and phone interview using a self-reporting form.

Results are:

a) COMPUTERS AND SCIENTIFIC PROBES ADDED:

The 14 teachers now have 95 computers in their classrooms. Thirty-three are additions this year; of these, 23 are donated refurbished Pentiums or PowerMacs from Arizona StRUT.

The number of photogates doubled (53 initially, 50 added). Motion sensors increased by 75% (37 initially, 28 added), and force probes increased modestly (20 initially, 6 added) over the year. Grants from the Medtronic Foundation and the Arizona Community Foundation account for the majority of scientific probes obtained. Most teachers need more basic probes, especially motion sensors and force probes!

In 50% of classrooms, there are enough computers and probes so that three students can work at each lab station; for the other 50%, four students must work at a lab station. This is a bad situation, especially because teachers report that enrollments are increasing this year!

Five of the teachers’ classrooms aren't connected to the Internet. The Internet is not crucial to this program.

b) IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING INSTRUCTION:

Of the 14 teachers who taught physics this year, 2/3 said that they regularly follow the modeling cycle, and 20% said that they frequently follow it. One-third rated their understanding of the modeling cycle as very good; over half rated it good.

No one rated their overall implementation of the modeling cycle as very good; however, 80% rated it as good, 2 teachers as fair, and 1 as poor. Forty percent said that the modeling cycle is much better than traditional lecturing, with respect to their students’ understanding of course materials; and 40% said it is better. FCI posttest data bear this out.

70% use whiteboards regularly or frequently. All but two regularly ask students to work in groups. All but 2 regularly or frequently ask their students to debate their ideas in class. One-third lecture seldom, and half lecture sometimes. 65% say that their students react favorably to the modeling cycle, and 20% say that their students react very favorably.

Each of these indicators of implementation is comparable to (but some are a bit weaker than) previous groups of Arizona teachers after their first workshop.

c) and d) SCHOOL LEADERSHIP:

The 14 physics teachers this year reported that they taught something that they’d learned in the workshops to 34 other science and/or math teachers at their school. Three of them led a school inservice (ex. on whiteboarding strategies).

Long-term goals are to increase the number of students, and particularly underserved students, who take physics. For the 14 teachers, the number of sections of physics that they taught was 35 and the number of students was 740. (These numbers are comparable to previous groups.) In some schools teachers report that the number of sections has increased this fall (2001) as a result of Modeling Instruction.

The median percentages of girls and disadvantaged minorities were about 50% and 25%, respectively. (These percentages are comparable to previous groups.) Our extensive data in our nationwide program indicates that Modeling Instruction is gender-neutral. This report is due too soon to measure an enrollment increase in girls and minorities in this group; but teachers who were in our pilot workshops nearly a decade ago say that a larger percentage of girls take physics since they started using Modeling Instruction.

Teachers were pleased with Modeling Instruction and with technology.

Here is an example of teacher satisfaction, from an experienced teacher at a charter school for the fine arts where all students take physics but many have traditionally hated (been afraid of?) math. She is a new modeler, and she had told me earlier in the year that her students loved working with the classroom technology to learn physics, and for the first time in their lives, math made sense to them. Her class average fractional gains on the Force Concept Inventory were 2 1/2 times higher than those under traditional instruction.

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001

Dear Jane,

You asked me to give you some of my thoughts about how and what my students learned due to the use of modeling vs. traditional methods.

You already have my students' FCI results and so it is apparent that they have improved their understanding of force. I had some who were still not "Newtonian" by the end of the year, but each student improved. I know from the articles I have read on the FCI that they improved more than would be expected using traditional methods, so have made the assumption that the modeling I used in my classroom this year made the difference.

If I could have videotaped the students performing the constant velocity lab and compared it to a tape of the circular motion lab, for instance, the difference in their competence with experimental design, set-up, performance and evaluation would stand out. I was so pleased to observe them taking up a question and figuring out how to go about answering it. They got used to blatently using scientific method without thinking about the process. Their ability to determine variables, figure out the variables that could interfere with results, and understanding which were most important to the results grew dramatically. I could stand back and watch this happen!

The students became very adept at using the probeware and computer programs to gather and analyze the data they collected. They demonstrated the ability to work in teams to solve problems, and to be responsible to each other for completing their tasks. They clearly showed that they could ask questions and find the means to answer them themselves. What more could we want for critical thinking development?

I felt much better about the conceptual understanding of physics that my students took away this year compared to other years, because I could really evaluate it. Modeling uses much more verbalizing and questioning, and it allowed me to evaluate my students level of understanding much better. I really saw the misconceptions mentioned in the literature, but this time I dealt with them in a different and more helpful way. I knew to look for student misconceptions actively.

Comments from other participating teachers are in the Appendix.

4. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY AZSTEP, DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS GRANT

The program was disseminated via a talk and invited poster presentation given by Project Director Jane Jackson at the American Association of Physics Teachers (AZ-AAPT) Summer meeting and Physics Education Research Conference in Guelph, Canada in August 2000.

5. PROBLEMS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE GRANT YEAR

Most principals pledged in writing in spring 2000 to seek opportunities for teachers to lead school inservices on integrating technology into science classroom instruction. After the workshop we sent a follow-up letter to principals, asking them again to do this. Nevertheless, it didn't happen in most cases. Teachers report that this isn't a habit in their school; little if any content-related staff development is offered.

In prior years, at least half the teachers returned for a second modeling workshop. Of this group, only 6 returned; that is about 1/3 of the physics teachers enrolled. Furthermore, teachers who need it most, as indicated by the fact that they implemented modeling instruction least, didn't return. One reason is that no stipend could be offered this summer (although a tuition waiver was available). Teachers must have incentives to receive high quality professional development; a sizable stipend is an important incentive.

Teachers of mathematics and biology reported that they weren't able to use as much of Modeling Instruction as they wanted to, because no ready-made curriculum was available and no unifying theme was apparent in those subjects.

6. OUR PLANS FOR CONTINUING THE PROJECT, AND FOR FUNDING

To extend Modeling Instruction to middle school and to related high school subjects, this week the Arizona K-12 Center and physics and mathematics faculty in Arizona's 3 universities are submitting a proposal to the National Science Foundation. [Note: unfunded] The summary is:

"... to establish the Arizona Science and Technology Education Partnership (AzSTEP) as a statewide program to provide K-12 schools with the resources they need for high-quality, systemic reform in science, mathematics and technology education.

To provide professional development in best teaching practices and curriculum materials, AzSTEP will organize and support a Coalition of AzSTEP Providers, involving faculty from all three state universities and a statewide Council of Master Teachers. The providers will collaborate in developing an integrated suite of graduate courses designed to meet the needs of the schools and satisfy state and national standards for science and mathematics education. In particular, middle and high school courses in physical science, physics and chemistry will be integrated by a common conceptual thread with thematic strands in scientific modeling, structure of matter, energy and use of calculators and computers as scientific tools. Mathematics instruction will be coupled to this thread at all levels through an emphasis on mathematical modeling.

To provide schools with ready access to the educational expertise of the Providers, AzSTEP will broker partnerships with school districts throughout the state. To participate, school districts must agree to a plan for educational reform and share in funding to support it. Five school districts distributed across the state will participate initially, and efforts to expand participation will continue throughout the duration of the grant.

The long-range goal is to establish AzSTEP as a permanent resource to assist all school districts in continuous upgrades of science, mathematics and technology education. AzSTEP will stand as a national exemplar of University support for K-12 education reform."

To develop an associated component of AzSTEP, namely high school physics teachers' professional development, this week David Hestenes submitted another proposal to the National Science Foundation. [Note: it was funded from 2002 through 2005.] The summary is:

" This project will consolidate and extend a graduate program that prepares high school physics teachers to lead science education reform in their schools and school districts. The program will be available to teachers nationwide and serve as a national resource and an exemplar for professional development programs at other universities. The program is tailored to meet the needs of inservice teachers with studies in contemporary science, effective pedagogy, use of technology, leadership and community building. Courses are in three main categories: (1) Research-based physics pedagogy and peer community building in full accord with the National Science Education Standards; (2) Interdisciplinary courses to promote collaboration among teachers in different sciences and understanding of relations among science, society and environment; (3) Major advances in 20th century physics. Courses in the latter two categories will be taught by research scientists to share their insights and excitement directly with the teachers. At the same time, teachers will share with the faculty what they know about science pedagogy. All courses will be offered in the summer to make the program accessible to teachers nationwide. This leads to a Master of Natural Science degree that can be completed within three summers."

7. MAJOR BENEFITS OF THIS GRANT TO AZSTEP AND TO THE COMMUNITY

This grant strengthened AzSTEP's foundations in Arizona, especially in the schools of participating teachers. It produced a few outstanding teachers who will be involved in leadership roles in the two NSF grants described above, should they be funded. Time will tell what long-term benefits will accrue, but we expect that the positive effects will amply reward your funding of this workshop.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, A Modeling Method for High School Physics Instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63: 606-619 (1995).

[2] Modeling Instruction in High School Physics (NSF Grant ESI 9353423, 1994-2000), D. Hestenes, PI. Information about the workshops can be obtained by visiting the Project’s web site at .

[3] D. Hestenes, Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55: 440-454 (1987).

[4] D. Hestenes, Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers. In E. Redish & J. Rigden (Eds.) The changing role of the physics department in modern universities. American Institute of Physics (1997).

[5] R. Hake. Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys.66: 64-74 (1998 ). Also, unpublished data in the Modeling Workshop Project for more than 20,000 students.

[6] I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students, Am. J. Phys. 53: 1043-1055 (1985).

[7] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, The Physics Teacher 30: 141-158 (1992).

[8] D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A Mechanics Baseline Test, The Physics Teacher 30: 159-156 (1992).

APPENDIX: more comments by teachers in the ACF modeling workshop

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001

As I taught math last year, I did not give my students the FCI. However, the modeling workshop did improve my teaching. I learned new ways to tie math and physics together, and experiments that I could modify for AlgebraII/Trigonometry. I also got tips and practice on how to question students instead of lecturing.

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001

Since this was the first year I taught, I have nothing to which I can compare the modeling method. I still believe it is a good way to teach physics because I believe teaching students how find answers to life's questions is better that giving them answers. If what they know is limited to what I know, then they cannot exceed my understanding of physics.

Here is a quote from a student of mine that might help you with your report:

"Don't ever change your method of letting us experiment in labs to figure out equations, and by making us think through not giving out all the answers."

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001

I had a wonderful year teaching physics this year because of the modeling method. Although I did not cover the breadth of topics that I used to, I covered mechanics and dynamics in much more detail. I felt that many of the students had an excellent grasp of these topics and I also know that many preconceived ideas about "how things work' was changed. The discussion in the classroom was often rich and in great detail. The students like the class. Many of them told me that they felt they were better math students. One girl asked me "how come they don't teach math this way?" Our physics sections have grown from 4 to 7 for next year. The class has the reputation of being fun and you learn a lot. I am excited about next year and I am already working on how to fine-tune what I did as a facilitator. Tighten some portions of the class. Putting the responsibility for learning on the students was great and I feel very successful.

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001

I am sorry to say I did not give the FCI this year. I gave it once the year before but I did not keep track of the data. I'll just give you as much info as I can. This past year I had approximately 90 physics students. The vast majority of these students were Caucasian, with a small amount of Afro-American students, a small amount of Asian students, and a small amount of Hispanic students. I would say the crop was about evenly split between boys and girls. Out of the 90 students I had a total of 5 that failed the course. My students definitely benefited by having me take the modeling workshop. I was better organized after the workshop and proceeded through my units of study in a more logical order. I also became much better at using and teaching the modeling concepts such as "force diagrams," and "motion graphs." My students used graphs and graphing more extensively and really came to understand how to interpret complex information from graphs. Compared to the year before I took the modeling workshop my students definitely performed better this year. There were fewer failures and fewer frustrated students. A considerably wide range of abilities was represented in my student crop this past year and many students who had doubts at the beginning ended up doing very well in the class. Perhaps the single greatest benefit to the students is simply the fact that I am a better teacher because of my participation in the workshop. I feel much more solid and confident using and teaching modeling methods as well as any other method of physics instruction I may use.

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001

As you may recall, I was not scheduled to teach physics in the school year 2000-2001, so I cannot comment on how my students would have done. Sorry that I was not a valuable participant. I really did enjoy it very much and I came away with some very valuable tools that I hope to use soon. The teaching was excellent!

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001

This was my first experience in using the full modeling approach. I have taught using Hewitt's text Conceptual Physics at three other schools, 5 different classes. This was my first year teaching physics at ------ High School.

I found the students made huge strides, better than any other physics classes I've taught, using the modeling curriculum that I received summer training through ASU and the Arizona Community Foundation. The students who used the techniques and battled their misconceptions with peer discussion, lab development of the concepts, and whiteboarding gained a much clearer, coherent mental picture of Classical Mechanics. They were able to approach problem-solving from conceptual and graphical models and not just plug-n-chug equations. In the end I believe they enjoyed it and became less instructor-dependent.

------ went from a 7 to a 22 on the FCI Inventory. He battled the system until the last 3 months. He also was tough on me with criticism that I didn't answer questions directly and made him think it out. He loves science and technology and learning apart from strict formula approaches. He obviously made significant progress. He even complimented me the last day of class and appreciated modeling.

Therefore, I highly praise Jane Jackson, David Hestenes, ASU, and the Arizona Community Foundation for this profound improvement and enhancement to my teaching tools. I'm not great at it yet, but I learned a lot, and expect to be better with the modeling approach. ...

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001

The FCI results were quite an improvement but I think if I continue to develop my skills in modeling for next year they may be better still. Many students still maintain many of their misconceptions. Also I have to work on getting smaller groups. This may not be possible because classes have increased in size. Some classes had 4 to 5 to a computer. All scores for the AP B are for a first year course.

Jane, I really want to thank you for your assistance and want to thank Medtronic for the equipment. I have really enjoyed using the modeling concept this year and hope to use in my Chemistry classes next year. I will be having two regular Physics classes and one AP B Physics class which I believe are quite large and two Chemistry classes. We are short a chemistry teacher for a section therefore I don't have the luxury of four smaller Physics classes.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download