September 18, 2003



Central Ohio

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Evaluation Report

Year-end Results Summary

May 13, 2005

Prepared by

Jan Upton, Ph.D.

Stephen C. Maack, Ph.D. | |

|Institutional Research Consultants |TEL: (614) 571-9088 |

|9293 Marlebury End |FAX: (614) 793-1146 |

|Powell, OH 43065 |E-MAIL: jupton@ |

| |WEB PAGE: |

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Background of Participating Teachers 3

Opinions about Science Instruction and School Environment 5

Changes in Preparation and Classroom Practices 7

Summer Workshop Results 10

Conclusions & Recommendations 12

Tables

Table 1: Survey Response Rates 2

Table 2: District Representation 2

Table 3: Number of Sections of Physical Science Taught & Expecting to Teach 2

Table 4: Membership in a Professional Organization 4

Table 5: Participation in Professional Activities in Past 12 Months 4

Table 6: Participation in Science Conferences by Respondents to Follow-up Survey 5

Table 7: Shift in Teacher Opinions about Inquiry Practices 6

Table 8: Stability in Other Teacher Opinions related to Pedagogical Approaches 6

Table 9: Preparedness to Use Inquiry-based Instructional Practices 8

Table 10: Perceptions about Importance of Various Classroom Activities 8

Table 11: Weekly Classroom Activities 9

Table 12: Increased Understanding from Physical Science Modeling Workshop 11

Table 13: Cooperating Teacher with a Student Teacher 12

Appendix

Table A1: Description of Teachers 15-16

Table A2: Teacher Opinion and Attitudes in Pre-Survey and Post-Survey 17

Table A3: Opinions about Preparedness in Pre-Survey and Post-Survey 18

Table A4: Weekly Classroom Activities in Pre-Survey and Post-Survey 19

Table A5: Impact of the Physical Science Modeling Workshop 20

Open-ended Question Responses: Post-Survey 21-22

Introduction

The Physical Science Modeling Workshop was designed to demonstrate techniques and strategies that high school physical science teachers could utilize in their classrooms that would result in more inquiry-based learning experiences for their students. A main feature of the workshop was that the three-person instructional team, consisting of the Principal Investigator (PI), co-Principal Investigator (co-PI), and a high school teacher would model all the activities, thereby specifically demonstrating to participants how they could use the recommended teaching strategies with their students. One of the key aspects of the workshop was the use of a whiteboard in which the three-person team would document research and the thinking process as they worked through various scientific problems. The instructional team modeled how this was done, the teachers similarly worked in teams, and when they returned to their classroom, they would show their students how to do modeling, work in a three-person group, document using their whiteboard, and then present to the class.

The workshop was based to some extent on the Modeling Instruction course developed at Arizona State University. Two of the faculty, the co-PI and the high school teacher, had participated in workshops explicitly associated with this program. Although the PI had not attended one of the Arizona State University courses, he had been active in promoting inquiry-based instruction in Ohio for many years and also regularly team taught with the co-PI. The workshop would enable the instructional team to introduce Modeling Instruction to Ohio, as this was the first time that this particular course was offered. One difference noted by the instructors is that they made an effort to include more coverage of physical science, especially applicable to ninth grade curriculum, in Ohio’s version. The session also benefited from the high school teacher on the faculty team sharing a CD-ROM (over 120 documents) of his class notes explaining how he incorporated modeling into a wide variety of lessons. All participants were provided with a class set of whiteboards. In addition, each of the teachers received over $600 to spend on approved science classroom supplements, including motion sensors, weights, computer software, and other practical items.

A total of 23 teachers initially signed up and 22 completed the 3-week summer course. Institutional Research Consultants (IRC), the external evaluator, developed a series of teacher surveys as part of evaluating the program. These were administered by the PI. The initial survey focused on participants’ opinions about science teaching and instructional practices. It also included demographic items that would be helpful in describing the teachers. An End of Workshop survey administered on the last day of the course queried participants about the effectiveness of the course implementation and the anticipated impact on their instructional practices. There were a total of three follow-up sessions that took place on a Saturday from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. in October, January, and April. The PI administered the final survey to teachers at their April meeting. Table 1 on the following page highlights especially high response rates for the first two surveys, largely because the PI distributed the surveys directly to the participants. The response rate to the follow-up survey was somewhat lower, since everyone was not able to attend this session. Even though the PI also e-mailed the follow-up survey to non-attendees, only one additional teacher submitted a response via e-mail.

All the teachers were from the central Ohio area with the exception of two--one was from Perrysburg, which is located in Northwest Ohio near Toledo, and another appears to have started in Fayette County but ended up in the Marlington district located in Stark County (see Table 2 on the following page). A majority (52%) was from Columbus Public Schools (CPS). CPS widely promoted the workshop through its Urban Systemic Program (USP) and a few of the participants are Teacher Leaders in that program. Respondents to the post-survey had a similar distribution in terms of home district.

Table 1: Survey Response Rates

|Survey |Total1 |Surveys |Response Rate |

| | |Received | |

|Pre-Survey |23 |23 |100.0 |

|End of Workshop Survey |22 |21 |95.4 |

|April Follow-up Survey |22 |16 |72.7 |

1One participant dropped out the first week of the summer workshop due to personal reasons.

Table 2: Districts Represented

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Columbus |12 |52.2 |8 |50.0 |

|Dublin City |2 |8.7 |2 |12.5 |

|Fayette County/Marlington District |1 |4.3 |1 |6.3 |

|Olentangy Local |1 |4.3 |1 |6.3 |

|Perrysburg Exempted Village |1 |4.3 |1 |6.3 |

|Pickerington |2 |8.7 |1 |6.3 |

|South Western City |2 |8.7 |1 |6.3 |

|Worthington City Schools |2 |8.7 |1 |6.3 |

Table 3: Number of Sections of Physical Science Taught & Expecting to Teach

| |Initial |Follow-up |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |Taught |Expecting to Teach |Taught |

| |2003-2004 | |2004-2005 |

| |N |% |N |% |N |% |

|1-2 |4 |17.4 |7 |30.4 |3 |18.8 |

|3-4 |4 |17.4 |6 |26.1 |4 |25.0 |

|5-6 |8 |34.8 |8 |34.8 |8 |50.0 |

|More than 6 |0 |0.0 |0 |0.0 |0 |0.0 |

Table 3 on the previous page underscores that the workshop appropriately recruited participants who are actively teaching physical science classes in their schools. All but two (91%) expected to teach at least one section of physical science in the upcoming school year. A majority (61%) anticipated having responsibility for three or more sections. The follow-up survey revealed that the group’s expectations with respect to teaching physical science were on target. All but one of the respondents taught at least one physical science class in the 2004-2005 academic year. Half of the follow-up group taught 5-6 sections at their schools.

Background of Participating Teachers

Table A1 on pages 15 and 16 provides teachers’ demographics on all available items. The responding teachers were somewhat evenly represented on gender, with 45 percent male and 55 percent female. The majority was white (77%), but the group included three Hispanics (14%) and two African-Americans (9%). Thus, for such a specialized class, it had fairly high minority representation. However, fewer minorities completed the follow-up survey (only 13% were minority compared to 87% white). Most of the participants were age 41 or older (59%).

The Central Ohio Physical Science Modeling Workshop was targeted to high school teachers, and almost all (96%) taught at the high school level, grades 9 through 12. In the follow-up survey, all the respondents taught high school only. These are also predominantly highly experienced teachers, since over one-quarter (27%) had taught twenty or more years, and more than one-quarter (27%) had taught 11 to 19 years. Nevertheless, slightly more than a quarter (27%) had two years or less experience, and another 9 percent had three to five years of experience. Over a third (38%) respectively had been at their current schools for two years or less, although another 38 percent had taught at their current schools six to 19 years, and the remaining quarter (24%) had been employed at their current schools a moderate three to five years. The follow-up survey provided consistent results in terms of experience and also highlighted further movement of some of the teachers to new positions, as four (25%) indicated that they had been in their current position less than a year.

As shown in Table A1 on page 15, nearly three-quarters (74%) of the teachers indicated that their highest degree was a Master’s. When participants were asked about degree areas they were pursuing as well as those completed, Science Education (61%), Biology/Life Science (30%), Physics/Physical Science (26%), and Mathematics/Mathematics Education (17%) had the greatest representation. Nearly three-quarters (74%) held a Secondary Science Certificate, 17% had a Secondary Mathematics Certificate, and all but one participant was a certified teacher. More that 80 percent had recently been enrolled in a college-level mathematics or science course. Half had taken a science or mathematics college course in the past year, 32 percent had taken a class between one and two years ago, but 18 percent had not taken a college-level class in three or more years. A slightly less educated group responded to the follow-up survey (38% with or pursuing Bachelor’s and 63% with or pursuing Master’s degrees); however, a higher proportion of the follow-up group had obtained or were pursuing degrees in physics/physical science (percentages increased from 26% in the initial survey to 50% in the post survey) and chemistry (4% in the pre-survey to 25% in the follow-up).

In summary, the teacher profile indicates that as a group, most are relatively experienced teachers involved with their disciplines. Most of the teachers have strong science and mathematics backgrounds and remain dedicated to learning more about their disciplines and strategies that improve their instruction. Their attendance at the Physical Science Modeling Workshop reflects their background and commitment, which might also make them a difficult group to impress. However, their responses to the workshop were highly positive and generally exceeded the instructors’ expectations.

Perhaps reflecting their relative seniority and teaching experience, this group of teachers included many who are active professionally. A high percentage (84%) in the pre-survey indicated that they maintained membership in a professional organization, and only one noted that they had joined recently (see Table 4). In the post-survey, the group’s level of professional activity overall continued to be higher (75%) than average.

Table 4: Membership in a Professional Organization

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Yes, and I was a member in the previous year. |15 |78.9 |11 |68.8 |

|Yes, and I joined this year. |1 |5.3 |1 |6.3 |

|TOTAL – Membership in a professional organization |16 |84.2 |12 |75.1 |

Table 5 provides participants’ responses regarding a variety of professional activities. More than half (52% initially and 56% in follow-up) indicated having taken part in at least one of the listed professional activities. About 30 percent had served on a school or district science/math curriculum committee, 22 percent had been involved in the development of district courses of study in science/math, 22 percent had attended a national or state science/math teacher association meeting, and 17 percent had themselves taught an in-service workshop or course in science or science teaching. Two (9%) had recently received a local, state or national grant or award for science teaching. The follow-up results were fairly consistent with the preliminary findings. Table 6 highlights the follow-up group’s participation in science conferences in the past two years. Half said they did not attend a conference in 2003-04, but in 2004-05, only 19 percent did not take part in a conference. Moreover, those attending at least two conferences increased from 25 to 44 percent.

Table 5: Participation in Professional Activities in Past 12 Months1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Served on a school or district science/math curriculum committee |7 |30.4 |5 |31.3 |

|Attended any national or state science/math teacher association meetings |5 |21.7 |3 |18.8 |

|Been involved in the development of district courses of study in science/math |5 |21.7 |5 |31.3 |

|Taught any in-service workshops or courses in science or science teaching |4 |17.4 |4 |25.0 |

|Received any local, state, or national grants or awards for science teaching |2 |8.7 |1 |6.3 |

|Served on a school or district science/math textbook selection committee |1 |4.3 |2 |12.5 |

|Been involved in state or national science/math curriculum reform projects |1 |4.3 |0 |0.0 |

|Participated in a local, state, or national physical science conference |1 |4.3 |NA |NA |

|Participation in any of the professional development activities above |12 |52.2 |9 |56.3 |

1Percentages are of respondents and add up to more than 100 percent since teachers could have performed more than one of these activities during the past year.

Table 6: Participation in Science Conferences by Respondents to Follow-up Survey

| |2003-04 |2004-05 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|None |8 |50.0 |3 |18.8 |

|One |4 |25.0 |6 |37.5 |

|Two |1 |6.3 |4 |25.0 |

|More than two |3 |18.8 |3 |18.8 |

Opinions about Science Instruction and School Environment

Tables A2 to A4 on pages 17 to 19 provide comparisons from the initial survey, done before the Physical Science Modeling Workshop, and the post-survey administered in April, nine months afterwards. Table A2 presents participants’ opinions and attitudes about science, math, science and math teaching, support in their schools, and how they viewed their teaching roles. Table A3 documents their preparation and experience with using different teaching approaches, including hands-on and hand-held approaches, and their experience working with different student subgroups (e.g., females and students from various cultural backgrounds). Finally, Table A4 has results on the frequency that they utilized various kinds of classroom practices.

The dedication of this group of teachers to science, general principles of scientific inquiry, science teaching and students comes out strongly in the high proportion that agreed with the following statements in the preliminary and follow-up surveys.[1] Although there were not any significant differences between the initial and subsequent response, the teachers either maintained similar opinions or the proportion increased somewhat on all the key aspects previously reported:

▪ Virtually all students can learn to think scientifically (100% on both surveys).

▪ I enjoy teaching science (96% and 100%).

▪ The teacher should consistently use activities which require students to do original thinking (91% and 94%).

▪ An important issue is not whether students’ answers to any science question are correct but whether students can explain their answers (83% and 94%).

▪ Learning for all students is enhanced by incorporating the contributions of different cultures (68% and 75%).

Of note is that only one-quarter (26%) of the teachers in the pre-survey agreed “Some people are good at science and some just are not,” but this dropped to 19 percent of the follow-up responses. Thus, most teachers feel that all students can be taught science, and the proportion holding this opinion grew slightly.

Areas of interest in which the percentage of teachers’ experienced a notable increase in agreement included:

▪ I regularly serve as a resource for other science teachers in my school (48% increased to 81%).

▪ Most science teachers at my school would like to use an “inquiry” style of teaching (39% increased to 69%).

▪ Parents of students at my school are supportive of innovative approaches to teaching science (26% increased to 69%).

Gains on the first two items are definitely consistent with the goals of the workshop, as these teachers appear to be increasingly viewed as experts within their schools. In addition, it appears that their success with inquiry-based instructional methods is also encouraging their colleagues to be more receptive to such classroom strategies. Finally, as IRC has seen with other similar projects, it seems that as the teachers have become increasingly comfortable using innovative techniques in the classroom, they have a more positive view of parents’ opinion of such activities.

The results in Table 7 highlight a modest shift in the group’s attitude on one aspect of inquiry-based learning, specifically their comfortable with not demonstrating as much to their students.

Table 7: Shift in Teacher Opinions about Inquiry Practices1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Good science/math teachers show students the correct way to answer questions |8 |34.8 |3 |20.0 |

|they will be tested on. | | | | |

1Percent of participants who indicated that they “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with each statement. Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

At the same time, participants were somewhat split on their opinions about general approaches to how to teach science (see Table 8). Responses on these two items were stable over the project year.

Table 8: Stability in Other Teacher Opinions related to Pedagogical Approaches1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Teachers should know the answers to most questions students ask about science. |10 |47.6 |7 |43.8 |

|Students learn science best in classes with students of similar abilities. |10 |43.5 |7 |43.8 |

1Percent of participants who indicated that they “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with each statement. Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

In general, these teachers taught in a professional environment generally supportive of their science teaching efforts. About three-fourths (78% and 75%) agreed that the “principal is supportive of innovative approaches to teaching science.” However, some declines in these areas were indicated on the follow-up survey. The percentage who agreed that “Most science teachers in my school regularly share ideas and materials related to science instruction,” decreased from 70 to 56 percent. The proportion that said that most science teachers in their school regularly observe each other teaching classes as part of sharing and improving instructional strategies, however, remained stable (17% to 18% percent).

The opinions and attitudes of many of the workshop participants do matter more broadly in that many of them influence other teachers in school or in the district. As noted above, during the academic year, there was an obvious increase in the extent to which they viewed themselves as a resource at their school. The proportion indicating that they “regularly serve as a resource for other science teachers in my district” was relatively stable (39% to 38%). Thus, it appears that these teachers will very likely impact others in their schools, and although district-wide impact is expected to be less, given that nearly two-fifths perceived themselves as a resource for the district, it is probable that the influence of the workshop will extend beyond the schools specifically involved

Changes in Preparation and Classroom Practices

Table A3[2] on page 18 shows teacher opinions, before taking the workshop and nine months afterwards, about their own preparation to teach in specific ways. Respondents grew significantly in their comfort with managing a class of students who are using hands-on/manipulative materials (increased from 70% to 88%). They also experienced gains in the extent to which they felt prepared to phrase questions to encourage more open-ended investigations (55% to 81%) and implement inquiry or discovery learning (61% to 81%); however, the increases on these items were not statistically significant. Although there were some minor increases or decreases in their opinions over the year, the teachers also generally felt “very well prepared” or “well prepared” to encourage participation of females in science/math (78% to 63%), present the applications of science concepts (74% to 81%), use science/math equipment as an integral part of science/math instruction (70% to 81%), and teach groups that are heterogeneous in ability (65% to 56%).

Since over half of the Physical Science Modeling Workshop came from the CPS district, where the USP has been stressing hands-on and inquiry-based approaches to science and mathematics learning for three years, we looked at the differences between this group and teachers from other districts on these items (see Table 9 on the following page). Ironically, it was the CPS teachers who indicated the lowest levels of confidence about their ability to effectively implement inquiry learning. This was especially true of teachers from USP schools. The evaluator has seen this phenomenon before. Specifically, as teachers get a better understanding of exactly what is involved in inquiry-based instruction, they become more critical of themselves as their expectations increase. The follow-up survey revealed gains by both groups on all the inquiry-based instructional practices, but only the non-CPS teachers experienced a significant increase in their preparation, specifically in their ability to manage a class of students who are using hands-on/manipulative materials and use cooperative learning groups (on both of these items the percentage saying they were well-prepared increased from 82 to 100%).

Table 9: Preparedness to Use Inquiry-based Instructional Practices1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |CPSa |Other |Total |CPS |Other Districtsb|Total |

| |N=12 |Districts |N=23 |N=8 |N=8 |N=16 |

| | |N=11 | | | | |

|Use cooperative learning groups. |58.3 |81.8 |69.6 |62.5 |100.0* |81.3 |

|Implement inquiry or discovery learning. |50.0* |72.7 |60.9 |75.0 |87.5 |81.3 |

|Present the applications of science concepts. |58.3* |90.9 |73.9 |62.5 |100.0 |81.3 |

|Phrase questions to encourage more open-ended |45.5 |63.6 |54.5 |62.5 |100.0 |81.3 |

|investigations. | | | | | | |

1Percent of participants who gave value of 4 or 5 on scale of 1 to 5 in which 1 indicated, “Not Well Prepared" and 5 indicated, “Very Well Prepared.” Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

aStatistically significant differences between responses for CPS teachers compared to other districts on initial survey.

bStatistically significant differences between initial and post survey responses for teachers in non-CPS districts.

*Statistically significant difference with p-value < .10. Given small sample, higher probability cutoff of .10 is used.

**Statistically significant difference with p-value < .05.

Table 10: Perceptions about Importance of Various Classroom Activities1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |CPSa |Other |Total |CPS |Other Districtsb|Total |

| |N=12 |Districts |N=23 |N=8 |N=8 |N=16 |

| | |N=11 | | | | |

|Students working in cooperative learning groups. |81.8 |83.3 |82.6 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |

|Concrete experience before abstract treatments. |70.0* |100.0 |86.4 |100.0 |100.0* |100.0 |

|Taking student preconceptions about a topic into |90.9 |66.7 |78.3 |87.5 |100.0 |93.8 |

|account when planning curriculum and instruction. | | | | | | |

|Grouping students in classes heterogeneously rather |81.8 |66.7 |73.9 |62.5 |100.0 |81.3 |

|than by ability. | | | | | | |

|Incorporating the contributions of different cultures |81.8 |66.7 |73.9 |75.0 |75.0 |75.0 |

|into science/math. | | | | | | |

1Percent of participants who gave a value of 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5 in which 1 indicated, "Definitely should not be a part of science/math instruction” and 5 indicated, "Definitely should be a part of science/math instruction.” Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

aStatistically significant differences between responses for CPS teachers compared to other districts on initial survey.

bStatistically significant differences between initial and post survey responses for teachers in non-CPS districts.

*Statistically significant difference with p-value < .10. Given small sample, higher probability cutoff of .10 is used.

**Statistically significant difference with p-value < .05.

Table 10 presents the results on the extent to which participants viewed various classroom activities as important. Although before the workshop all similarly valued the use of hands-on/manipulative activities (91%) and student group work (83%), the CPS group (70%) gave significantly less value to the importance of students having concrete experiences before abstract treatments than teachers from other districts (100%). On the other hand, before the workshop a higher percentage of CPS teachers (82%) felt heterogeneous grouping and incorporating the contributions of different cultures were important compared to the others (67%), though these differences were not significant. However, by the end of the project year, the CPS teachers viewed heterogeneous grouping and incorporating the contributions of different cultures as having less importance, whereas the non-CPS teachers gave much greater value to these items. These shifts can not readily be explained, though it is possible that the CPS teachers presence in an urban district may have resulted in them feeling more stressed about these issues by year-end, especially if the teachers were frustrated by their efforts to reach students with multiple skill levels equally well.

The teachers were also asked to report on the frequency that they did various activities in their classrooms before they took the workshop. Table 11 has their responses from highest to lowest frequency. Table A4 on page 19 provides results in order of the items appearance on the survey. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the pre- and post-survey responses, teachers’ answers about the frequency that they use various classroom practices suggested more active classes in which students were doing more projects (additional 85% saying this occurred at least once a week), learned by inquiry (increased 30%), used science equipment (increased 27%), did more hands-on/manipulative activities (increased 20%), wrote their reasoning about how to solve a scientific problems (increased 22%), and engaged in reflective thinking/writing about what they are learning (increased 22%)

Table 11: Weekly Classroom Activities1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Work in pairs/teams/small groups |21 |91.3 |15 |93.8 |

|Work in class on a project that takes a week or more |2 |8.7 |15 |93.8 |

|Listen and take notes during presentation by teacher |18 |78.3 |10 |62.5 |

|Use teacher-created lessons |18 |78.3 |14 |87.5 |

|Do hands-on/manipulative activities |17 |73.9 |15 |93.8 |

|Watch the teacher demonstrate a scientific principle |15 |65.2 |10 |62.5 |

|Participate in dialogue with the teacher to develop an idea |15 |65.2 |13 |81.3 |

|Make conjectures and explore possible methods to solve a scientific problem |13 |56.5 |9 |56.3 |

|Read a science textbook |11 |47.8 |6 |37.5 |

|Use science equipment (e.g., measurement tools and graphing calculators) |11 |47.8 |12 |75.0 |

|Learn by inquiry |9 |39.1 |11 |68.8 |

|Use worksheets from textbooks |9 |39.1 |6 |37.5 |

|Write their reasoning about how to solve a scientific problem |8 |34.8 |9 |56.3 |

|Engage in reflective thinking/writing about what they are learning |8 |34.8 |9 |56.3 |

|Use computers |5 |21.7 |3 |18.8 |

1Self-report by teacher indicating that activity occurred “Once or twice a week” or “Almost daily.”

Summer Workshop and Follow-up Results

Twenty-two of the 23 teachers who originally registered for the Central Ohio Physical Science Modeling Workshop completed the 3-week course. Tables A5 and A6 on pages 16 and 17 provide participants’ responses to questions respectively about the impact of the session and the extent to which their understanding increased as a result of their experience.

The Pre-Survey included an open-ended item regarding participants’ expectations about the workshop. They emphasized that they wanted to gain a better understanding of inquiry-based instruction, physical science concepts, use of appropriate technology, the state science standards, and performance-based and group assessment. For the most part, the workshop successfully met their initial expectations.

Table A5 on page 20 highlights participants’ opinions about the workshop at the end of the session. They agreed unanimously about the value of the workshop as a professional development experience, felt their questions and concerns were addressed effectively, and would recommend it to other teachers. All also agreed that the workshop contributed positively to their attitudes about science and they felt better prepared to encourage science activities in their buildings. As one teacher put it:

I can’t wait to get back in the classroom and try out the modeling method in class. I plan to continue improving and refining the way I teach with the modeling method.

Gains in teacher content knowledge and thinking/reasoning skills concerning science are especially noticeable on the survey responses. All respondents agreed that they improved their content knowledge, increased their ability to see connections among science concepts (and between science and mathematics), and felt that they had gained skills in complex thinking and reasoning. These results are consistent with those from the instructional team’s administration of a content test, the Force Concept Inventory, in which the teachers demonstrated a 50 percent “normalized” gain on the post-test.[3]

When commenting on what aspects of the workshop were most useful to them, teachers related how they anticipated applying lessons learned in the workshop to their own classrooms. They specifically elaborated on how the way that the session was conducted contributed to increases in their own understanding of science concepts. Three commented as follows:

Being a student again. Although it was difficult at first, it really helped me see things from a student perspective again. It has been a long time. System schema helped clarify difficult problems involving many components. Having time to practice questioning skills as other groups presented.

I liked working with the constant velocity cars, the pendulums, and anything else that allowed me to collect actual data. I need to come up with ways of giving students the opportunity to collect data. The whiteboards were awesome and represent ways of seeing how students think through science.

The discussion among the three instructors and participants were really great at thinking about how to find and assess student misconceptions.

Each also agreed that the workshop “has helped me become a more effective teacher,” and specifically “have a better understanding of how to effectively teach physical science.” This included gains for all in “skills in how to use inquiry in my classroom” and “effective applications of inquiry-based instruction in classrooms.” The impact included unanimous agreement on enhanced confidence in teaching science to their students, including strategies for effectively teaching physical science, and strategies that can be used by teachers to improve students’ science performance. For example, at the end of the workshop, they were planning to use whiteboards “to give students the chance to show how they problem solve” and would be expanding their use of laboratory work with their 9th grade classes. They also anticipated making changes in how they presented, assessed, and expected students to process information. One teacher in particular emphasized how the workshop was unique and needed:

I really think my physical science classes are going to be very different next year. I’ll keep what has worked, but now I have a number of new ideas to really improve student understanding at the 9th and 10th grade level. No other class or workshop has focused on this level of student, so it has been very useful.

By the end of the workshop and continuing through the last follow-up session, all indicated an increase in their understanding of “effective applications of inquiry-based instruction in classrooms” and “strategies that can be used by teachers to improve students’ science performance.” High percentages also agreed that they gained understanding of “strategies for effectively teaching physical science,” “technology for effective instruction in science,” and “effective uses of alternative assessment.” Although almost three-fourths (71%) agreed that they had increased their understanding of strategies “for facilitating change in science instruction in my building,” this percentage had dropped by the April follow-up session, which suggests that some of their efforts to share with the colleagues at their schools did not go as well as anticipated. On the other hand, by the end of the school year, there was a 26 percent gain in their understanding of the “application of Ohio’s science standards.”

Table 12: Increased Understanding from Physical Science Modeling Workshop1

| |End of Workshop |Post-Survey |

| |N=22 |N=16 |

|Effective applications of inquiry-based instruction in classrooms. |100.0 |100.0 |

|Strategies that can be used by teachers to improve students’ science performance. |100.0 |100.0 |

|Strategies for effectively teaching physical science. |100.0 |93.8 |

|The technology required for effective instruction in science. |95.2 |87.5 |

|Effective uses of alternative assessment. |95.2 |93.8 |

|Strategies for facilitating change in science instruction in my building. |71.4 |62.5 |

|Application of Ohio’s science standards. |61.9 |87.5 |

1Percent of participants who indicated that they "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" with each statement.

Another piece of information from the pre-survey that suggests additional sharing is that at least four of the teachers (20%) expected to be paired with a student teacher in the upcoming school year (see Table 13 on the following page). The follow-up results are consistent with this in that 19 percent actually worked with a student teacher during the school year. The workshop may, therefore, have a multiplier effect on science instruction at these teachers’ schools through their contact with student teachers as well as other teachers.

Table 13: Cooperating Teacher with a Student Teacher

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Yes |4 |20.0 |3 |18.8 |

|No |10 |50.0 |13 |81.3 |

|Not sure/Don’t know yet |6 |30.0 |NA |NA |

Teachers in their comments on the follow-up survey (see pages 21-22) gave further detail about how they applied modeling in their classrooms and also emphasized the extent to which they viewed the workshop as a worthwhile contribution to their knowledge and understanding on how to effectively teach physical science. This past year they have made their science classrooms more active through greater student involvement and the inquiry-based instructional strategies.

The instructional team also emphasized that they were impressed by how the teaches had embraced modeling, for example, one of the faculty explained:

This has been one of the most rewarding things that I have been associated with in a long time. All the teachers seemed to enjoy it and see its applicability. At one of the first follow-up sessions, we had a difficult time getting anyone to say anything negative about it. One of the teachers mentioned how her school had a problem with students cutting class, and she would have students that would cut all their other classes but would come to hers because they knew they would be missing something important. Teachers see it as worthwhile and see their students learning more deeply.

Although there were no major criticisms of the workshops, they would like to see more explicit linkages of the modeling examples with their specific curriculum and the Ohio Academic Content Standards. The upcoming continuation workshop will be an ideal place for these requests to be further addressed.

Conclusions & Recommendations

The Physical Science Modeling Workshop was designed to provide 24 high school physical science teachers with discipline-specific strategies that would enable them to expand their use of inquiry instruction with their students. A total of 22 teachers successfully completed the course. Overall, they rated their experience highly. Although the teachers similarly valued inquiry-based instructional practices, there was variation by district in their confidence about the extent to which they were well prepared to use inquiry learning. Both district groups evidenced gains in their perceptions of their preparedness and actual use of inquiry at the follow-up session. Staff also emphasized that teachers in attendance at the three follow-up sessions gave numerous examples of how they are incorporating modeling in their classes and their open-ended responses also highlighted their increasing use of the recommended instructional practices. The teachers’ descriptions of their classroom activities before and after the modeling workshop underscored their efforts to incorporate more projects, hands-on, and inquiry with their students.

In the preliminary report in October, we suggested that the staff might want to include more demonstration of how the lessons connect with Ohio’s science standards. Apparently, they made an effort to do this during the follow-up sessions. In addition, the workshop planned for June 2005 will support the teachers’ efforts to more explicitly develop lessons that incorporate modeling and are more tied to their actual classroom needs. As of early May 2005, 18 of the 22 original participants had made a commitment to participate in the second part of the modeling program. The four who are not able to attend had scheduling conflicts, including one who is attending a modeling workshop at Arizona State University.

With the exception of the course being somewhat overwhelming, especially given that they are in class during the summer for eight hours each day, participating teachers had very few criticisms of the Modeling Workshop. They encouraged the faculty to build in more review time in future courses for those coming into the course that might be less experienced with physics and physical science. They also suggested that the overall pacing of the workshop could be improved in future administrations. The high return rate for phase two further demonstrates that they view the course work as relevant and applicable to their classes. Several also asked for additional workshops, especially in chemistry, and the workshop faculty have already begun planning a modeling course that would focus on chemistry topics.

At the end of the workshop, while most participants (76%) agreed that they had “a better understanding of how to apply the science standards,” five did not agree and only 13 (61%) agreed that they had “increased understanding of application of Ohio’s science standards.” Nine months later, most (88%) agreed that they had increased their understanding of Ohio’s science standards. It appears that the opportunity to actually apply the modeling strategies in their classrooms and also experience exposure to additional demonstrations during the follow-up sessions enabled them to more readily make the connection between the instructional strategies and the standards. One of the recommendations in the preliminary report was for the faculty to more explicitly emphasize the connection between the promoted instructional practices and the standards. It appears the instructors made an effort to provide additional concrete examples of modeling in the follow-up sessions as well as opportunities for teachers to share how they actually implemented course activities in their classrooms. Furthermore, the continuation course will have even greater emphasis as the teachers will be responsible for developing their own units that they will share.

Another aspect of the workshop that was mentioned by staff is that participants were diverse in terms of experience and background. This finding was also verified by the survey data, as a fairly high percentage were relatively new classroom teachers and also novices at teaching physical science, whereas half of the group was veteran teachers who had spent most of their careers teaching physics and physical science. Apparently, these two disparate groups were able to work well together, with the newer teachers, especially those who had primarily a background in biology learning content from those more experienced with physical science. However, the newer teachers also provided a useful perspective, as they could often more readily anticipate questions or problems from a student viewpoint.

In conclusion, the OSU Physical Science Modeling Workshop was a successful experience for participants. It met its objectives with respect to introducing teachers to modeling strategies and encouraging them to more actively engage students in their own learning. Overall, the second phase will hopefully be able to build on these accomplishments and produce an equally satisfying continuation workshop for the participants. Given that everyone in the group now knows each other and has a better understanding of what to expect from the course, there is great potential for the modeling courses to produce a core group of physical science teachers that regularly use effective strategies in their classrooms and share their knowledge with school and district colleagues.

Table A1

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Description of Teachers1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

|Gender | | | | |

|Male |10 |45.5 |7 |43.8 |

| Female |12 |54.5 |9 |56.3 |

|Race/Ethnicity | | | | |

| African-American |2 |9.1 |1 |6.3 |

| Hispanic, regardless of race |3 |13.6 |1 |6.3 |

| White (not of Hispanic origin) |17 |77.3 |14 |87.5 |

|Age | | | | |

|30 Years or Less |4 |18.2 |NA |NA |

|31-40 Years |5 |21.7 |NA |NA |

|41-50 Years |11 |50.0 |NA |NA |

|51-60 Years |2 |9.1 |NA |NA |

|Grade Level Taught2 | | | | |

|Grade 5-8 |2 |8.7 |0 |0.0 |

|Grade 9-12 |22 |95.7 |16 |100.0 |

|Years of Teaching Experience | | | | |

|Less than 1 year |1 |4.5 |1 |6.3 |

|1-2 years |5 |22.7 |3 |18.8 |

|3-5 years |2 |9.1 |1 |6.3 |

|6-10 years |2 |9.1 |0 |0.0 |

|11-19 years |6 |27.3 |6 |37.5 |

|20 years or more |6 |27.3 |5 |31.3 |

|Years Taught at Current School | | | | |

|Less than 1 year |2 |9.5 |4 |25.0 |

|1-2 years |6 |28.6 |2 |12.5 |

|3-5 years |5 |23.8 |3 |18.8 |

|6-10 years |7 |33.3 |3 |18.8 |

|11-19 years |1 |4.8 |2 |12.5 |

|20 years or more |0 |0.0 |2 |12.5 |

1Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

2Total can add to more than 100 percent, as respondent could teach grades in more than one category.

Table A1 (Continued)

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Description of Teachers1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Highest Degree Received | | | | |

|Bachelor's Degree |4 |21.1 |6 |37.5 |

|Master's Degree |14 |73.7 |10 |62.5 |

|Other |1 |5.3 |0 |0.0 |

|Degree Areas2 | | | | |

|Science Education |14 |60.9 |11 |68.8 |

|Earth Science or Geology |0 |0.0 |2 |12.5 |

|Mathematics Education |1 |4.3 |2 |12.5 |

|Biology or life science |7 |30.4 |5 |31.5 |

|Physics or Physical science |6 |26.1 |8 |50.0 |

|Mathematics |3 |13.0 |3 |18.8 |

|Chemistry or biochemistry |1 |4.3 |4 |25.0 |

|Environmental Science |1 |4.3 |1 |6.3 |

|Engineering |1 |4.3 |1 |6.3 |

|Other |3 |13.0 |4 |25.0 |

|Last Enrollment in Science/Math College Course | | | | |

|In the past year |11 |50.0 |NA |NA |

|1-2 years ago |7 |31.8 |NA |NA |

|3-5 years ago |2 |9.1 |NA |NA |

|6-10 years ago |0 |0.0 |NA |NA |

|More than 10 years ago |2 |9.1 |NA |NA |

|State Certification3 | | | | |

|Emergency or Temporary Certificate |0 |0.0 |1 |6.3 |

|Elementary Grades Certification |0 |0.0 |0 |0.0 |

|Middle Grades Certification |0 |0.0 |0 |0.0 |

|Secondary Science Certification |17 |73.9 |15 |93.8 |

|Secondary Mathematics Certification |4 |17.4 |3 |18.8 |

|Other Certification |4 |17.4 |2 |12.5 |

|Not Applicable |1 |4.3 |0 |0.0 |

1Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

2Total can add to more than 100 percent, as respondent could obtain degree in more than one area.

3Total can add to more than 100 percent, as respondent could obtain certification in more than one area.

Table A2

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Teacher Opinion and Attitudes in Pre-Survey and Post-Survey1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Virtually all students can learn to think scientifically. |23 |100.0 |16 |100.0 |

|Students learn science best in classes with students of similar abilities. |10 |43.5 |7 |43.8 |

|I enjoy teaching science. |22 |95.7 |16 |100.0 |

|I organize my curriculum around the textbook. |3 |13.6 |3 |18.8 |

|The teacher should consistently use activities which require students to do original thinking. |21 |91.3 |15 |93.8 |

|Teachers should know the answers to most questions students ask about science. |10 |47.6 |7 |43.8 |

|Students should never leave science class feeling confused or stuck. |1 |4.3 |2 |12.5 |

|An important issue is not whether students’ answers to any science question are correct but |19 |82.6 |15 |93.8 |

|whether students can explain their answers. | | | | |

|Some people are good at science and some just are not. |6 |26.1 |3 |18.8 |

|Learning for all students is enhanced by incorporating the contributions of different cultures.|15 |68.2 |12 |75.0 |

|Good science/math teachers show students the correct way to answer questions they will be |8 |34.8 |3 |20.0 |

|tested on. | | | | |

|Most science teachers at my school would like to use an “inquiry” style of teaching. |9 |39.1 |11 |68.8 |

|Most science teachers in my school contribute actively to making decisions about the science |11 |47.8 |6 |40.0 |

|curriculum. | | | | |

|Most science teachers in my school regularly share ideas and materials related to science |16 |69.6 |9 |56.3 |

|instruction. | | | | |

|Most science teachers in my school regularly observe each other teaching classes as part of |4 |17.4 |3 |18.8 |

|sharing and improving instructional strategies. | | | | |

|I regularly serve as a resource for other science teachers in my school. |11 |47.8 |13 |81.3 |

|I regularly serve as a resource for other science teachers in my district. |9 |39.1 |6 |37.5 |

|My principal is supportive of innovative approaches to teaching science. |18 |78.3 |12 |75.0 |

|Parents of students at my school are supportive of innovative approaches to teaching science. |6 |26.1 |11 |68.8 |

1Percent of participants who indicated that they "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" with each statement. Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

Table A3

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Opinions about Preparedness in Pre-Survey and Post-Survey1

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Surveya |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Manage a class of students who are using hands-on/manipulative materials. |16 |69.6 |14 |87.5* |

|Use cooperative learning groups. |16 |69.6 |13 |81.3 |

|Implement inquiry or discovery learning. |14. |60.9 |13 |81.3 |

|Present the applications of science concepts. |17 |73.9 |13 |81.3 |

|Phrase questions to encourage more open-ended investigations. |12 |54.5 |13 |81.3 |

|Use computers as an integral part of science instruction. |7 |30.4 |7 |43.8 |

|Use handheld computers as an integral part of science/math instruction. |5 |17.4 |3 |18.8 |

|Use handheld computers for networking or administrative purposes. |3 |13.0 |3 |18.8 |

|Use T1 Calculators. |8 |34.8 |6 |37.5 |

|Use science/math equipment as an integral part of science/math instruction. |16 |69.6 |13 |81.3 |

|Teach groups that are heterogeneous in ability. |15 |65.2 |9 |56.3 |

|Teach students from a variety of cultural backgrounds. |10 |45.5 |6 |37.5 |

|Inform students of career opportunities in science/math. |12 |52.2 |4 |25.0 |

|Use performance-based assessment in science/math. |12 |52.2 |9 |56.3 |

|Use portfolios to assess student progress in science/math. |7 |30.4 |1 |6.3 |

|Encourage participation of females in science/math. |18 |78.3 |10 |62.5 |

|Encourage participation of underrepresented minorities in science/math. |13 |56.5 |7 |43.8 |

|Involve parents in the science education of their children. |6 |26.1 |3 |18.8 |

1Percent of participants who gave value of 4 or 5 on scale of 1 to 5 in which 1 indicated, “Not Well Prepared" and 5 indicated, “Very Well Prepared.” Percentages are based on those with valid response to item.

aStatistically significant differences highlighted are between follow-up responses compared to their pre-treatment responses.

*Statistically significant difference with p-value < .05.

Table A4

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Weekly Classroom Activities in Pre-Survey

| |Pre-Survey |Post-Survey |

| |N=23 |N=16 |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Listen and take notes during presentation by teacher |18 |78.3 |10 |62.5 |

|Watch the teacher demonstrate a scientific principle |15 |65.2 |10 |62.5 |

|Work in pairs/teams/small groups |21 |91.3 |15 |93.8 |

|Read a science textbook |11 |47.8 |6 |37.5 |

|Participate in dialogue with the teacher to develop an idea |15 |65.2 |13 |81.3 |

|Make conjectures and explore possible methods to solve a scientific problem |13 |56.5 |9 |56.3 |

|Do hands-on/manipulative activities |17 |73.9 |15 |93.8 |

|Write their reasoning about how to solve a scientific problem |8 |34.8 |9 |56.3 |

|Work in class on a project that takes a week or more |2 |8.7 |15 |93.8 |

|Learn by inquiry |9 |39.1 |11 |68.8 |

|Use worksheets from textbooks |9 |39.1 |6 |37.5 |

|Use teacher-created lessons |18 |78.3 |14 |87.5 |

|Engage in reflective thinking/writing about what they are learning |8 |34.8 |9 |56.3 |

|Use computers |5 |21.7 |3 |18.8 |

|Use science equipment (e.g., measurement tools and graphing calculators) |11 |47.8 |12 |75.0 |

1Self-report by teacher indicating that activity occurred “Once or twice a week” or “Almost daily.” There was no missing data for this set of items.

Table A5

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Impact of the Physical Science Modeling Workshop1

| |End of Workshop N=22 |

|Adequate time was allowed for participants to reflect on and relate material to their experience and needs. |85.7 |

|Participants’ questions and concerns were addressed effectively. |100.0 |

|I improved my content knowledge. |100.0 |

|I gained skills in complex thinking and reasoning. |100.0 |

|I gained skills in how to use inquiry in my classroom. |100.0 |

|This workshop contributed positively to my attitude about science. |100.0 |

|This workshop enhanced my confidence in teaching science. |100.0 |

|I increased my ability to see connections among science concepts. |100.0 |

|I increased my ability to see connections between science and mathematics. |100.0 |

|I have a better understanding of how to apply the science standards. |76.2 |

|I have a better understanding of how to effectively teach physical science. |100.0 |

|Overall, this workshop was a successful professional development experience. |100.0 |

|I would recommend this workshop to other teachers. |100.0 |

|I feel prepared to provide professional development on the covered workshop-specific activities for teachers in my building.|81.0 |

|I feel better prepared to encourage science activities in my building. |100.0 |

|This workshop has helped me become a more effective teacher. |100.0 |

1Percent of participants who indicated that they "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" with each statement.

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Open-ended Question Responses: Post-Survey

What kind of changes did you make in how you teach physical science as a result of participating in the Physical Science Modeling Workshop?

Much change. I feel better in developing lessons and questions that lead toward inquiry. Students tend to like working together and they tend to write better overall response on the white board than in their notebook. I think they understand it better.

My favorite part is the holistic approach—how to weave many different educationally sound approaches into developing a central concept. Better use of analyzing student collected data.

I am trying to focus more on having the student develop the concepts.

Students presented results of experiments to the class. More graphing and looking at slopes and resulting equations. More questioning of students.

More inquiry-based lab activity. More student interaction. Students present information to class. Students determine correct answer. Less reading—more doing.

I’ve begun transforming as much science instruction as I can for the year, so we follow or mimic the modeling concept of guided/structured discovery.

I have used inquiry and modeling in my physics classes. I have been incorporating more of these technologies into my physical science class.

I used a much more student centered, science community method.

Much more involved with having students present/explain/defend their results in lab experiments.

My school district incorporated an inquiry approach textbook and trained teachers to use these books. After two years of teaching using the inquiry book and the curriculum to meet the needs of the OGT, more inquiry books by the same company were purchased. These books were a start, but after teaching from them for several years, most of us agree that they are not really inquiry lessons. They are more cookbook lessons that encourage group work and collaboration. They do take into account previous knowledge and are hands-on lesson to learn by doing. The main issue we had with the curriculum was that students could complete the lesson and have no idea what they were supposed to learn. The PROCESSING piece to learning was missing. The books assumed that students were motivated to learn by just completing the labs and answering some “not so leading or probing questions.” The summer program was just what we needed to help move the program to a new level. This year has gone better and students now work in groups but are held individually accountable. It is not perfect, but I am sure I will get better at it year by year. I really believe that we need to make the lessons MORE inquiry from the start. Students need to have a problem to solve, decisions to make, and more open-ended labs. We need to move away from the already created lab and lab setup. It will not happen over night, but the summer workshop showed us how it can be done. I now have more tools to check student understanding, and I believe students are thinking more in my classroom on a daily basis. Grading is still an issue but each grading period I am exploring new ways to hold students accountable without just depending on paper and pencil tests. Students work harder and are more engaged when they are solving a problem and attempting to use information and data collected by their peers. Often students will not solve the problem correctly, but they have learned a great deal and most likely would get it right if they had the chance to do it again. Often they plead to do it again (doesn’t that just make a teacher’s heart go pitter patter). I still have work to do on getting all students involved. Often in small groups I still find some doing most of the work and a few just following along. I believe that modeling enhances student self esteem and I can see a positive change in many of my students.

Physical Science Modeling Workshop

Open-ended Question Responses: Post-Survey

Are there any modifications that you would recommend be made to the follow-up session?

No. I’m glad that they are a continuation of a topic and not a new topic each session.

I would really like the follow-ups (and the workshop) to relate more directly to my freshman-level curriculum. Sometimes our examples were far beyond what I would do in the classroom.

No. I’ve always been engaged and satisfied with the course structure.

New topic--other than mechanics.

I’d like to see the modeling content applied to other content areas such as optics/waves or electricity.

Shorter days--often by the end of the day we were just tired. This is pretty intense stuff!

Do you have any suggestions for future workshop activities designed to help physical science teachers?

Chemistry Related Modeling (for 9th grade science). I have put together some things on my own based on what I learned in the Physical Science Workshop, but there are chemistry concepts on the Ohio Standards that are difficult to present.

Align directly to OACS—perhaps separate 9th grade physical science from physics somehow. Include other benchmarks, like chemistry, and even other physics concepts, like heat, waver, nuclear, etc.

Modeling, electricity, wave, light + sound.

Develop how to teach core content of other related subjects: Air, Water, Pressure, Electricity/Magnetism, Waves, Sound, and Light.

Ask teachers to bring lessons/lab/demos they have used. Xerox these for us to have as samples.

Electricity and Magnetism topics. Chemistry topics.

I’d like to see teachers each bring an activity they’ve done in their classes.

Just keep doing what you are doing. I wish it could be offered more often and to more teachers. I would love to have more of my teachers be trained!

-----------------------

[1]The percent of participants who indicated that they “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” is indicated in parentheses at the end of each statement. Both pre- and post responses are provided. See Table A2 on page 13 for responses to all survey items for this question set. Statistically significant differences are unlikely given the small sample sizes

[2]Table A3 on page 18 includes responses to a number of questions not summarized here since they are not related to the particular instructional method that were the focus of the Physical Science Modeling Workshop. For example, only 13 percent to 30 percent felt prepared to use handheld computers in any way, or to use computers as an integral part of science instruction, but competency in these areas were not specifically covered by the workshop.

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

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download