Foundation for a School - University Partnership
for Science and Mathematics Reform
A proposal submitted in Dec. 2003
to the Arizona Board of Regents: Improving Teacher Quality Program
P.I.: Jane Jackson, Faculty Associate, Dept. of Physics, ASU
480-965-8438, Jane.Jackson@asu.edu
Co-P.I.: David Hestenes, Research Professor of Physics, ASU
Table of Contents
A.
B.
C.
D.
Cover Sheet
Table of Contents..................................................................................................2
Project Summary..................................................................................................3
Project Description
1. Needs and Intended Outcomes.................................................................4
2. Procedures and Time Line.........................................................................8
3. Evaluation................................................................................................10
4. Dissemination and Sustainability.............................................................11
E. References...........................................................................................................12
F. Curriculum Vitae.................................................................................................13
G. Budget.................................................................................................................19
H. Budget Explanation.............................................................................................20
I. Appendices
A. How the Modeling Workshop addresses Arizona Standards...........................21
B. Synopsis of the Modeling Method...................................................................23
C. Tentative syllabus/calendar of Modeling Workshop.........................................24
D. Letters of Commitment from ------------------- USD.........................................26
K. Certificates (Attachments E and F).....................................................................29
Summary:
Horizontal and vertical coordination of science and mathematics will be enhanced, and
teachers will become more highly qualified, as a foundation is laid for learning communities of
teachers of junior high and ninth grade science and mathematics in the --- Unified School District
(--USD). Twenty-six teachers will participate in a three-week summer workshop in physical
science with mathematical modeling. The workshop includes thematic strands in scientific
modeling, structure of matter, energy, and use of computers as scientific tools. Mathematics
instruction is coupled to this thread through an emphasis on mathematical modeling. --USD
program coordinators in science and mathematics will coordinate recruitment and follow-up with
high school teacher-leaders. Increased content knowledge and better instructional strategies of
teachers will result in measured improved learning of students.
Project Description
1. Needs and Outcomes
a. Need for university - school partnerships for highly qualified teachers of math and science:
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has created standards to
guide K-12 mathematics education reform. Likewise, the National Research Council has
achieved a consensus on National Science Education Standards (NSES) for K-12 science
education. These documents were created with broad input from the science and education
communities; and they have influenced the creation of state standards for science and
mathematics education in Arizona.
Standards set minimal levels of achievement. Unfortunately, schools face grave
difficulties in implementing the standards, let alone exceeding them, mainly because they lack
essential resources and institutional mechanisms for high-quality systemic change. On the whole,
schools are designed to maintain the status quo. Although many school districts have in-house
professional development programs, for the most part they are incoherent and ineffective. The
net effect is to waste valuable time and reduce morale of overburdened teachers.
These difficulties are evident in Arizona and they are borne out by poor test scores. For
example, on the Nation's Report Card, the NAEP 2000 science test, only about one in four 8th
grade Arizona students were considered proficient - meaning that they knew the subject matter
and could apply it to real-world situations. This is lower than the nationwide fraction of almost
one in three. Similar poor results are reported in math, and on other state, national and
international tests.
Schools and school districts are ill-equipped to conduct professional development on their
own, because they lack necessary expertise in science, mathematics and technology as well as
resources to keep up-to-date with advances in curriculum materials and pedagogy. Those
resources reside primarily in the nation’s universities, especially in science, engineering, and
mathematics faculty whose research interests are in education.
Thus K-12 schools need help from universities to upgrade the science/math curriculum.
This idea has emerged as a major initiative in the National Science Foundation and the U.S.
Department of Education: the Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program. These Federal
programs provide substantial funding. Such school–university partnerships provide schools
with an essential mechanism for continuous research-based science/math education reform.
It is imperative that we learn how to make such partnerships work effectively as soon as possible
so that Congress will have justification for continuing this program. As The Arizona Science and
Technology Education Partnership (AzSTEP) has been laying the groundwork for statewide
partnerships for several years, we are well prepared to assist in getting Arizona partnerships up
and running. [Ref. 1]
AzSTEP began in 1998 as a statewide partnership between the Modeling Instruction
Program in the ASU physics department and high school physics teachers. Its original purpose
was to support the teachers as local leaders of K-12 science and technology education reform.
AzSTEP has engaged more than half of Arizona high school physics teachers in Modeling
Workshops since that time. Physics teachers cultivated in AzSTEP provide a cadre of leaders for
expansion of AzSTEP to a statewide network of school district - university partnerships.
In spring 2003, ASU President Michael Crow established the office of vice-president of
university - school partnerships. ASU announced four goals in strengthening preK-12 education
in Arizona schools:
 develop high quality teachers, ensuring that excellent teaching is the norm in all schools,
 develop strong school leaders,
 create early interventions,
 build on linkages with schools &the private sector for distribution of fiscal & human
resources.
President Michael Crow wrote, "These goals must be represented at the highest levels of
the university." This is good news! AzSTEP's extensive experience with schools leads us to a
strong conviction that leadership at the highest levels is required, to produce mechanisms for
continuous improvements in K-12 schools. The teacher is the key to reform, but all teachers
need long term professional development to attain their full potential. Thus President Crow and
school superintendents must be involved in convincing Arizona school districts to set aside time
each week or two for high quality content-related staff development, such as lesson study
promoted by TIMSS, and inquiry groups advocated by the Glenn Commission.
Until such leadership is evident, and such school district changes occur, AzSTEP can
contribute by holding intensive, in-depth summer workshops led by teams of high quality teacher
- leaders whom AzSTEP has already cultivated, in order to develop more high quality teachers
and strong school leaders. With this in mind, the goals of AzSTEP are as follow.
 Immediate Goal: To lay foundations for a school-university partnership in --- School
District and provide this school district with access to university resources to drive
science/math/technology education reform.
 Long-range Goal: for AzSTEP to join with the larger ASU effort to broker schooluniversity partnerships statewide and secure funding to support continuous upgrades in
science/math/technology education.
Although ultimately science and mathematics reform must encompass the entire 12 years
of schooling, this project addresses only one component, albeit a crucial one: the need for an
integrated physical science and mathematics workshop for junior high and 9th grade teachers.
Science provides an ideal context for mathematics, and mathematics is the language of
science, so integration of these content areas has potential to markedly improve student
learning. Physical science courses and mathematics courses in junior high school must provide
students with the conceptual underpinnings needed for success in high school physics, chemistry,
and mathematics. For that reason, teachers of physics, chemistry, and mathematics are especially
suited to serve as leaders for the multi-component ASU course PHS 534/MTE 598. At the same
time, these courses must develop basic scientific literacy and sound conceptual understanding in
mathematics for students who don't go on to physics, chemistry, or advanced mathematics.
In the past two years, AzSTEP targeted five districts with the greatest likelihood of
success: ----. Included were numerous schools with large populations of disadvantaged
minorities. One hundred and twenty teachers participated in five 3-week workshops. In ----,
workshops were held for two years, due to teacher demand.
In general, AzSTEP selects participating school districts on the basis of administrative
commitment and teacher qualifications. Administrative commitment is, of course, essential for
district-wide reform. But the most important requirement is the existence of a cadre of teachers
capable of leading implementation of the program. AzSTEP selects districts that already have
such a cadre, composed of high school teachers who have been active in the Modeling Instruction
Program for years and have shown that they are fully attuned to the aims and methods of the
project. In fact, their reputation for outstanding teaching is usually the most important factor in
gaining administrative support from their districts.
The AzSTEP design for professional development follows recommendations in the three
ABOR reports (Sowell et al, 1995; Bogert et al, 1997, Luft et al, 1997): it promotes systemic
reform that is school-based, uses multiple models of professional development, builds collegial
support, includes exemplary materials, reflects National Standards, and uses technology.
Although AzSTEP aims for systemic reform in junior high and high school math and science, it
is well documented that this is a long process (e.g., Sparks, 2000, Shifter and Fosnot, 1993). Our
intent is to increase student academic achievement through improving teacher quality with
support of principals.
b. Needs of partner K-12 school district:
In ------ Unified School District, 11 of its 45 schools are Title I schools, and almost 9000
of its 34,000 students (26%) qualify for free or reduced lunch subsidies. It is the ----- largest
district in Arizona. Sections of the school district have diverse ethnic, mostly disadvantaged
families.
---- Middle School failed to meet academic benchmarks for AYP under Arizona's
guidelines for NCLB for 200-. Without significant academic intervention, this will also be the
case in 200-, and they will enter Federal Improvement. Benchmarks will increase in 200-, making
it even more difficult to meet them, and school sanctions will increase. If unchecked, this
situation will result in many students failing to meet minimum competencies. ---- teachers want
to participate in this project; their letter in Appendix D describes their need.
A district-wide survey of 42 --USD high school science teachers conducted in August
200- revealed that fully half of the eight 9th grade earth science teachers from 3 high schools
consider themselves unqualified in their content area. Only 25% feel that they have been
provided the inservice training necessary to integrate technology into their classroom.
Our telephone interviews with --USD science and mathematics teachers reveal that little
coordination of mathematics and science courses in high school or middle school is occurring,
and that little articulation in science exists between middle schools and high schools.
On the other hand, a strong cadre of middle school science teachers meet regularly on
their own time. They have made significant progress in coordinating science content, including
over 300 pages of labs and activities. But they are concerned about the impending new state
science standards that are grade-specific. What changes will occur in the physics and chemistry
strands? In what grades must these strands be taught? How will science teachers who are weak in
the physical sciences prepare? Thus a leader of this group, the --USD science coordinator,
contacted us last August and asked that AzSTEP help their teachers become highly qualified. Her
letter expressing need is in Appendix D, with the letter of commitment.
Under the guidelines of the No Child Left Behind Act, school district professional
development under Title IIA must provide opportunities for teachers to increase their academic
knowledge, align with and directly relate to the AZ State Standards, advance teachers'
understanding of effective instructional strategies, improve classroom management, substantially
increase the teaching skills of teacher, be measurable, and improve student academic
achievement. This is a tall order, especially since the district budget for professional development
is pitifully small (and --USD had a $3 million cut in its budget last year). Most Federal Title II
funds have been allocated to reading and mathematics in order to improve district AIMS scores.
Thus, in support of ---- initiative, the --USD staff development specialist/Title II
Coordinator, ----, worked out details with AzSTEP Facilitator and P.I., Jane Jackson.
An ABOR-funded Eisenhower grant engaged mostly --USD mathematics teachers in
grades 4 to 6, in 2000 and 2001, according to --USD program area coordinator in mathematics, ---, who participated. This proposed project has little overlap in participants; yet, with ----'s help,
it may provide ways to build on that project, since common focuses for both projects are data
analysis emphasizing mathematical reasoning ability, problem solving using visual thinking,
technology, modeling, and connections to real life situations.
c. Collaboration between ASU and ---- is significant in most phases, as described in relevant
sections. The --USD science program area coordinator asked AzSTEP in August 200- for PHS
534/MTE 598 to be held for district teachers. The course was approved by ASU in September.
Further lengthy conversations with ----, with administrators ---- and ----, with workshop leader ---, and with teachers led to this proposal.
An attempt will be made by --USD personnel to schedule a presentation on the workshop
at a principals' meeting, to inform them of the workshop and convince them of the advantages of
coordinating math and science in middle school and 9th grade levels.
d. Intended Outcomes: --USD teachers and administrators, together with AzSTEP, developed a
plan that involves 31 teachers, representing --USD's 5 high schools and 7 middle schools.
The proposed Physical Science with Math Modeling Workshop provides teachers of
junior high and 9th grade physical science, earth science, and mathematics with education in
standards-based content and instructional strategies, and it bridges the gap between educational
research and application of research findings to improvement of classroom instruction. The
workshop is an expansion to these grades of the Modeling Instruction Program, an evolving,
research-based program for high school science education reform supported by the NSF since
1989 (Refs. 2 - 10). In 2001 the U.S. Department of Education recognized the Modeling
Instruction Program as the only EXEMPLARY high school science program nationwide. Thus it
satisfies the NCLB definition of high quality scientifically based professional development.
Participating teachers will achieve these goals:
 improve their instructional pedagogy by incorporating the modeling cycle, inquiry methods,
critical and creative thinking, cooperative learning, and effective use of classroom technology
 understand content in the structure of matter, energy, scientific thinking skills, and related
skills in each of the six Arizona Mathematics Standards (see Appendix A),
 strengthen coordination and articulation between mathematics and the physical/earth
sciences.
Measurable objectives are:
 increased content knowledge of teachers in structure of matter, energy, graphing, & related
math skills (particularly graphical and algebraic representations of models),
 better instructional strategies, including effective classroom discourse management, use of
standardized evaluation instruments, and improved content organization,

improved student understanding in structure of matter, energy, graphing, and related
mathematics and reasoning skills such as measurement, conservation of mass and volume,
and relation between graphs and equations.
Additional outcomes: first, AIMS math scores are expected to improve. Second, the
project will enable --USD to implement "Physics First" more effectively at --- High School, by
preparing junior high students with needed foundations for the course.
e. Why this intervention? Recommendations and research findings:
Both the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) and
the Professional Standards for Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) stress the importance of integrating
mathematics and science concepts in science and mathematics courses. For example, NSES
Program Standard C is: "The science program should be coordinated with the mathematics
program to enhance student use and understanding of mathematics in the study of science and to
improve student understanding of mathematics." This is a cornerstone of our work. (NSES
Program Standards are criteria for the quality of and conditions for school science programs.)
An ABOR report (Luft et al, 1997) and others (e.g., Sparks, 2000) document that the
quality of K-12 teaching is significantly raised by providing instruction for K-12 teachers that
models effective instruction. Modeling effective instruction is a key characteristic of Modeling
Workshops.
This project is in full accord with National Staff Development Council (NSDC)
Standards (http://www.nsdc.org/library/standards2001.pdf), which --USD uses as guidelines.
Modeling Instruction meets and in many ways exceeds NSES Standards in teacher
training, pedagogy and curriculum content. As evidence, the Modeling Instruction Program was
evaluated by two Panels of Experts commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education. In
September 2000, the Modeling Program was rated as one of seven Exemplary or Promising K12 educational technology programs out of 134 programs reviewed. In January 2001, the
Modeling Program was one of two K-12 science programs out of 27 in the nation to receive an
Exemplary rating from the Dept. of Education. Ratings were based on these criteria: (l) Quality
of Program, (2) Educational Significance, (3) Evidence of Effectiveness, and (4) Usefulness to
Others. The Expert Panel report is available at
http://quine.enc.org/web_graphics/documents/ART/002978/exemplary2001_1.pdf.
A 16-page document entitled "Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project" includes research
data and graphs providing evidence of effectiveness; it can be downloaded at the Research and
Evaluation section of http://modeling.asu.edu. Published papers on Modeling Instruction can be
downloaded there; suggested first is Ref. 9.
We have objective data on achievement of more than 20,000 students in physics courses
of hundreds of teachers in high schools, colleges and universities through the United States. (In
addition to the reports above, see Refs. 6 and 11.) Results strongly support these conclusions:
(1) Before physics instruction, students hold naive beliefs about motion and force that are
incompatible with Newtonian concepts in most respects.
(2) Such beliefs are a major determinant of student performance in introductory courses.
(3) Traditional (lecture - standard lab - demonstration) instruction induces only a small change in
beliefs. This result is largely independent of instructors' knowledge, experience and teaching
styles.
(4) Much greater changes in student beliefs can be induced with Modeling Instruction, a method
derived from educational research.
Much of Modeling Instruction is generic to all the sciences and to mathematics. Thus the
same conclusions are expected to hold for physical science courses. Indeed, teachers in our
physical science Modeling Workshop have written that: "Students in my physical science classes
have shown a resounding improvement in analytical skills since I have incorporated Modeling
(esp. Underpinnings) into the curriculum." As objective evidence of success, in 2000-2001,
Dawn Harman and Hal Eastin, teachers in the Glendale Union High School District, taught four
sections of 9th grade science using Modeling Instruction; 100% and 96% of their students
respectively achieved a "successful", "very successful", or "outstanding" grade on the district
Performance Based Assessment. (The average district percentage was 73%.)
The physical science Modeling Workshop addresses many Arizona professional teaching,
science, math, and technology standards. Appendix A lists some examples.
2. Procedures and Timeline:
Participant selection: Physical and earth science and mathematics teachers in all schools
will be invited to apply for the workshop by --USD's staff development specialist, ----. They will
be selected competitively by --USD's program area coordinators in science and mathematics, ---and ----. Two categories of individuals will receive preference: potential teacher - leaders (who
have ability and interest in mentoring student interns, student teachers, and/or new teachers), and
teachers who need to become highly qualified under the No Child Left Behind Act. School-level
teams of a math and a science teacher will be given preference, because research shows that the
best follow-up is daily interaction of teachers about the reform. In other words, teacher networks
are the most effective means for consolidating and sustaining reform (Adams, 2000).
Successful applicants will be given a letter for their Principal, to acquaint him/her with
the project design, inform him of the value to the school because improved coordination between
science and math teachers will contribute to better performance on AIMS tests (since students
will have opportunity to learn math concepts in science contexts).
Project activities: The workshop will be held from June 7 - 25 at --- High School.
Teachers will meet daily for 4.5 hours. Three to four hours of homework will be assigned daily.
During the academic year, teachers will meet in a large group on three Saturdays with
workshop leaders, for carefully planned activities to deepen the learning. Teachers will question
and debate, and share materials, methods, and reflections on progress. They will be encouraged
to study samples of student work, evaluate effectiveness of instructional materials, and modify
and re-design instructional materials for future use. Teachers will be asked (and substitutes will
be paid) to visit classrooms of leaders or an expert teacher, and to request informal advice from
them. Workshop leaders will assess commitment and effectiveness of participants in
implementing their workshop learning, and provide feedback and support to participants.
For long-term professional development, teachers will subscribe to a national listserve of
teachers, managed by AzSTEP staff.
Timeline:
* Feb. and March 2004: --USD staff announce workshop and provide application form. Program
area coordinators in science and math select participating teachers.
* April - May: science students take Physical Science Concept Inventory (PSCI), and math
students take Math Concepts Inventory (MCI) to get baseline data.
* Week of June 4: workshop leaders meet.
* June 7 - 25: the Modeling Workshop is held.
* August: science students take PSCI pretest, math students take MCI.
* Academic year: three Saturday large-group meetings. Visitations to expert teachers.
* March 2005 (or earlier, if appropriate): students take posttests (PSCI and MCI).
Contact time is about 80 hours (including classroom visitation), plus individual work
(readings, written reflections, learning technology, adapting instructional materials for their
courses), totaling about 135 hours of effort.
Composition and role of project personnel: The P.I., Dr. Jane Jackson, will direct and oversee all aspects
Workshops for more than a decade. He directed development of the design and content of this
course for several years by Action Research teams of expert high school teachers. Dr. Hestenes
will oversee continued development of its content, at no cost to the grant.
The peer teaching principle holds that professionals are best taught by peers who are
exceptionally well-versed in the objectives, methods and problems of the profession.
Accordingly, the Modeling Workshop is taught by two expert inservice high school teachers in
the district: -----, the lead teacher in science, and ------, the co-leader in math. ------ is a
Presidential Science Awardee and has co-led a Modeling Workshop at ASU.
Evaluation will be done by Dr. ------, a Ph.D. in educational statistics, and by Jane
Jackson. An experienced part-time Program Coordinator, Ms. ------, will order workshop
materials, take care of logistics, document production and records, and arrange for payments. A
student will assist staff with materials preparation and data entry.
Instructional methods and materials: The workshop is a Methods of Physical Science
Teaching course that addresses many aspects of teaching, including integration of teaching
methods with course content as it should be done in the classroom. The workshop incorporates
up-to-date results of science and mathematics education research, exemplary curriculum
materials, use of technology, and experience in collaborative learning and guidance. Appendix B
is a summary.
Participants are introduced to the Modeling Method as a systematic approach to the
design of curriculum and instruction. The name Modeling Instruction expresses an emphasis on
making and using conceptual models of physical phenomena as central to learning and doing
science. Adoption of “models and modeling” as a unifying theme for science and mathematics
education is recommended by both NSES and NCTM Standards as well as AAAS Project 2061.
However, to our knowledge, no other program has implemented it so thoroughly.
Thematic strands woven into the course include scientific modeling, structure of matter,
energy, and use of computers as scientific tools. Mathematics instruction is integrated seamlessly
throughout the entire course by a systematic development of mathematical models – alternating
between analyzing the mathematical structure of a model and its application to make sense of
real phenomena and data.
Content of an entire semester course is reorganized around basic models to increase its
structural coherence. Participants are supplied with a complete set of course materials. The
course includes these models and modeling activities. (The first two are sometimes called
"Underpinnings" for high school sciences.)
1. Modeling geometric properties of matter: length, area and volume
2. Modeling physical properties of matter: mass and density
3. A small particle model of solids, liquids and gases
4. Transfer of energy in relation to states of matter.
The workshop will follow the proven format of previous Modeling Workshops.
Participants alternate between student mode, in which they work through key lessons in the
various units, and teacher mode, during which they discuss pedagogical issues surrounding the
design and implementation of the course, as well as become familiar with necessary classroom
technology. Appendix C is a tentative course syllabus/calendar, which aligns with Arizona gradelevel science standards and with school district standards.
Exemplary research-based materials and resources from which the course is drawn are
Introductory Physical Science by Uri Haber-Schaim et al (Science Curriculum Inc., Belmont
MA, 1999; www.sci-ips.com), Preconceptions in Mechanics: Lessons Dealing with Conceptual
Difficulties by Charles Camp and John Clement (Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque Iowa,1994), Teaching
Introductory Physics by Arnold Arons (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997). NSF funded
research projects that influence the course are PRISMS (www.prisms.uni.edu) and Constructing
Physics Understanding (cpuproject.sdsu.edu; adaptation of "Underpinnings" by nationally
recognized expert physics teacher - researcher, Jim Minstrell).
Student activities are organized into modeling cycles, which engage students systematically
in all aspects of modeling. A modeling cycle is described at <http://modeling.asu.edu>. The
teacher guides students unobtrusively through each modeling cycle, with an eye to improving the
quality of student discourse by insisting on accurate use of scientific terms, on clarity and
cogency of expressed ideas and arguments. Instruction with the modeling cycle repairs a common
deficiency in methods of collaborative inquiry by showing precisely how to conduct scientific
inquiry systematically. After a few cycles, students know how to proceed with an investigation
without prompting from the teacher. The main job of the teacher is then to supply them with
more powerful modeling tools. Lecturing is restricted to scaffolding new concepts and principles
on a need basis. Documents that describe the Modeling Method are posted at
<http://modeling.asu.edu>.
The workshop will be held in a science classroom that has lab equipment and several
computers and motion detectors. Teachers will have a high tech and a low tech option when
appropriate. They will learn to use the popular Graphical Analysis software.
3. Evaluation:
A thorough objective evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction in the classes of
participants will be conducted. For science students, this includes assessment of student
understanding of conservation of volume, models of measurement, graphing, structure of matter,
and related mathematics skills (especially graphical representation of motion and proportional
reasoning). The instrument used is the Physical Science Concepts Inventory (PSCI), constructed
in 2000 and revised last in 2003 by Action Research teams of expert high school teachers who
use Modeling Instruction. It consists of released questions from TIMSS, NAEP, and other
research-based instruments including questions recommended by Anton Lawson, Professor of
Biology at ASU, from his Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning. The PSCI has very high
reliability.
Science teachers are asked to give the PSCI to students in their classes before they start
the workshop, to establish a baseline; they give it to students in the following academic year as a
pretest and posttest. To evaluate effectiveness of math instruction, mathematics teachers are
asked to give students the Math Concepts Inventory (MCI), a similar test consisting of
appropriate questions from research-based instruments; most questions are similar to AIMS
questions. Both inventories are online in pdf format (password protected) at
http://modeling.asu.edu/MNS/MNS.html.
To assess participants’ increased content knowledge, all teachers will take the PSCI and
MCI as a pretest on the first workshop day and as a posttest.
During the workshop, each participant will be asked to keep a daily logbook of problems
solved, labs done, and personal notes and reactions to the labs and activities; also summaries and
reflections on the readings, and comments on expected student difficulties and how to address
them. Peer leaders will evaluate logbooks periodically by scoring rubrics addressing
completeness of assignments and degree of understanding of implications of using the Modeling
Method.
Participants will be asked to complete a Modeling Instruction survey during the academic
year to assess their use of elements of the modeling method. Findings of this survey and their
workshop evaluations, along with teachers' test scores and gains, and findings of leaders and
mentors regarding follow-up sessions, will be submitted in the Project final report and to the
school district. Student test data will be disaggregated according to race/ethnicity and gender to
determine achievement of underrepresented groups. Student test results in numerical form with
statistical analysis and narrative interpretation will be submitted in the Project final report and to
the school district for use in future decision-making about professional development activities.
Objectives
Increased content knowledge of teachers
in structure of matter, energy, graphing,
& related math skills (particularly
graphical and algebraic representations of
models).
Activity
Time
Measure
Teacher
workshop
June 7-25
PSCI and MCI: pre- and
post-tests;
teacher logbooks
Improved instructional strategies,
including effective classroom discourse
management and content organization.
Teacher logbooks;
workshop evaluation
survey
Improved instructional strategies,
including effective classroom discourse
management and content organization.
structured
teacher
follow-up
meetings
between
Modeling Instruction
August
Survey; reports by
and March workshop leaders on
follow-up meetings
Increased student achievement
Student
assessment
April
2004 to
Mar '05
PSCI and MCI baseline,
pretests, posttests
4. Dissemination will be at state level and nationally. At the state level, dissemination entails
expansion to other school districts. The Principal Investigator has many contacts among expert
Arizona teachers that are being cultivated for future partnerships.
A strong foundation for dissemination at the national level has been laid by the Modeling
Instruction Program's NSF-funded Science and Technology Education Partnerships (STEPs)
grant, which has cultivated nascent partnerships throughout the country that look to AzSTEP as
an exemplar. Every success of AzSTEP is a lesson and encouragement to them.
To sustain this project: teachers can download field-tested instructional materials at a
web site, and teachers will subscribe to a modeling listserv for junior high and 9th grade teachers.
Ultimately, long-term professional development of teachers will require leadership at the highest
levels to institutionalize mechanisms for continuous improvement in K-12 schools.
General References: National and Arizona
Adams, Jacob E, Taking Charge of Curriculum, Teachers College Press, 2000.
Bogert, Becky et al. NAU Symposium on Systemic Reform in Science & Math Education, ABOR
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Congress. (1998). Unlocking Our
Future: Toward a New National Science Policy. Washington DC: U.S. Congress.
Glenn, Senator John, Chairman. Glenn Commission Report: Before It's Too Late: A Report to the
Nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st
Century (2000). Online in pdf at <http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn>
Luft, Julie et al, Approaches to Systemic Reform of Science and Mathematics Teacher
Preparation and Professional Development at the Arizona Regents Universities. ABOR
(1997)
National Research Council, National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press,
Washington DC (1996).
National Research Council, Designing Mathematics or Science Curriculum Programs, a Guide
for Using Mathematics and Science Education Standards, Natl Academy Press, Wash. DC
(1999).
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
Reston, VA (2000).
Schifter, Deborah, Fosnot, C., Reconstructing Mathematics Education: Stories of Teachers
Meeting the Challenge of Reform, Teachers College Press (1993).
Sowell, E., Buss, R, Fedock, P, Johnson, G., Pryor, B., Wetzel, K., Zambo, R., K-12
Mathematics and Science Education in Arizona: A Status Report. ABOR (1995).
Sparks, Dennis, Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals,
National Staff Development Council (2000). www.nsdc.org/sparksbook.html
The Nation's Report Card 2000; also Report for Arizona: State Science 2000, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), National Center for Education Statistics (2000).
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Report issued by the US Dept. of
Education and the National Center for Educational Statistics (1998).
References on Modeling Instruction
[1] D. Hestenes and J. Jackson, Partnerships for Physics Teaching Reform –– a crucial role for
universities. In E. Redish & J. Rigden (Eds.) The changing role of the physics department in
modern universities. American Institute of Physics Part I (1997). p. 449-459.
[2] I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students, Am. J.
Phys. 53: 1043-1055 (1985).
[3] I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common Sense Concepts about Motion, Am. J. Phys. 53, 10561065 (1985).
[4] D. Hestenes, Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55: 440-454
('87)
[5] I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Modeling Instruction in Mechanics, Am.J.Phys 55:455-462
(1987)
[6] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, The Physics Teacher
(TPT) 30: 141-158 (1992).
[7] D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A Mechanics Baseline Test, TPT 30: 159-156 (1992).
[8] D. Hestenes, Modeling Games in the Newtonian World, Am. J. Phys. 60: 732-748 (1992).
[9] M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, A Modeling Method for High School Physics
Instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63: 606-619 (1995).
[10] 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 Part II (1997). p. 935-957.
[11] Richard 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).
Budget Explanation
1. Personnel:
Key: P.I. 1 month
Key: workshop leader: $200/day x 21 days = $4200
Key: workshop co-leader: $200/day x 21 days = $4200
Support: evaluator (FY @10%: $ 5100): 3 months @ 10%: $1275
Support: clerical (49% FTE: $14,024): $13.76 x 40 hours = $550
Support: undergraduate student: $8.50/hour x 100 hrs = $850
ERE: Faculty 25%, undergraduate 4%, part time 8%, temporary 8%.
Notes:
a) Workshop leaders are paid for 3 preparation days, 15 instructional days, 3 follow-up days.
b) ERE rates are fixed by ASU for grant purposes. Actual dollar amounts may differ.
c) Duties of each key and support personnel are described in Procedures section.
2, Participant Support
Stipends: $50 x 18 days x 26 teachers
Instructional Materials: (26 teachers)
teacher's manual
$15
large lab notebook
$10
3-ring binder, tab inserts
$5
whiteboards
$16
dry erase markers
$12
Eureka video/DVD
$50
Electronic pan balance
$110
Centimeter cubes (interlocking, plain) $45
MyChron stopclocks
$25
Volume relation set
$20
Introductory Physical Science textbook $50
Graphical Analysis software/site license: $80 x 7 middle schools = $560
4. Staff Travel: 2-day meeting in Phoenix for P.I.s: $100
5. Materials & Supplies:
NCS test answer sheets (1 box): $180
blank CD-ROMs for electronic version of teachers' manual; labels: $60
teaching materials for workshop (Camp & Clement's book $50; scale model of atom $75)
workshop supplies (nametags, scissors, tape: $80
6. Other Operating Expenditures: $50 to scan NCS answer sheets at ASU computer center
External commitments:
Arizona State University Summer Sessions: tuition waivers
Unified School District:
stipend for five expert teachers: $500 x 5 = $2500
substitute teachers for academic year classroom visitations: $91 x 10 days = $910
In-kind: use of HS lab rooms & facilities for 18 days; time of --USD staff for recruitment,
selection of participants, and follow-up; clerical; janitorial.
Appendix B: Synopsis of the MODELING METHOD
The Modeling Method aims to correct many weaknesses of the traditional lecture-demonstration
method, including the fragmentation of knowledge, student passivity, and the persistence of
naive beliefs about the physical world.
Coherent Instructional Objectives
• Engage students in understanding the physical world by constructing and using scientific
models to describe, to explain, to predict and to control physical phenomena.
• Provide students with basic conceptual tools for modeling physical objects and processes,
especially mathematical, graphical and diagrammatic representations.
• Familiarize students with a small set of basic models as the content core of physical science.
• Develop insight into the structure of scientific knowledge by examining how models fit into
theories.
• Show how scientific knowledge is validated by engaging students in evaluating scientific
models through comparison with empirical data.
• Develop skill in all aspects of modeling as the procedural core of scientific knowledge.
Student-Centered Instructional Design
• Instruction is organized into modeling cycles that move students through all phases of model
development, evaluation and application in concrete situations –– thus promoting an integrated
understanding of modeling processes and acquisition of coordinated modeling skills.
• The teacher sets the stage for student activities, typically with a demonstration and class
discussion to establish common understanding of a question to be asked of nature. Then, in small
groups, students collaborate in planning and conducting experiments to answer or clarify the
question.
• Students are required to present and justify their conclusions in oral and/or written form,
including a formulation of models for the phenomena in question and evaluation of the models
by comparison with data.
• Technical terms and concepts are introduced by the teacher only as they are needed to sharpen
models, facilitate modeling activities and improve the quality of discourse.
• The teacher is prepared with a definite agenda for student progress and guides student inquiry
and discussion in that direction with "Socratic" questioning and remarks.
 The teacher is equipped with a taxonomy of typical student misconceptions to be addressed
as students are induced to articulate, analyze and justify their personal beliefs.