Improving Teacher Quality PROPOSAL (submitted on April 3, 2006 to the Arizona Board of
Regents. Funded at $200,000 per year for two years. For sample budget, e-mail
Jane.Jackson@asu.edu)
Applicant/University or College: Arizona State University
Project Title: Improving the Quality of Arizona Teachers of Physics, Chemistry, Physical
Science, and Mathematics
Principal Investigator: ----Participating LEA’s: ----- High School District (the principal high-need LEA), some of its feeder
elementary districts, many urban, rural, and suburban schools in Arizona
Summary:
Seventy-five Arizona high school teachers of physics and chemistry and urban Phoenix eighth
and ninth grade teachers of science and mathematics will participate each summer for two years
in one of several three-week summer modeling workshops and other content courses in the
physical sciences with mathematical modeling, and three full-day follow-up sessions each year.
Teachers will improve their pedagogy by incorporating the modeling cycle, inquiry methods,
critical and creative thinking, cooperative learning, and sound use of classroom technology. They
will acquire a deep understanding of Arizona standards-based content. Modeling workshops
include thematic strands in scientific modeling, structure of matter, energy, and use of computers
as scientific tools, as well as discipline-specific content in the physical sciences. Mathematics
instruction is coupled to these strands through an emphasis on mathematical modeling. Increased
content knowledge and better instructional strategies of teachers will result in measured
improved learning of students. Horizontal and vertical coordination of science and mathematics
will be enhanced, out-of-field teachers will become more highly qualified, high-need LEAs will
be served, and high school teachers will improve content understanding needed to teach rigorous
advanced physics and chemistry courses.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Needs and Intended Outcomes.
The national crisis in K-12 math/science education depends most critically for its solution
on upgrading teacher competence. This fact is documented by the congressional Glenn
Commission and many other sources.[BHEF 2005, CED 2003, COS 1998, Milken 200, NRC
2005] It is a growing concern to education and business leaders; a coalition of U. S. information
technology CEOs, headed by Intel’s Craig Barrett, declared, “...teachers need more opportunities
and incentives to pursue intensive, content-based professional development, including stipends
and tuition for graduate credit.” [CSPP 2004].
Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne (2003) describes recruitment and retention of
qualified math/science teachers as a crisis. Only 25% of Arizona high school physics teachers
are physics or physics education majors, only half of chemistry teachers are chemistry majors.
Thus these subjects are taught in most cases by out-of-field teachers.[Ingersoll 2002, Neuschatz
1
et al 2003] Given the insufficient numbers of incoming majors in these fields, coupled with the
rapid increase in population (particularly in Maricopa County), the upgrading of current teachers
is urgent. The Governor’s and business community's intent to develop Arizona as a high-tech and
biotech center makes physics and chemistry education critical since these are the basis of all
sciences, engineering and technology.[AZ-TQS 2005, Rodel 2004, many local newspaper
articles]
Conventional lecture and laboratory activities do not prepare students well for the rigors
of quantitative science in college,[ADE 2005, NAEP 2000, NCES 2000, PISA, TIMSS;
Bransford et al 1999 explain why] and industry rightly complains that new employees lack
quantitative, scientific, and critical thinking skills. ASU’s Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
[Hestenes et al 1992], used worldwide, shows that students bring to class naive beliefs
incompatible with Newtonian theory about the motion of physical objects.[Halloun 2004,
Halloun & Hestenes 1985a,1985b] The average FCI pretest score is about 25%, just above the
guessing rate of 20% and well below the 60% threshold for understanding Newtonian mechanics.
Traditional instruction has little effect; average posttest scores in Arizona range from 35% to
40%, and nationwide are only a few percentage points higher.[Hake 1998, Hestenes 2000]
Some larger Arizona high schools offer three levels of physics and chemistry: regular
(algebra-based), honors (with trigonometry), and AP, IB or other second year course. Increasing
numbers of Arizona teachers need content and pedagogy preparation for second-year courses as a
result of the U.S. Dept. of Education’s AP initiative and parental demand.
How needs were determined: By maintaining ten-year contact with most of the 260
Arizona physics high school teachers, by phone and e-mail surveys, the Modeling Instruction
Program has determined needs and addressed them in summer Modeling Workshops that were
funded in large part by the National Science Foundation (NSF). A statewide e-mail listserver
that includes all physics teachers and 200 chemistry teachers keeps teachers informed of
discipline-related events and opportunities, and job openings. This contact is vital because, even
in large urban and suburban high schools, physics teachers are isolated. Most high schools have
only one physics teacher, and that teacher commonly teaches other subjects such as chemistry,
physical science, earth/space science, and mathematics.[Neuschatz et al 2003] Many high
schools have only one or two chemistry teachers. Many rural schools have only one teacher for
all the physical sciences. In 2006 a survey revealed that Arizona physics and chemistry teachers
consider upgrading knowledge in their fields as their most needed summer education activity,
and they stressed that they need it without a large tuition burden because their salaries are low.
Why this intervention: This project supports partnerships to enhance the content
knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technology skills, and retention of major and out-offield teachers, both veteran and incoming, with highest priority on teachers in high need (high
poverty) LEAs.
ASU’s Department of Physics created the Master of Natural Science (MNS) program for
teachers’ graduate professional development, for degree and non-degree seeking students alike.
Four features make it a unique state resource: (1) quality science teaching; strong science
content; (2) high relevance to classroom instruction; (3) accessibility to teachers statewide; and
(4) meeting and exceeding national and state standards.[Garet et al 2001, Sparks 2000] The MNS
program prepares high school physics, chemistry, and physical science teachers to lead science
education reform in their schools and districts. It is designed to meet the needs of in-service
teachers with studies in contemporary science, interdisciplinary science, effective pedagogy, use
2
of technology, and in leadership and community building. The program is intended primarily as
life-long professional development. Studies show that, even for well-prepared professionals, a
program of deliberate practice for ten years is required to achieve expertise.[Ericsson & Charness
1994] Information for the MNS program is at <http://modeling.asu.edu/MNS/MNS.html>,
The graduate program is founded on Modeling Workshops in physics, chemistry, and
physical science; these Methods of Teaching courses address all aspects of high school teaching
and are immediately useful in the classroom. The courses include current results of science
education research, best high school curriculum materials, effective use of technology, and
experience in collaborative learning and guidance. Each workshop includes content for one
semester. The main objective is to give a robust teaching methodology; the first goal is to
acquaint teachers with all aspects of the modeling method and develop skill in implementing
it.[Wells et al 1995, Hestenes 1987,1997] A second goal is to deepen their content knowledge,
which is particularly important for out-of-field teachers. Even Ph.D.'s in the subject report that
they learn much, in part because their own schooling has not been model-based but focused on
topics and is consequently superficial and incoherent. A third goal is to school teachers in the use
of classroom technology, so that students learn how to use the computer as a scientific tool for
data acquisition, analysis and modeling.
The Methods courses fill a serious gap in teacher education. As asserted by the National
Standards: "Effective science teaching is more than knowing science content and some teaching
strategies. Skilled teachers of science have special understandings and abilities that integrate their
knowledge of science content, curriculum, learning, teaching, and students. Such knowledge
allows teachers to tailor learning situations to the needs of individuals and groups. This special
knowledge, called "pedagogical content knowledge," distinguishes the science knowledge of
teachers from that of scientists. It is one element that defines a professional teacher of science. In
addition to solid knowledge of science, teachers of science must have a firm grounding in
learning theory –– understanding how learning occurs and is facilitated."[NRC 1996; also
Bransford et al 1999]
Scientifically-based Modeling Instruction has been evaluated by two expert panels of the
U.S. Department of Education, who rated it as one of seven promising educational technology
programs out of 134 evaluated (in 2000) and as one of two exemplary K-12 science programs out
of 27 evaluated (in 2001), based on (1) Program Quality, (2) Educational Significance, (3)
Evidence of Effectiveness, and (4) Usefulness to Others. [DoED 2001; web link at
modeling.asu.edu]
Modeling Instruction is one of two high school physics programs deemed effective in
improving student achievement, based on a study by the Urban Institute. [Clewell 2004]
As evidence of statewide success, about 60 Arizona urban, rural, and suburban physics
teachers participated in ABOR-funded modeling workshops in 1998-2000 at ASU, NAU, and
UA. As measured by students' posttest scores on the FCI, teachers in their first and second years
of modeling instruction outperformed traditional instructors, and their students' understanding of
the force concept doubled compared to conventional instruction. This agrees with evidence from
more than 20,000 students nationwide. Research shows that teachers who implement Modeling
Instruction the most fully have the highest student FCI scores.[Hestenes 2000]
Specific outcomes of the project: The intended outcomes correspond to identified needs.
1. Teachers increase content knowledge, learn better instructional strategies, attain expertise in
the scientific use of classroom technology, and implement this learning in the classroom.
3
2. Students improve understanding of content, rather than memorize and forget. Long-term,
more students take physics or chemistry, and enrollment of underserved students increases.
Procedures and Timeline.
Activities are based on reviews of scientifically based research; and research findings
referenced above are augmented by other studies cited in published articles. Integrating
mathematics and science concepts in courses is a cornerstone of our work; it improves student
achievement [Schwartz et al, 2004], and is stressed in National Science Education Standards
[NRC 1996] and Professional Standards for Mathematics [NCTM 2000]. 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." Activities are aligned with recommendations in
ABOR reports. [Bogart et al 1997, Sowell et al 1995, Luft et al, 1997] Thus Luft 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 -- a key characteristic of Modeling
Workshops.
The project is in full accord with National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Standards
adopted by Governor Napolitano’s Teacher Quality and Support Committee (AZ-TQS 2005).
Collaboration and announcement of program: The Modeling Instruction Program has
collaborated for several years with the chief LEA partner, --- High School District (--HSD), and
has informal relationships with its feeder districts via teachers who have taken modeling
workshops -[Hestenes & Jackson 1997] --HSD physics, chemistry and physical science teachers
have been invited to apply by --HSD science specialist ----. (Appendix A is her letter.) All
physics teachers in Arizona have been invited to apply by Co-PI Jane Jackson, as have chemistry
teachers in Maricopa County and 8th grade science and math teachers in high-need districts in
urban Phoenix. Appendix B is a list of 70 applicants and their statements of need.
Participant selection: Teachers will be selected competitively by PIs. Four categories of
teachers will receive preference: (1) teachers in high-need districts, (2) teachers who need to
become highly qualified under the No Child Left Behind Act, (3) out-of-field teachers (who may
be 'highly qualified' on paper but lack adequate content and/or pedagogy training), and (4)
teachers who must prepare to teach advanced physics or chemistry courses, since advanced
courses are being promoted by the U.S. Department of Education in its AP initiative. Successful
applicants will be given a letter for their Principal to inform him/her of the project design and the
value to the school.
Duration: A flexible, coordinated plan of courses for ASU graduate credit is provided
over two years. Appendix C is a list of courses. Modeling workshops are held for three weeks,
June 12-30 or July 10-28, at ASU. Teachers meet daily for 4.5 to six hours and have daily
homework. All participants are expected to implement the course in the following school year.
Integrated science and contemporary science courses, held during the second summer session,
deepen and broaden teachers’ content knowledge, fill in gaps in understanding, and introduce
teachers to 20th century science. During the academic year, teachers will meet on three Saturdays
with course leaders, engaging in inquiry to deepen the learning. Contact time is 70 to 105 hours,
plus individual work (readings of research articles, written reflections, learning technology,
adapting instructional materials to their courses), totaling 135 hours per course. Teachers will be
4
subscribed to an e-mail listserver (1400 subscribers worldwide) for ongoing professional
development.
Activities: Grant activities are clearly focused on the Arizona Academic Achievement
Standards. The project’s limited objectives are accomplished by providing professional
development activities in the specific disciplines and their related pedagogy. The MNS program
vertically coordinates physical science, physics and chemistry courses from grades 8 through 12,
and horizontally integrates these courses with mathematics. The vertical physical science
coordination has three thematic strands: modeling, structure of matter, and energy. The
modeling strand is modeling instruction methodology. Structure of matter is a major curriculum
theme by the NSES for student understanding of nanoscience and molecular biology. Energy is a
unifying concept in all sciences and engineering. Mathematics is integrated with physical science
through systematic development of mathematical models. Though the NCTM Standards
recommend an emphasis on math models, this can be done only by coupling to science.
PHS 534/MTE 598 enables mathematics and science teachers of grade eight and nine to
provide students with the conceptual underpinnings needed for success in high school physics
and chemistry and develops basic scientific literacy for students who don't go on to physics and
chemistry. It establishes a much-needed curricular link between high schools and their feeder
schools. A syllabus/calendar is at <http://modeling.asu.edu/MNS/MNS.html>.
Timeline:
*Feb. & March 2006: ASU staff announced workshop and invited teachers to apply.
*April 21 & 24: e-mail announcement to teachers who expressed interest and others in data base.
*June12-30, July 5-August 1, July 10-28, Modeling Workshops and advanced courses.
*August: science students take pretest of appropriate concept inventory
*Academic year: scheduled all-day Saturday meetings. Teams plan lessons together.
*March 2007 (or Dec., if semester block): students take posttest of same concept inventory.
Composition and roles of project personnel: PI ---- will oversee the program and teach an
integrated science course each summer for physics and chemistry teachers. Co-PI --- will
collaborate with Dr. --- and ---- on development and teaching of chemistry workshops and
content courses. Dr. David Hestenes, founder of the Modeling Instruction Program, will oversee
continued development of content of workshops at no cost to the grant. All are engaged in
science and math education research. Co-PI Dr. Jane Jackson will direct daily operations and
manage finances. She has ten years experience organizing modeling workshops. Lead teacher -- (--- High School) will teach the chemistry modeling workshop. He has been involved in the
Modeling Instruction Program since its inception and served as a Co-PI, and has been recognized
nationally with a Presidential Teaching Award.
The peer teaching principle espoused by the NSES holds that professionals are best
taught by peers exceptionally well-versed in the objectives, methods and problems of the
profession rather than university faculty not familiar with the high school environment. Thus
Modeling Workshops are taught by two expert in-service teachers. Other courses are taught by
ASU faculty.
Evaluation will be done by ----, Graduate Research Associate in Educational Statistics for
the ASU College of Education. She will be trained by Dr. ---, the Modeling Instruction Program
evaluator for the last ten years. Dr. --- is Assistant Professor of Assessment and Evaluation in the
ASU College of Teacher Education and Leadership. Experienced part-time Program Coordinator
Ms. --- will order workshop materials, manage document production and records, and assist in
5
processing payments. A student will assist staff with materials preparation and data entry.
Teachers will benefit by the expertise of a chemistry education professor from Hebrew
University and a Canadian physics and math education professor here on sabbatical for both
summers and academic year to do research with Modeling Instruction staff.
Instructional methods and materials: Each modeling workshop is a Methods of Physical Science,
Physics, or Chemistry Teaching course that includes integration of teaching methods with course
content as it should be done in the classroom. (Appendix D is a summary.) Content of a semester
course is re-organized around basic models to increase its structural coherence. Teachers are
given model-centered educative curriculum materials (resources)[Schneider et al 2000, 2002] and
alternate between student mode, in which they work through key lessons, and teacher mode,
discussing pedagogical issues. Student activities are organized into modeling cycles, described at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling-HS.html>. Alignments with the Arizona science standards
for grade 8 and high school are described at <http://modeling.asu.edu/MNS/MNS.html>. Courses
are held in classrooms at ASU that have lab equipment, computers with MBL probes, and
24”x32” whiteboards. In most cases teachers are given high and low tech options for lab
activities.
Evaluation.
Thorough assessment practices of the Modeling Instruction Program and normative
evaluation are built into course design with daily feedback between instructor and student. In
Modeling Workshops, each participant will keep a daily logbook of problems solved, labs done,
and personal notes and reactions to the labs and activities; summaries and reflections on the
readings, and comments on expected student difficulties and how to address them. Peer leaders
evaluate logbooks periodically by scoring rubrics addressing completeness of assignments and
degree of understanding of the modeling method of instruction.
Summative assessment of teacher understanding of content includes the FCI and other
inventories as pretest and posttest. Advanced content courses have final exams or projects.
Summative evaluation of teacher effectiveness includes assessment of student
performance on instruments such as the FCI.[Gusky 2000] The FCI is well established, with an
extensive data base to support objective evaluation comparing results from thousands of high
schools throughout the world. The FCI is suitable for assessing physics courses. Teachers will
give all inventories as pre-test and post-test.
The main instrument for assessing teaching practice is the Reformed Teaching
Observation Protocol (RTOP), developed and validated at ASU over several years.[Piburn et al
2000] Administered by a trained observer, it assesses the degree to which teaching conforms to
reformed teaching practices advocated by the NSES and AAAS Project 2061. RTOP scores for
introductory science courses have been shown to correlate highly with objective measures of
student learning such as the FCI. This is the strongest objective evidence for correlation between
teaching practice and student learning.
Dr. --- of --- is external evaluator. He has no connection with this project. He will hire an
experienced evaluator and trainer in use of RTOP to administer it to a sample of teachers. He will
review our in-house evaluations and the overall functioning of the project as well as the local
impact of the project on teachers and students.
6
Participants will be asked to complete a Modeling Instruction implementation survey to
assess their use of the modeling method. Findings of this survey, workshop evaluations, teachers'
and students' test scores and gains, and RTOP scores will be submitted in the Project final report.
7
Measurable objective
Increased content knowledge of teachers
Activity
Teacher
course
Timeline
June, July
Improved
instructional
strategies,
including effective classroom discourse
management and content organization.
Improved
instructional
strategies,
including effective classroom discourse
management and content organization.
Improved student understanding
structured
follow-up
meetings
Student
assessment
data, analysis method
FCI,
other
concept
inventories: pre- and
post-tests;
teacher
logbooks
academic
years
Teacher logbooks; course
evaluation surveys
Modeling
Instruction
Survey; RTOP
academic
years
student pretests, posttests
(same instruments)
Indicators for continuation of the project are full participation by most teachers in followup sessions, Modeling Instruction implementation survey level of "frequent use," and average
student posttest FCI (in physics courses) of 45% or higher. Mean student FCI posttest scores
typically increase for three or four years before reaching a plateau.
Dissemination and Sustainability.
Dissemination at local and state levels entails expansion to other schools. The Modeling
Instruction staff have many contacts with schools and expert Arizona teachers that are cultivated
for partnerships. Project results will be made available to interested parties; e.g., the ADE,
schools of participants, and the Arizona Science Teachers Association. Modeling Instruction staff
cooperate with counterparts at the University of Arizona (UA), and the UA physics teacher
preparation program incorporates Modeling Instruction.
Sustainability of the project is built into the MNS program. Moreover, CRESMET has an
NSF Math-Science Partnership grant to expand the MNS in physics to all sciences and
mathematics, and to build content-based learning communities of teachers. In 2003, ASU
President Michael Crow established the Office of University - School Partnerships. Of ASU's
four goals in strengthening preK-12 education in Arizona schools, one is to develop high quality
teachers and strong school leaders.[Crow 2003] Since these are goals of the Modeling Instruction
Program, we are working with this office to form a coherent vision.
REFERENCES
Arizona Department of Education. AIMS results, Science Standards (ADE 2005).
www.ade.az.gov
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s Teacher Quality and Support Committee (AZ-TQS 2005)
adopted the National Staff Development Council standards. http://www.governor.state.az.us/tqs/
Bogert, Becky et al. (1997). NAU Symposium on Systemic Reform in Science & Math Education,
Arizona Board of Regents. Available www.abor.azregents.edu
8
Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. (Eds) (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Business-Higher Education Forum, (BHEF2005) A Commitment to America’s
Future:Responding to the Crisis in Mathematics and Science Education. Available:
http://www.bhef.com
CSPP (2004), Choose to Compete, p.18. Available: www.cspp.org. The Computer Systems
Policy Project (CSPP) is an advocacy organization of Chairs and CEOs from Dell, EMC,
Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Motorola, NCR, and Unisys and other leading information
technology companies.
Clewell, Beatriz, Cosentino de Cohen, C., et al (2004). Review of Evaluation Studies of
Mathematics and Science Curricula and Professional Development Models. Urban Institute
study submitted to the GE Foundation in December 2004. Available at http://www.urban.org
Committee for Economic Development (CED 2003). Learning for the Future: Changing the
Culture of Math and Science Education to Ensure a Competitive Workforce. Available:
http://www.ced.org/
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Congress. (COS1998). Unlocking
Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy. Washington DC: U.S. Congress.
Crow, M. (2003). President Crow wrote, "These goals must be represented at the highest levels
of the university." Our extensive experience 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 require high quality content-related staff
development, such as lesson study promoted by TIMSS, and inquiry groups advocated by the
Glenn Commission.
Ericsson, K. and Charness, N. (1994). “Expert performance, its structure and acquisition,” Am.
Psychologist 49, 725-47.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., and Yoon, K. (2001). What Makes Professional
Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers, American Educational
Research Journal 38: 915-945.
Glenn Commission (2000). Before It’s Too Late; A Report to the Nation from The National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/index.html
9
Guskey, T. (2000) Evaluating Professional Development. Corwin Press, Inc., Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six thousand-student survey
of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74.
Halloun, I. (2004). Modeling Theory in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Halloun, I. and Hestenes, D. (1985a). Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students, Am.
J. Phys. 53: 1043-1055.
Halloun, I. and Hestenes, D. (1985b). Common Sense Concepts about Motion, Am. J. Phys. 53,
1056-1065.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55: 440454.
Hestenes, D. (1997). 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, p. 935-957.
Hestenes, D. (2000). Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project (1994-2000). Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation. Available: http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/
Hestenes, D. and Jackson, J. (1997). 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, Part I (449-459). American Institute of Physics.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory, The Physics
Teacher 30: 141-158.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-of-Field Teaching, Educational Inequity, and the Organization of
Schools, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Available: www.ctpweb.org. Nationwide,
almost 60% of physics, chemistry, and earth science teachers are out of field, lacking even a
minor in the subject.
Luft, Julie et al (1997). Approaches to Systemic Reform of Science and Mathematics Teacher
Preparation and Professional Development at the Arizona Regents Universities. ABOR.
Available: www.abor.azregents.edu
Milken Family Foundation (2000). How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom back into
Discussions of Teacher Quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available:
http://www.ets.org/research/
10
Modeling (2005), Home page: http://modeling.asu.edu. After a deliberative process of more than
two years by a Panel of Experts commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in January
2001 the Modeling Instruction Project was the only high school science program in the nation to
receive an exemplary rating.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP 2000). The Nation's Report Card 2000.
Also Report for Arizona: State Science 2000. Reports by the National Center for Education
Statistics.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES 2000). NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic
Progress: Three Decades of Academic Performance, NCES 2000-469. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics, Reston, VA.
National Research Council (NRC1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC 2005). Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. In this congressionally requested report, see
“Ten Thousand Teachers, Ten Million Minds: Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving
K-12 mathematics and science education.” National Academy Press. Available:
http://www.nap.edu
National Staff Development Council (NSDC). http://www.nsdc.org/library/standards2001.pdf
Neuschatz, M & McFarling, M (2003). Broadening the Base, American Institute of Physics.
Findings from the 2001 nationwide survey of high school physics teachers.
Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., and Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed
Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), ACEPT IN-003. The RTOP rubric form, training, and
statistical reference manuals are available at http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu/rtop/
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) data source: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/
Rodel Foundation (2004). Lead With Five: Five Investments to Improve Arizona Education. The
second big step is: Prepare and Recognize Teachers for High Performance. Available:
www.rodelfoundationaz.org
Schwartz, D., Martin, T., and Pfaffman, J. (2004). How Mathematics Propels the Development
of Physical Knowledge, Journal of Cognition and Development.
11
Schneider, R., Krajcik, J., and Marx, R. (2000). The Role of Educative Curriculum Materials in
Reforming Science Education. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds), Fourth
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (p. 54-60). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneider, R. and Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: the role of educative
curriculum materials, Journal of Science Teacher Education 13: 221-245.
Sowell, E., Buss, R, Fedock, P, Johnson, G., Pryor, B., Wetzel, K., Zambo, R. (1995). K-12
Mathematics and Science Education in Arizona: A Status Report. ABOR.
www.abor.azregents.edu
Sparks, D. (2000). Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals,
National Staff Development Council. Available: http://www.nsdc.org/sparksbook.html
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 1998). Report issued by the U.S.
Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics. http://timss.bc.edu/
U.S. Dept of Education Expert Panel (DoED 2001). Expert Panel Review: Modeling Instruction
in High School Physics. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/math-science.html
Wells, M., Hestenes, D., and Swackhamer, G. (1995). A Modeling Method for High School
Physics Instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63: 606-619.
12
APPENDIX B: LIST OF TEACHERS AND THEIR NEEDS
73 teachers applied to take courses if this project is funded. 80% are out-of-field
and/or teach in high-need districts or schools. Of the 62 high school teachers, 1/3 have a
degree in biology; 1/8 in physics or chemistry. Primary subjects taught: for 1/3 of these teachers,
chemistry; for 1/4, physics; and for 1/5, physical science.
COMMENTS BY ARIZONA HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS, ABOUT BEING NOT WELL QUALIFIED:
I am highly qualified to teach Physics on paper (and even passed the state subject exam), but at times I feel like I
have more questions than my students! I am only teaching Physics because my principal asked me to, but the last
modeling course I took certainly made the prospect of teaching Physics far more enjoyable....
--, a Title I school. Her degree is in biology.)
--- wrote: "Thanks to taking Physics modeling course work I am highly qualified in Physics; I am certified in general
science, so I need more hours to be highly qualified in Chemistry." Next year she'll teach chemistry 1, 2, physics,
precalculus, and reading. Her degree is in general science.
--- wrote: I have a masters in Chemistry and have taken two physics courses since I graduated. I do not feel like I am
an expert in this area [physics] but have taught it for several years.
I'm qualified on paper, but don't feel it. It's been many years since I was in my last Chem or Physics class-- well over
7 years for both. The content and examples I was taught in college are a bit beyond my ability to explain to my
students and leave me feeling comfortable that they reached the level I would like them to reach.
-- ---, physical science teacher at --- High School
I am not highly qualified because I have to pass the AEPA -mathematics. I am Emergency Certified right now and
expect to be next year too! I will work towards the Science cert. probably in Physics.
-- --- (Her degree is in aerospace studies. She's teaching algebra and chemistry at --- High School, a Title I school.)
I am highly qualified teacher on paper, but I am always exploring how to improve student learning and incorporating
better teaching practices. I would love to experience modeling in the content of chemistry. I feel that I need to
experience the modeling method with chemistry myself in order to become a better practitioner.
---, chemistry teacher in ----.
My Bachelor's degree is actually in Religion, but I am certified (Post-Bac) to teach Chemistry. I want to take Chem
594 (July 10-28). I teach Chemistry and Physical Science at North, but may be teaching strictly Chemistry next year.
Please, please, please sign me up for the stipend should it become available! -- ----I have to get "highly qualified in at least chemistry and physics, while I already am in biology.
----- High School (her degree is in biology; she teaches all sciences)
I hold a Bachelor's in Interdisciplinary Studies with an emphasis in Criminal Justice and Recreation. I also obtained a
MAED (Master of Arts Special Education Cross Category). - ----, physical science teacher
I have a BS in Biology but have 18 hours of Physics undergrad work, I am highly qualified as I have the hours and
have passed the exam in Physics but I feel that I need more experience in teaching with new techniques. Living so far
from many Universities, I have few chances to increase my knowledge of Physics and Physics Teaching. Our school
is also beginning our AP Physics program this next year which also pushes me to increase my own education of the
subject. We are currently 80% plus in receiving free or reduced lunch.
-- ----, --- High School
13
Appendix C: ASU graduate program for teachers of the physical sciences
Complete information is at http://modeling.asu.edu/MNS/MNS.html
Master of Natural Science in Physics for inservice teachers
Eligibility. The program is open to inservice high school teachers who have completed collegelevel physics and one semester of introductory calculus. Under-prepared teachers can make up
deficiencies in regularly scheduled courses.
Requirements. A total of 30 graduate credits is required, selected from the Courses in physics
and physical science for teachers listed below.
A minimum of 15 credits must be taken in the “Teaching Methods” and “Integrated Science”
categories listed there. This must include
Six credits in “Methods of Physics Teaching,” unless courses with an equivalent emphasis on
physics pedagogy have been taken as an undergraduate.
An Action Research Project for two or three credits.
Six credits in Contemporary Physics.
Graduate courses in physics or other natural sciences can apply toward the remaining credits if
approved by the student’s supervisory committee.
Summer courses in physics, chemistry, and physical science for teachers
Category I: Teaching Methods in Physics
PHS 530: Methods of Teaching Physics I: mechanics (3 credits)
PHS 531: Methods of Teaching Physics II: electricity & magnetism (3)
PHS 534: Methods of Physical Science Teaching I, II (3, 3)
PHS 593: Action Research in Physical Science (1-3)
PHS 594: Electricity for Middle/Secondary Teachers (3)
PHS 594: Modeling Workshop in Waves (2 or 3)
PHS 594: Modeling Workshop in Light (3)
Category II: Integrated Science
PHS 505: Energy and the Environment (3)
PHS 540: Integrated Physics and Chemistry (3)
PHS 542: Integrated Mathematics and Physics (3)
PHS 550: Physics and Astronomy (3)
PHS 556: Astrophysics (3)
CHM 594: Modeling Instruction in High School Chemistry I, II (3, 2 or 3)
Category III: Contemporary Physics
PHS 560: Matter and Light (3)
PHS 564: Light and Electron Optics (3)
PHS 581: Structure of Matter and its Properties (3)
PHS 570: Spacetime Physics (3)
14
Appendix D: Synopsis of the MODELING METHOD
The Modeling Method aims to correct many weaknesses of the traditional lecturedemonstration method, including the fragmentation of knowledge, student passivity, and the
persistence of naive beliefs about the physical world.
Coherent Instructional Objectives
• To engage students in understanding the physical world by constructing and using
scientific models to describe, to explain, to predict and to control physical phenomena.
• To provide students with basic conceptual tools for modeling real objects and processes,
especially mathematical, graphical and diagrammatic representations.
• To familiarize students with a small set of basic models as the content core of science.
• To develop insight into the structure of scientific knowledge by examining how models fit
into theories.
• To show how scientific knowledge is validated by engaging students in evaluating
scientific models through comparison with empirical data.
• To develop skill in all aspects of modeling as the procedural core of scientific knowledge.
Student-Centered Instructional Design
• Instruction is organized into modeling cycles which 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 questions 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.
15