Title II, Part B Mathematics Science Partnerships
Project Title: Workshops for Modeling Instruction in Physics,
Physical Science and Chemistry
Name of Fiscal Agent LEA: Watauga County school district
Names of Partners: Caldwell, Buncombe, Durham, and Martin County school districts, North
Carolina New Schools Projecty and the Science House at North Carolina State University
A three-year project (summers 2008, 2009, 2010).
This introduction and slight editing/updating by Jane Jackson and Matt Greenwolfe in April
2010. Matt’s contributions are in square brackets [ ].
Highlights: Three-week summer Modeling Workshops in physics, chemistry, and physical
science in NCSU classrooms, three academic year two-day follow-up workshops on Fridays and
Saturdays, student concept inventory data (pre- and posttest) collected and analyzed. Academic
year mentoring. Effective ways of educating principals via mentors. Loaned lab equipment.
Their workshops fill: in April 2010 they had 100 applicants for 70 positions. Many schools are
rural and low SES.
[In the second year of the program, we expanded to offer a chemistry workshop. In the third
year, we are now changing the focus of the physical science workshop to “physics for physical
science” and will spend all of the workshop time on physics, but at a lower mathematical level
and slower pace than the mechanics workshop. It may also include some additional topics as
required by the state curriculum guide for physical science. This is because the teachers are
more comfortable with the chemistry part of the curriculum to begin with and need more help
with physics. Also, we now have a chemistry workshop for them to take. - MG]
Below is the original proposal, slightly modified in April 2010 to express what they actually did.
For more information, please ask Scott Ragan <scott_ragan@ncsu.edu>, the Project Director, for
the NCSU interim report (Jan. 2010) and updated budget. From reading these three documents, I
am impressed; they have the monetary resources and knowledge to do the job very well. JJ
History: in 2008, Matt Greenwolfe (see the section on instructors, below) initiated the project,
and he enlisted Sharon Schulze’s (director of Science House), Michael Howard’s (external
evaluator) and Patty Blanton's help (see the section on staff). The four of them wrote the proposal
and asked for $250,000 per year for three years. Upon review of the submitted proposal, the
North Carolina DPI considered their project so crucial that they increased Patty to FULL-TIME
mentor, increased the daily teacher stipend from $80 to $150, and added room and board for
long-distance teachers; thus the funding was $400,000 in the first year, for 40 participating
1
inservice teachers. Funding was authorized in April 2008. They had a three-week mechanics
Modeling Workshop and a physical science Modeling Workshop the first summer.
[NOTE: We would have asked for this funding in the first place, but we labored under the
misperception that the request for proposals limited the amount of funds available per project per
teacher. We were trying to fit under that ceiling. Credit should also be given to Michael
Howard, our external evaluator, who made significant changes and improvements to the goals
and evaluation sections of the proposal. We should also credit the Ohio State and Florida
International groups, whose proposals served as models for ours. MG]
In the second year, the "New Schools Project," funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
joined with them and another $350,000 or so each year was added, for 30 more teachers and a
second full-time mentor. [The additional funding is not from Gates foundation, but from the MSP
grant … just clarifying. MG] In summer 2009 they had THREE modeling workshops with 70
teachers.
A key to their success was having a few major school district partners but stating explicitly that
EVERY high school physics, chemistry, and physical science teacher in the state is eligible. [The
state rules for the MSP grant were revised to allow this at our request. We were able to get this
done because of the strong existing relationship between DPI and the Science House and Patty
Blanton. MG]
[I also want to emphasize the value of the coaching program and the follow-up workshops during
the school year. The coaches have intervened with administrators to get more support for
modeling, and have obtained a detailed view of each teacher's school and classroom
environment, the extent to which they implement modeling, and the external challenges they
have to overcome. This kind of information is much more reliable and valuable than surveys,
statistics or self-reports from the teachers. It's given us a detailed picture of how successful, or
unsuccessful, the program is, and its clear we should be doing better. We need to sit down and
systematically review their observations in order to improve the program.
We didn't follow through with the participant logs, but the check-in at the beginning of each
follow-up, the participant interviews by the external evaluator, and observations from the
coaches have been much more valuable than the logs would have been.
Finally, I would like to encourage other groups to write in a budget for visitors from other
modeling workshop sites. I got this idea from the Ohio State group when I was invited to visit
their workshops, and in the first two years, Colleen Megowan and Rex and Debbie Rice visited
our workshops. Participants get exposed to other perspectives on modeling, and the visitors and
instructors learn how other workshop programs operate. This is vital cross-fertilization. - MG]
2
Abstract
North Carolina faces a severe shortage of science and engineering professionals as well
as a critical shortage of qualified high school physics and physical science teachers. As a result,
biology, chemistry or math teachers end up teaching physics without an adequate understanding
of the content simply because no better qualified teacher is available. Existing teachers face new
challenges in their jobs. End of course tests mandated by state and national standards add an
extra layer of pressure and accountability to teachers who are already struggling as they teach out
of field. Without additional training for teachers, the results of these tests are likely to confirm
the results of the past several decades of physics education research, that traditional instruction
does not do a good job in transforming students' conceptual understanding of physics. The
challenges are many: to increase the number of physics teachers; to improve the content
knowledge of all of our physics teachers; and to help teachers teach in a way that leads to deep
conceptual understanding by students.
Workshops in the Modeling Method of instruction are a proven method for improving
physics instruction in line with national and state standards. The Modeling Method is a coherent
and student-centered program that has been shown, through the most impressive student
assessment program in science education, to be an effective method of teaching and learning
science. During an intensive 4-week training program, teachers transform their teaching methods
while developing a deep understanding of the physics content. Alternating in roles as teacher and
student, participants dramatically improve their content knowledge because they benefit from the
same effective teaching methods they are learning to deliver to their own students. Several
Modeling Physics workshops per year were held in North Carolina from 2000 - 2004, but only
one small workshop has been held each summer since.
In this proposal, Buncombe, Durham, Martin, Caldwell and Watauga County School
Districts, a group of dedicated modeling physics instructors and The Science House at NC State
University have joined their efforts to request funding to hold two modeling workshops per
summer. This is a state-wide grant request, so participants will be sought from throughout the
state. In addition to holding one workshop in modeling physics each summer, we seek to hold the
first modeling workshops for physical science, chemistry, and second semester physics in the
state. Each workshop will provide 135 hours of instruction, stipends of $80 per day, free lunch,
continuing education and graduate credit. Participants will receive additional support in
implementing the modeling approach through a coach who will visit classes and be available for
consultation throughout the year, by access to the modeling list serve and the modeling wiki that
connect a nationwide network of modeling science teachers, and by providing financial incentive
for their principals and administrators to join the workshop for a day to learn first hand about the
approach. High school physics education in North Carolina is reaching an alarming state and the
partner districts have taken the bold step of moving beyond their self-interest to solicit resources
to address a critical statewide need. To honor that commitment modeling workshops in physics,
physical science and chemistry will become part of the regular summer program of The Science
House, turning this initial funding into a seedbed for a statewide program to rejuvenate physics
instruction in the state.
3
C. Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................3
C. Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................4
H. Critical Needs .............................................................................................................................5
Enhancing teacher understanding of content material: ..............................................................7
Effective methods of science instruction for all students: ..........................................................7
Research-based pedagogy that is scalable and long-lasting: ......................................................8
Training teachers to use technology effectively: ........................................................................8
Supporting a community of professionals: ................................................................................8
I. Goals ...........................................................................................................................................9
J. Program Activities .................................................................................................................10
Summer Workshops: ................................................................................................................10
Physics: ................................................................................................................................ 11
Physical Science: ................................................................................................................. 11
Chemistry: ...........................................................................................................................12
Second Semester Physics: ...................................................................................................12
Continuing Support: .................................................................................................................12
Follow-ups: ..........................................................................................................................13
Coaching Program: ..............................................................................................................13
Online Component: .............................................................................................................13
Outreach to Administrators, modeling Alumni, and educational researchers: ....................13
Recruitment: .............................................................................................................................14
K. Timeline ...................................................................................................................................14
L. Alignment with North Carolina Standard Course of Study .......................................................16
M. Partnership Management Plan .................................................................................................17
N. Evaluation Plan and Research Design ......................................................................................22
Appendix A: Synopsis of the MODELING METHOD ...............................30
Coherent Instructional Objectives ..........................................................................30
Student-Centered Instructional Design ..................................................................30
Appendix B: Modeling Cycle Example—Constant Velocity ........................................................31
Intro. Unit III: Uniformly Accelerating Particle Model .................................................................32
4
H. Critical Needs
Our nation faces a severe shortage of scientific and engineering professionals and
technical workers. It's a widespread problem with a solution that starts in K-12 education.
Currently, fewer than one-fourth of high school students take physics yet our physics education
system plays a major role in maintaining our supply of about 18,000 physicists and 1.8 million
engineers, and in preparing about 600,000 physicians and 1.9 million computer professionals. A
sound knowledge of physics is also prerequisite for workers in emerging fields such as
biotechnology. Reversing the disheartening achievement levels that U. S. students demonstrate
on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) is an important part of
preserving American pre-eminence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Data for the schools in participating LEAs show some interesting and troubling facts
(see Appendix E). In schools that offer physics, enrollment in physics is well below half of
Chemistry enrollment. Those schools in which the majority of students choose to take physical
science typically have low enrollment in physics as well as show low EOC scores in Physical
Science. It appears that in those schools, most students are choosing to take biology, earth
science, and physical science to meet graduation requirements (see Figure 1). Eleanor Hasse,
DPI 9-12 science consultant, provides statewide information presented at a Koury Conference in
March 2007 on the topic of increasing the enrollment in higher level science courses in NC.
These data point to the problem of recruiting eligible students to enroll in anything beyond
required science courses. In North Carolina in 2004-2005, there were 71,000 students who had
met the math prerequisites for physics but only 12,000 enrolled in physics. In 2005-2006, 90,000
had the prerequisites but the number enrolled in any type of physics course in North Carolina
remained steady at 12,000. The problem is more pronounced in the black population: almost
17,000 had the math prerequisites and almost 11,000 enrolled in chemistry, but less than 2,000
enrolled in physics. Clearly, math prerequisites are not the problem. There are many students
who could be taking chemistry and physics to gain the skills and knowledge for future success.
These students are not choosing to take these courses.
Data from a study conducted by the Council of State School Officers State Indicators
of Math and science Education, 2005, State-by-State Trends and National Indicators provide
further troubling statistics for North Carolina in comparison to national averages. For example,
in 2004 chemistry enrollment figures nationwide have increased by 5% while in North Carolina,
there has been a 7% drop in enrollment over the same time period. Physics enrollment is up 1%
nationwide yet down by 7% in North Carolina. Higher level science class enrollment for NC has
dropped to 25% while the national average is 32%. Since earth science and biology are both
requirements for graduation in North Carolina, the figures show that NC matches the national
average of 95% enrollment in biology and is well above the national average (28%) for
enrollment in earth science (90%). The economic success of the citizens on North Carolina
demands that those citizens be prepared in all areas of science, mathematics and technology to
meet employment needs and be able to function in an increasingly technical society. The current
state of physical science education must be improved if we are to meet these basic economic
needs. Therefore, the biggest need in North Carolina science education is clearly in the physical
sciences.
Although every district we contacted recognized the need for teacher training in the physical
5
sciences, many elected not to participate. Most of these cited lack of physics teachers in their
district as the primary reason that they could not participate. Even though these districts were
well aware that this is a statewide grant and they only had to provide a few teachers for the
workshops, they felt that they could not fulfill even this minimum requirement, as many high
schools have no physics teacher at all. Among districts meeting reasonable qualifications as
"high need," of course, the situation with regard to physics instruction is even more critical. You
may wonder at our choice of Watauga County as our Lead LEA and fiscal agent, when it is
clearly not the highest need district among the six partners to this grant. Watauga's physics
program is healthy, and their physics teacher is in fact one of our potential workshop instructors,
a highly capable teacher with experience as an educational leader. Watauga's primary needs for
this program are to expand their successful program in modeling physics to their physical science
and chemistry teachers, whose students do not currently match the EOC performance of their
physics students. Our project is the only option for Watauga to receive this training, as our
project will provide the first training in modeling instruction for physical science and chemistry
teachers in the state.
In addition, we must be up front about our choice. Finding a fiscal agent was difficult because
the districts perceive they would expend considerable energy and time to benefit a small number
of their own teachers. While the districts are happy to take a risk and join in a statewide effort,
they aren't in a position to incur that level of fiscal liability when so few of their teachers are
involved. We face a variation of the "tragedy of the commons," in which the state's need for a
courageous district to take a leadership role on behalf of physical science instruction far
outweighs the benefits that single district will receive, yet a single district must accept all of the
liability in the case of an auditing exception. We were very fortunate indeed to find even one
district, Watauga, that was willing to take this risk. Although we recognize that the choice of
Watauga County as our fiscal agent may be viewed as a weakness of this proposal, we feel that
the statewide need for this program is so great that we must submit the best proposal that we can.
6
Figure 1.
New educational standards and improved testing programs are both positive trends,
but experience shows disappointing test results rarely lead to increased achievement. It is
essential that teachers receive additional education and support to meet the demands placed on
them. Teachers and administrators at the North Carolina Science Teachers Association annual
meeting and the Department of Public Instruction's Summer Science Leadership Conference
have expressed interest in additional education in research-based teaching methods. This
proposal is aimed at five core needs of an effective system of science education.
Enhancing teacher understanding of content material:
Our shortage of qualified physics teachers at the high school level is severe. Nationwide, roughly
600 to 800 physics teachers are needed each year just to fill replacement jobs but only about 400
new high school physics teachers are produced annually. As a result, over two-thirds of the
physics teachers employed by the nation’s schools do not have a degree in physics or physics
education. North Carolina is no exception.
New science standards and testing programs have placed added demands on teachers’ content
knowledge and skills. "Models and modeling" have been adopted as a unifying theme for science
and mathematics education by both the National Science Education Standards (NSES) and the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards as well as the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Project 2061. The North Carolina State
Standards have also been recently revised to emphasize models, hands-on and discovery-based
laboratories and conceptual understanding instead of rote memorization. National testing,
required by No Child Left Behind, as well as statewide End of Course testing is based on the
new standards. Without additional training for teachers, the results of these tests are likely to
confirm the results of the past several decades of physics education research, that traditional
instruction fails to transform students' conceptual understanding of physics. Avoiding this
unfortunate situation will require extensive re-education, which few teachers will be able to
accomplish in weekend workshops, in brief in-service activities, in on-line courses, or on their
own. One key to reform is to help teachers achieve robust and flexible knowledge of physics.
Effective methods of science instruction for all students:
The North Carolina Standard Course of Study emphasizes the use of effective teaching methods
by including “Science as a Human Endeavor,” “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge,” and
“Science as Inquiry” prominently among its unifying themes and program strands. Science as
Inquiry gets additional emphasis as competency goal number 1 of the standard course of study in
all science subjects. Teachers are instructed to weave these themes, strands and goals “through
the content goals and objectives of the course.” However, many teachers are not adequately
prepared to teach physics or to stay up to date in the field. They tend to teach as they were taught
and textbooks are written with a focus on words and equations rather than concepts and
experiences. Careful research has shown that such traditional modes of physics instruction fail
to raise the average student’s understanding of Newtonian physics concepts to the level of basic
competency. Discouraged students come to regard the discipline either as hopelessly abstruse or
as a jumbled collection of facts, formulas and tricks which must be memorized and shuffled
7
through to get answers to the contrived problems posed in class. These dismal results occur
regardless of the instructor's knowledge, experience and teaching style, which suggests that the
problem lies more in the pedagogy than in the instructor.
When teachers learn physics by engaging in inquiry and constructing their own understanding,
when they experience their own knowledge growing and deepening as a result, they will be much
more likely to use the same approach when they teach. Therefore, it is important to deliver
physics content with reformed and effective pedagogy so that teacher's benefit from the same
effective teaching methods they are learning to deliver to their own students. Another key to
reform is thus professional development in methodology for the teacher.
Research-based pedagogy that is scalable and long-lasting:
Through the efforts of high-quality education research, much more is now known about how
students learn science: typical preconceptions they bring into the classroom; successful pedagogy
for correcting misunderstandings, building upon scientifically correct notions, and instilling an
appreciation for the process of science; and valid methods for assessing student outcomes in
these areas. Recent research in cognitive science reveals much about how people learn. Many
professional development activities expose teachers to the ideas of cognitive science and
education research, but give them at most a few techniques or sample lessons to bring back to
their classrooms. More intensive exposure to practical examples of good pedagogy is required to
infuse these results throughout high school science instruction.
Training teachers to use technology effectively:
Electronic technology is becoming an integral part of modern society, and is rapidly finding its
way into our classrooms but questions remain about how effectively it is being used. Most
technology training for teachers is targeted at using the computer as a word processor and
accessing the Internet. Science teachers often use simulations that allow students to interact with
moving images using the keyboard, mouse and graphical controls. Many of the results of such
activities can just as easily be realized using more conventional methods with the added
advantage of providing all students with first hand experience with the physical world in an
atmosphere of observation and inquiry.
Practicing scientists use the computer as a scientific tool for data acquisition, analysis and
modeling in a way that is difficult to replicate in classrooms. Educational research has
established that computers in the science classroom enhance student learning only when there is
a carefully designed plan for their use. 2,11 In other words, the pedagogy is responsible for the
learning. The computer can enhance pedagogy, but not replace it. Therefore use of computers in
science classrooms must be coupled to reform in science pedagogy.
Supporting a community of professionals:
Many high school teachers in the physical sciences experience a sense of isolation. That
isolation can be crippling, especially to teachers trying new and innovative teaching strategies.
Reform is much more likely to last in a supportive environment. Therefore, it is important that
teacher training provide the participants with support from their own school system as well as
8
avenues to share ideas, seek answers, and find new ideas by connecting with other teachers.
Coaching from experienced teachers, the chance to meet periodically with like-minded teachers
during the school year, access to online tools for sharing ideas, lesson plans and materials, and
exposure to university researchers and results can all help to connect teachers to a larger
community.
I. Goals
In response to the needs discussed above, this project provides physics, chemistry and physical
science teachers with education in content and pedagogy, bridging the gap between educational
research and the application of its findings to the improvement of classroom instruction. It also
promotes systemic reform by providing a corps of expert teachers and building professional
development communities. Project activities are designed to address the following goals and
associated objectives:
Goal 1: Enhance teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in science.
Objective 1.1: Participating teachers will improve their understanding of key science
concepts identified by the project and aligned with the NC Standard Course of Study.
Objective 1.2: Participating teachers will improve their understanding of current research on
student learning in science and its pedagogical implications.
Objective 1.3: Participating teachers will demonstrate appropriate understanding of the key
characteristics of the Modeling approach to science teaching.
Objective 1.4: Participating teachers will express greater confidence in their ability to design
and implement high-quality science instruction.
Goal 2: Effectively implement the Modeling approach into science classrooms.
Objective 2.1: Participating teachers will demonstrate increased frequency and fluency in
using research-based, constructivist instructional practices.
Objective 2.2: Participating teachers will effectively integrate technology tools into their
science teaching.
Objective 2.3: Leaders in participants’ schools will demonstrate knowledge and actions that
support effective use of the Modeling approach in participants’ classrooms.
Goal 3: Improve student understanding of key science concepts.
Objective 3.1: Students of participating teachers will demonstrate increased knowledge of
the physical science concepts detailed in the state standards.
9
Objective 3.2: Students of participating teachers will demonstrate decreased frequency of
common misconceptions regarding targeted physical science concepts.
Goal 4: Create sustainable partnerships to provide ongoing support for classroom
implementation of the Modeling program.
Objective 4.1: Participating teachers will participate in a learning community of practitioners
to support implementation and provide ongoing learning opportunities for the Modeling
approach.
Objective 4.2: Participants will enhance their awareness and use of state and national
resources for the Modeling approach, including university faculty, exemplary high school
teachers, and validated instructional materials.
Objective 4.3: Modeling workshops implemented by the project will be institutionalized as a
regular part of the professional development program offerings by the Science House.
J. Program Activities
All activities are based upon the highly successful Modeling Instruction program, an evolving,
research-based program for high school science education reform supported by the NSF since
1989. It was recognized by the National Science Foundation as one of the seven best K-12
educational technology programs out of 134 programs evaluated in 2000, and one of two
exemplary programs in science education in 2001. The program is concerned with reforming
high school physics teaching to make it more coherent and student-centered and to incorporate
the computer as an essential scientific tool. Modeling Instruction helps students discover that
learning occurs through actively seeking understanding, and that problems are solved by
applying fundamental ideas, as opposed to listening to a teacher, taking notes, and memorizing
facts and procedures. Recently modeling has expanded to embrace physical science and
chemistry, and efforts are underway in middle school math and high school biology. Modeling
Workshops have been offered for nearly 20 years and have demonstrably improved the learning
of tens of thousands of students.1-5 (See http://modeling.asu.edu. and Appendix F for more
detail).
The proposed program builds on prior offerings of modeling physics workshops in the state,
which successfully reached over 100 physics and physical science teachers through support by
the National Science Foundation and the now discontinued Eisenhower Mathematics and
Science Education Program. We seek to expand upon those earlier efforts by offering the first
physical science and chemistry modeling workshops in the state, and to offer one physics
workshop in mechanics and one other workshop in physical science, chemistry or second
semester physics topics each summer for the next three years. We also seek to enhance the
program by providing a coach, incentives to administrators to observe the workshop first-hand
and discuss the program with participants, by arranging for experienced modeling teachers to
meet with administrators and participants, and by exposing participants to the tools available
from North Carolina's active pre-college and university physics education research community.
10
Summer Workshops:
All programs will commence with a 14-day summer workshop for 20 participants. Additionally,
three follow-up sessions will be held on Fridays and Saturdays during the school year, for a total
of 20 days or 120 hours of formal contact time per teacher per year. Friday and Saturday
schedules will be determined in consultation with participating teachers and in keeping with
local teacher release policy. Principals will be asked to sign a document of support for
participating teachers. Time spent on homework assignments along with informal contact at
lunches and coffee breaks bring the student's total course time to at least 135 hours. Participants
will be able to earn graduate credit in physics or chemistry at NC State University, or receive
CEU (license renewal) credits.
The workshops will address all aspects of high school physical science teaching, including
modeling of the integration of teaching methods with course content shown to be successful in
the high school classroom. Participants will be exposed to Modeling as a systematic approach to
the design of curriculum and instruction. The workshops incorporate up-to-date results of science
education research, best practices in high school science teaching, use of technology, and
experience in collaborative learning. The Modeling cycle, Modeling method, and workshop
format are outlined in Appendices A and B. Day-by-day workshop schedules are in Appendix C.
Physics:
In the first workshop, all activities are in the context of mechanics. Participants begin the
workshop in “student mode,” performing class activities as if they were their students.
Instructors lead reflective discussions in “teacher mode” addressing the details of the Modeling
cycle and any concerns that arise along the way. As the workshop progresses, the participants get
increased opportunities to “play teacher” and lead the class. After leading activities, participants
debrief on the experience and share strategies for dealing with potential difficult situations. By
the workshop’s end, participants have a thorough understanding of the mechanics curriculum, as
well as experience leading Modeling laboratory sequences and classroom scientific discourse
sessions. In addition, each teacher receives all the materials necessary for teaching the North
Carolina Standard Course of study in both paper and electronic formats. At least one workshop in
first or second semester physics (see below) will be offered each summer.
Physical Science:
The Physical Science modeling workshop is an expansion to younger students of the Modeling
Instruction Program in high school physics for 11th and 12th graders, providing teachers of 8th
and 9th grade physical sciences and mathematics with a deep understanding of standards-based
content. Content of an entire semester course in integrated science and mathematics is
reorganized around basic models to increase its structural coherence. Participants are supplied
with a complete set of course materials (resources) and work through the activities alternately in
the roles of student or teacher. Thematic strands woven into the course include
structure/properties of matter, energy, force, scientific modeling, and use of computers as
scientific tools. Mathematics instruction is integrated seamlessly throughout the entire course by
an emphasis on mathematical modeling.
11
The course includes these scientific models and modeling activities specific to physical science:
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.
Modeling transfer of energy and its relation to physical properties of matter
The course continues with a study of the first half of the modeling physics workshop, but with
content simplified to better match the background and ability of the population of physical
science students. Our goal is to offer at least one physical science workshop during the three
year period of the grant.
Chemistry:
The Modeling chemistry workshop is organized in a manner similar to the Physics and Physical
Science courses, with an emphasis on instructional techniques, content sequencing, and material
applications. The goal is to maximize student understanding and retention of fundamental
concepts in chemistry from the perspective of systematically developed particle models for
matter. Strategies include a coherent approach to the role of energy in physical and chemical
changes. Participants use energy storage and energy transfer mechanisms in addition to Kinetic
Molecular Theory to visualize solids, liquids, gases, and phase transitions. Participants explore
the particulate nature of matter through macroscopic and microscopic descriptions of
compounds, elements, and mixtures and when matter undergoes physical and chemical changes.
Microscopic models increase in complexity during the workshop as content demands additional
explanatory power. Particle interactions are explored through the mole and mole relationships in
chemical reactions. Energy and chemical change are explored in the bonding of atoms and the
rate of reactions. Throughout the workshop, the historical context in which humans have come to
understand chemistry is highlighted. Our goal is to offer at least one chemistry workshop during
the three year period of the grant.
Second Semester Physics:
This workshop is a continuation of the physics modeling workshop, exploring topics in waves,
Electricity, Magnetism and Light. Our goal is to offer at least one second semester physics
workshop during the three year period of the grant.
Continuing Support:
Recent investigation by Melissa Dancy (from UNC Charlotte) and Charles Henderson supports
casual observations by modeling physics workshop leaders - that teachers also must overcome a
variety of systemic barriers to the implementation of research based teaching methods in their
classrooms. Dancy and Henderson document that even experienced, dedicated teachers who are
dissatisfied with their current practices and have beliefs consistent with physics education
research often fail to implement these practices in their classrooms. Barriers to implementation
include student and parent resistance to change, mandated curricula and pacing guides, perceived
lack of class time for in-depth investigation, lack of instructor time, lack of administrative and
peer support, lack of technology and equipment, and end-of-course testing.
These systemic barriers must be addressed outside the classroom. North Carolina has taken
12
positive steps in that direction with revisions of the North Carolina Standard Course of Study in
physics and physical science. The intensive summer sessions will provide another crucial
component as teachers spontaneously discuss the barriers and how to cope with them, and
support each other as they improve their practice and skill. Group discussions during lunch,
follow-up weekends during the school year, a coaching program, an online component linking
teachers to a nationwide network of modeling teachers, and the chance to network with school
administrators, educational researchers, and “alumni” from past modeling workshops are all
provided in the proposed project and are all crucial supporting components that can give teachers
confidence and freedom to implement what they learn.
Follow-ups:
In three follow-up sessions during the year, participants discuss and troubleshoot difficulties they
have encountered. Participants continue their Modeling development, as outlined in Appendix C.
There is also processing time built in to allow participants to share successes and difficulties.
Coaching Program:
An experienced Modeling instructor (Patty Blanton) has been identified for the position of
Modeling Coach. Patty will visit participants through the school year, observe their classes, and
work with them to successfully improve their teaching practice and overcome challenges. The
coach will work closely with the program director in communicating with participants and
recruiting additional participants. She will also provide a critical, friendly, experienced link
between participants and instructors, as well as help participants advocate for themselves with
parents, principals, students, and other stakeholders. By serving as a go-between between
instructors, workshop participants, and the larger physics education community, the coach
provides a critical communication link so the participants' needs are met, so instructors know
what those needs are and can help address specific situations, and so the larger physics teaching
community grows in numbers and diversity of experience and opinion. The coach is a critical
component of the project and a major point of distinction compared to previous Modeling
physics efforts in North Carolina. Specific coaching activities will include visiting classrooms,
being available to answer questions that teachers may feel awkward asking, being available for
just-in-time support, providing access to equipment that the teachers can borrow and use in their
classrooms, meeting with principals and other district administrators, providing feedback to the
project director and other organizers, and facilitating communication between participants,
evaluators, instructors, and the project Leadership Team.
Online Component:
Participants will be subscribed to the very active national Modeling listserv, which has 1600
subscribers in 2008. The resulting discussions will give additional support to participants as they
implement Modeling..
Outreach to Administrators, modeling Alumni, and educational researchers:
School district administrators from principals to district officials will be given cash incentives to
visit the modeling workshops and engage in structured discussions with current and past
participants and educational researchers. The structured one-day visit will help participants and
13
administrators to find common ground for discussion about physics curriculum issues. The more
that administrators understand about the program, the better they will be able to support teachers,
especially during the crucial first few years of innovation. Connections to alumni who have
successfully navigated barriers to implement modeling instruction also provide a valuable
resource to participants.
North Carolina State University is home to the largest physics education research unit in the
United States. In addition, North Carolina is home to a very active group of physics education
researchers at a variety of colleges and universities, both public and private. The partnership with
NCSU is a natural since the Physics Education Research (PER) unit and The Science House have
a history of strong partnership and will work as a team to provide state of the art content and
pedagogy to participants. Participants in the workshop will learn about further professional
development opportunities available to them through these programs. University researchers,
including NCSU professors Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay, authors of an introductory
physics text and course (Matter and Interactions I and II) that is extremely well-respected
nationwide and a perfect follow-on to Modeling instruction, will be invited to the workshop to
explain their programs in person.
Visiting Education Experts:
Two nationally recognized experts, one in physics education and one a high school teacher who
uses Modeling Instruction, will be selected from a pool of individuals with experience in the
Modeling physics approach with a broad range of students from across the county. The experts
will give a brief presentation during the workshop and help oversee activities for the day. Alumni
who have completed past modeling workshops will be invited to these presentations as a way to
continue their own professional development and to meet and connect with the new generation of
modeling teachers. Alumni will also be invited to lunch several times during the workshop to
informally share their experiences with current participants and their visiting administrators.
Recruitment:
Participating school districts will publicize the workshops to their teachers, and help to organize
informational meetings, during which modeling workshop leaders and alumni can answer
teacher's questions about the program. Several statewide initiatives, including the New Schools
project, have expressed an interest in the Modeling approach and they will be asked to participate
in publicizing workshops and recruiting teacher participants. The Science House will publicize
the program through its regular publications and its high volume, high quality web site. A link
will be placed on the national modeling web site at Arizona State University. Modeling
Workshop instructors, modeling alumni and Science House Staff will publicize the program at
statewide meetings of science teachers, including North Carolina section meetings of the
American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Chemical Society, as well as the
North Carolina Science Teachers Association's professional development and summer science
leadership institutes. In all communication, school districts will be informed that modeling
instructors, the coach, and Science House staff are available to make live presentations to their
teachers and administrators. See the timeline for specific details of the recruitment plan.
14
K. Timeline
Year 1: 2008-2009
Spring: Establish online presence on The Science House website, with links to the national
Modeling physics web site at Arizona State University. Recruit participants with help of
statewide listservs, partner districts, professional organization websites, and Modeling physics
alumni. Gather applications and collect letters of intent, including signed commitment for
administrative support. Announce participants, who will give their current students a post-test
that will be used to compare results of achievement by students taught using Modeling physics
methods with results of students taught by other means. Comparisons will be primarily for
individual teachers' use. Instructors meet to plan details of summer workshops. Leadership team
meets to review proposal, including evaluation plan, and propose schedule for follow-up dates
(in consultation with course instructors).
Summer: Hold two concurrent 3-week summer workshops, one in physics and one in either
chemistry or physical science, including visits from participants' school administrators, physics
education research and teaching experts; participants’ administrators, education research and
teaching experts, and alumni attend the workshop. Participants are added to the national
Modeling listserv. Presentations are made at various conferences and meetings to recruit
additional support for the program. Leadership team meets to review results of summer
workshops and discuss enrollment, budget, or implementation issues that have arisen.
Fall: Participants begin applying the Modeling method in their own classrooms and administer
pretests to their students; coach makes contact with all participants and schedules classroom
visits. Two two-day follow-up sessions are held, led by course instructors. Presentations at the
North Carolina Science Teachers Association professional development institute are given to
increase awareness of the Modeling approach and recruit participants for the next academic year.
Leadership team meets to plan for spring recruitment, review enrollment, budget, or
implementation issues that have arisen.
Spring 2009: Third follow-up session, led by course instructors. Coach continues visiting and
supporting participants and working with the Leadership team and school district personnel.
Recruit participants with help of statewide listservs, partner districts, professional organization
websites, and Modeling physics alumni. Gather applications and collect letters of intent,
including signed commitment for administrative support. Announce participants. Cohort 1 and
Cohort 2 teachers will give their current students a post-test that will be used to compare results
of achievement by students taught using Modeling physics methods with results of students
taught by other means. Comparisons will be primarily for individual teachers' use. Instructors
meet to plan details of summer workshops. Leadership team meets to review progress, examine
evaluation data to date and propose schedule for follow-up dates (in consultation with course
instructors). Present project at physics meetings (American Association of Physics Teachers;
American Physical Society) and make presentations to schools and districts as requested.
Year 2 (2009-2010) [revised version]: summer, fall and spring are similar to Year 1, except that
15
30 more teachers of physics, chemistry, and 8th and 9th grade physical sciences are added from
the New Schools Project, and three modeling workshops are held: in mechanics, first semester
chemistry, and physical science (matter and energy, CASTLE electricity in follow-up
workshops). The chemistry modeling workshop was led by Larry Dukerich, recently retired from
Dobson High School in Mesa, Arizona and a long-time Modeling Workshop developer and
leader at Arizona State University, and assisted by Nick Cabot, Clinical Assistant Professor of
Science Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a modeler for 12 years.
Year 3 (2010-20110)
Summer 2010: [revised to three workshops]: Hold three concurrent 3-week summer workshops,
one in physics (electricity and magnetism, waves), one in first semester chemistry, and one in
force and motion for physical science teachers Workshops include visits from participants' school
administrators, physics education research and teaching experts. Participants’ administrators,
education research and teaching experts, and alumni attend the workshop. Participants are added
to the national Modeling listserv. Presentations are made at various conferences and meetings to
recruit additional support for the program. Leadership team meets to review results of summer
workshops and discuss enrollment, budget, or implementation issues that have arisen.
Fall: Participants begin applying the Modeling method in their own classrooms and administer
pretests to their students; coach makes contact with all participants and schedules classroom
visits. Two follow-up sessions are held, led by course instructors. Presentations at the North
Carolina Science Teachers Association professional development institute are given to increase
awareness of the Modeling approach and recruit participants for the next academic year.
Leadership team meets to plan for spring recruitment, review enrollment, budget, or
implementation issues that have arisen.
Spring 2011: Third follow-up session, led by course instructors. Coach continues visiting and
supporting participants and working with the Leadership team and school district personnel.
Cohort 3 will give their current students a post-test that will be used to compare results of
achievement by students taught using Modeling physics methods with results of students taught
by other means. Comparisons will be primarily for individual teachers' use. Leadership team
meets to review final status of the project, make plans for sustainability phase of the project, and
examine evaluation data from all three years of the project. Present project at physics meetings
(American Association of Physics Teachers; American Physical Society) and make presentations
to schools and districts as requested
Summer 2011: Complete collection and final analysis of evaluation data and pre/post-test results
from all three cohorts. Gather information for final report. Leadership team meets one last time
to begin implementation of sustainability phase of the project, including establishment of a
program at The Science House to offer fee-based modeling workshops to school districts or
groups of school districts upon district request. Review potential sources of additional funding to
offset costs to districts.
16
L. Alignment with North Carolina Standard Course of Study
The North Carolina Standard Course of Study emphasizes the use of effective teaching methods
by including “Science as a Human Endeavor,” “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge,” and
“Science as Inquiry” prominently among its unifying themes and program strands. Science as
Inquiry gets additional emphasis as competency goal number 1 of the standard course of study in
all science subjects. Teachers are instructed to weave these themes, strands and goals “through
the content goals and objectives of the course.” Modeling Instruction is unique in literally
accomplishing this goal. Teachers do not lecture, do example problems or perform
demonstrations, so students in a modeling course never experience science as the receiving of
facts from an expert. The entire activity of the modeling course is a guided process in which
students formulate questions scientifically, design and carry out investigations, report results to
each other, and apply the resulting models in different contexts, becoming increasingly
independent in all of these activities over the course of the year. Students understand that science
is a human activity when they construct their own understanding. Students understand science as
inquiry when they are accountable for understanding and using the results of their own
investigations. Students understand the nature of scientific knowledge when they are required to
justify solutions to problems by referring back to fundamental concepts. In Modeling Instruction
for students and modeling workshops for teachers, these activities constitute the entire course of
instruction. They are not restricted to a single unit or scattered inquiry activities. Teachers begin
to believe that it is possible to weave inquiry throughout an entire science course when they
experience success themselves in a workshop that is taught in this manner.
The North Carolina Standard Course of Study in Physics was written specifically to
accommodate high quality inquiry-based, hands-on instruction exactly like that offered by the
Modeling approach to teaching physics. As noted above, the Chemistry and Physical Science
curricula also place a premium on inquiry-based, hands-on instruction. Each workshop will
address a different set of content-specific standards. Appendix D constitutes a side-by-side
comparison of the competency goals of the standard course of study with the content of each
workshop.
M. Partnership Management Plan
The partners in this proposal are working together on an effort that benefits the entire state.
Districts are participating as a benefit to their own teachers and students but they are also
incurring the risks involved with any major project for the benefit of teachers and students across
the state. By joining in this project and providing a recruiting hub, partner districts will have a
part in developing a network of highly trained teachers of physics, physical science, and
chemistry. Those teachers will be able to form a supportive network for one another as well as
engage their colleagues. Given the small number of physics teachers in a given school district
and the complete lack of physics teachers in many schools, it is highly unlikely that individual
districts will be able to effectively address physics education on their own. By joining in a
statewide project, Buncombe, Durham, Martin, Caldwell and Watauga Counties are making a
statement about their level of commitment to teachers and students across the state and their
confidence in the capacity for their teachers to become leaders in physics, physical science, and
chemistry education around North Carolina.
17
The districts, North Carolina State University, and a small group of extremely dedicated physics
instructors will form a Leadership Team composed of Matt Greenwolfe (head of the Leadership
Team and key developer of the project), Patty Blanton (experienced Modeling instructor, key
developer of the project, and Modeling coach once the project is funded), a representative of the
Science House, and key representatives of each partner districts. The Leadership Team will
meet at least once each summer, fall, and spring, with additional email, telephone, and face-toface communication as necessary. The Leadership Team is responsible for making sure funds are
being spent in keeping with the funding contract, to develop solutions to problems that may arise
around enrollment, contractual issues among districts, scheduling of workshop and follow-up
dates, and any other matters that require attention from a central policy body. Members of the
Leadership Team will be involved in every aspect of the program, providing a base of experience
and knowledge that will allow sound decisions to be made.
Partner Organizations:
The Science House at NC State University: The Science House annually reaches over 3,500
teachers and over 25,000 students from six offices spread across the state. Its mission is to
increase student enthusiasm for science by partnering with K-12 teachers to promote hands-on
inquiry-based science learning. Its student science enrichment activities, teacher training
programs, and curriculum-related programs link the research university to the needs of K-12
science and mathematics education. Science House hands-on learning activities include,
laboratory safety workshops for teachers, classroom technology equipment loan programs,
summer student research programs, and development of learning materials. Its programs are
guided by the best research and practices in science and mathematics education.
The Science House will be directly involved in communication among the school districts and
participants and will be a part of the Leadership team. It will work closely with the coach and the
workshop instructors, publicize workshops through its web site, publications and attendance at
professional meetings, help identify and book workshop locations, purchase and distribute
workshop supplies. The Project Director, as an employee of The Science House, will work with
the coach, instructors, and district contacts to arrange travel, lunch, parking, room and board for
participants. It will also work closely with the external evaluator on project assessment efforts
and collect and analyze the pre- and posttest data for primarily internal use. The Science House
has led the K-12 outreach projects for two multi-university science research centers that are at
the cutting edge of their disciplines, and has been the partner IHE for two previous Math and
Science Partnership grants. It has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to lead a collaborative
project of this magnitude.
Watauga County - Lead LEA: In addition to the responsibilities described below for participating
LEA's, the Lead LEA will be responsible for receiving and holding the grant funds, disbursing
funds to partners, paying salaries and stipends to instructors and participants, and for all
accounting associated with the handling of the money. As a school district serving over 4500
students, it is well prepared to meet these responsibilities.
18
Buncombe, Durham, Martin, Caldwell, and Watauga Counties - partner LEA's: Partner LEA's
will publicize the workshops to their teachers, and help to organize informational meetings,
during which modeling workshop leaders and project alumni can answer teachers’ questions
about the program. They will also support their teachers as they implement the modeling method
of instruction, particularly in the crucial first few years of innovation. The workshops will
support their mission to provide high-quality science instruction to their students, to improve the
preparation and education of their teachers, and to retain highly-qualified teachers.
Individual districts will pay for substitutes for follow-up session release time for participating
teachers.
19
Project Staff:
Sharon Schulze: Dr. Schulze is the director of Science House. She manages the day-to-day
operations, works with various grant-funded projects, and actively pursues collaborations and
partnerships to improve K-12 STEM education in North Carolina and across the country. Dr.
Schulze has high school classroom experience in physics and mathematics. A native Texan and
graduate of Texas A&M University and the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Schulze started her
work in North Carolina at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Dr. Schulze
will have primary administrative responsibility for the grant and will supervise and assist Scott
Ragan in his responsibilities as project director.
Scott Ragan – Project Director: Scott is the professional development coordinator at Science
House, in charge of many of its workshops and professional development activities. He has a
great deal of experience in using technology in math and science education. He has also
coordinated three successful NSF projects: Team Science, EMPOWER, and the first year of the
Science and Technology Center. Scott, a former high school science teacher, has B.S. degrees in
Science Education and Environmental Engineering from NCSU. The grant will pay one-half of
his Full Time Equivalent Salary to be the primary project director, with assistance from Patty
Blanton and workshop leaders. He will coordinate communication among all partners and
arrange the logistics of the workshops to make sure Science House fulfills its responsibilities
under the grant as described above. [His position was expanded to ¾ time when the New
Schools Project joined.]
Patty Blanton: Patty is the coach for the program. She has a BS in Physics and General Science
and a Masters in Secondary Science Education from Appalachian Stat University. She has over
40 years of experience teaching physics at Watauga High School, where she was the Technology
Educator of the Year for North Carolina in 1995. She was one of the first people in the country
trained in modeling instruction, personally led modeling workshops from 1998 – 2004, has been
Assistant Editor and Columnist for The Physics Teacher magazine, and has assisted and inspired
numerous physics teachers throughout the state through mentoring programs, summer workshops
and presentations. Her responsibilities are to visit participants through the school year, observe
their classes, and work with them to successfully improve their teaching practice and overcome
challenges. The coach may also assist the program director in communicating with participants
and recruiting additional participants. During the late spring and summer, when coaching
responsibilities are light, the coach may also assist in administrating and running the program.
Chris Mansfield (Martin County): Dr. Chris Mansfield is the Martin County LEA contact. Dr.
Mansfield taught earth science, chemistry, physical science, and physics for nine years before
moving into public school administration. He has served as an assistant principal and principal
in addition to his current position as the Science and Mathematics Coordinator for Martin County
Schools. Projects in which he is currently involved include AVID and Gear Up programs, the
development of place-based education programs, and school improvement and high school
turnaround. He holds a BS in Biochemistry, a MAEd in Science Education, and an EdD in
Educational Leadership from East Carolina University.
20
Clarissa Schmal, 6-12 Curriculum specialist (Watauga County): Clarissa currently serves as the
9-12 Curriculum Specialist for Watauga High School. She has a BA in English and
Communications from East Tennessee State University and a Masters in Curriculum and
Instruction from Appalachian State. She has over 22 years of experience teaching English at
Watauga High School, where she was the Teacher of the Year for Watauga County in 2002. She
achieved National Board Certification in 2001 and has served as ILT Coordinator for Watauga
County Schools. Her current responsibilities include assisting teachers and principals with
professional development opportunities and working with them to successfully improve their
teaching practices. She also stays cognizant of changes in the North Carolina Standard Courses
of Study and State Board of Education Policy as it relates to curriculum.
Alan Lenk (Buncombe County): Alan has served as Science Curriculum Specialist with
Buncombe County Schools for 30 years., most of that time at the K-12 levels. During his tenure,
he also served as an Assistant Principal at a middle school concurrently for seven years. He is
presently working on a part-time basis as Buncombe County Science Specialist. Prior to
working with Buncombe County, Alan began his career as a middle school science teacher in
Swain County while serving the Teacher Corps Program, and then became the Assistant
Directory of the Environmental Education Center providing science staff development for a
consortium of schools around Asheville, N.C. Following this position he worked as the Nature
Center School Program Coordinator with Asheville City Schools. Alan also taught a science
methods course for Western Carolina University in Jamaica.
Janet Scott (Durham County): Janet is the Director of Science 6-12 for the Durham Public
Schools. Her primary focus is to improve instructional practices in middle and high school
science classrooms. Responsibilities include consulting with stakeholders in schools and central
services to plan a comprehensive 6-12 science program; using test results and other statistical
data to inform the program design; providing leadership in the coordination and implementation
of the science program; serving as a liaison between schools and central services; and
coordinating professional development activities for teachers. Janet served as the Project
Director for the Durham Public Schools/UNC-Chapel Hill Mathematics and Science Partnership
Grant 2005-2007 and currently serves as Project Director for the Durham Public Schools/NC
State Trajectory of Science Scholars MSP Grant 2007-08.
Caryl Burns (Caldwell county): Dr. Caryl Burns has a history of leadership in North Carolina.
From serving as Caldwell County's first female principal to her current role as Associate
Superintendent for Educational Program Services, Dr. Burns has worked to bring high quality
programming and opportunities to the children of Caldwell County. She holds B.A. from LenoirRhyne College, M.A. and Ed.S. degrees from Appalachian State University and an Ed.D. Degree
in Administration, Curriculum and Teaching from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
21
Workshop Instructors:
As a result of the previous program of modeling workshops in North Carolina, we are fortunate
to have a group of qualified and experienced modeling instructors in the state. Their
responsibilities are to plan and lead the modeling workshops, and to provide ongoing support for
participants during the school year. As we do not have qualified instructors for chemistry, we
may bring instructors in from out of state or send some of these instructors to Arizona State for
additional training.
Matt Greenwolfe: Dr. Greenwolfe has a BS in Physics from Washington University in St. Louis
and a PhD in Physics from the University of Michigan. He is a former assistant professor at
Union College in New York, and is currently physics teacher at Cary Academy, with over ten
years of experience teaching physics at independent schools. Matt participated in the two-year
Physics Modeling Workshop at Appalachian State University during 2001-2003, and the
Advanced Modeling Workshop at Arizona State University in 2005. He has taught several
modeling workshops, given presentations on modeling physics at professional meetings in North
Carolina and at the National Science Teachers Association 2007 annual conference. He is past
president of the American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA), the national membership
organization for modeling teachers, and the unofficial editor of the AMTA website.
Mike Turner: Mike teaches high school physics in Charlotte. Mike served as Co-PI for the
Extended Physics Community (North Carolina's previous statewide physics modeling program),
has been the instructor in most of the EPC workshops held at UNCG, worked with the LAAP
(Learn Anywhere, Anytime Physics) program to develop an online modeling course
incorporating online simulations of labs and virtual interactions with online peers, taught physics
at Page High School and the American Hebrew Academy in Greensboro, and earned his
doctorate in education from UNCG. He has presented numerous times at DPI summer science
institutes, at state NSTA conferences and at AAPT regional and national conventions.
Tom Brown: Tom teaches Physics and AP physics at Watauga High School where he serves as
science department chairman. Tom was initially trained in the modeling method in 2000-2002 at
UNCG and has taught modeling workshops at Appalachian State University. Tom has National
Board certification in physics and a B.S. in Physics from Wake Forest University.
Jason Lonon: Jason teaches AP Physics, Physics, and Geometry at Spartanburg Day School, in
Spartanburg, SC. He received a B.S. in Engineering Physics from the University of Oklahoma,
and an M.A. in Science Education from East Carolina University. Jason is a member of AAPT
and attended the Physics Modeling workshops during 2000-2002 and co-taught modeling
workshops in North Carolina.
22
N. Evaluation Plan and Research Design
External Evaluator: Dr. Michael N. Howard will serve as the External Evaluator for the
Modeling project. Dr. Howard has extensive experience in evaluating professional development
initiatives addressing mathematics, science, and technology (see vita in Appendix H). Among his
recent activities, he has served as lead evaluator for several National Science Foundationsupported projects addressing mathematics and science reform, and coordinates evaluation of
state-level Title IIB MSP projects in KY, NC, TN, and FL. Dr. Howard’s responsibility is to
oversee all evaluation-related activities for the project, including: 1) identify and/or develop
needed instruments and protocols; 2) oversee data collection according to the evaluation plan; 3)
analyze evaluation data, using valid and appropriate statistical techniques; 4) prepare annual
mid-year and end-of-year evaluation reports discussing evaluation results, as well as periodic
formative reports highlighting issues identified in the evaluation and recommendations for the
project; 5) collaborate with project staff in preparing required reports for USDoE and DPI; and 6)
participate as a regular member of project planning and decision-making meetings. Project
personnel will conduct the local data collection activities, working closely with Dr. Howard to
ensure that all aspects of the evaluation plan are carried out.
Evaluation Plan: The Modeling project views evaluation as an integral element for successful
planning and implementation. The project’s plan for formative and summative evaluation serves
two basic purposes: 1) documenting project activities, outcomes, and impacts for reporting to the
U.S. Department of Education, DPI and other stakeholders; and 2) providing regular feedback
into planning and decision-making to keep the project on-course toward its goals and objectives.
The evaluation is closely integrated into the project from the outset, allowing project personnel
to monitor progress and incorporate lessons learned into subsequent plans and activities.
The Modeling project evaluation is designed to yield valid, defensible evidence of project
effectiveness. The specific questions that frame the Partnership evaluation directly reflect the
project’s goals and objectives. Addressing these questions informs both the formative and
summative components of the evaluation.
23
Obj. Evaluation Question: To what extent . .
Data Source
GOAL 1: TEACHER CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
1.1
. . . do participating teachers demonstrate
growth in their understanding of key
science concepts identified by the project
and aligned with the NC Standard Course
of Study?
Concept Inventory (FCI, CCI, PCI), as
appropriate, given pre-workshop, postworkshop, and end-of-year
Participant logs during workshop
1.2
. . . do participating teachers demonstrate Participant logs during workshop
growth in their understanding of current
research on student learning in science and Narrative prompts during workshop and
its pedagogical implications?
follow-up sessions
Participant logs during workshop
1.3
. . . do participating teachers demonstrate
appropriate understanding of the key
characteristics of the Modeling approach
to science teaching?
1.4
. . . do participating teachers demonstrate
growth in confidence in their ability to
design & implement high-quality science
instruction?
Teacher questionnaire, given preworkshop, post-workshop, and end-of-year
Lesson/unit plans reviewed by project
coach
GOAL 2: CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION
2.1
. . . do participating teachers demonstrate Classroom observation by project coach,
increased frequency and fluency in using
using Reformed Teaching Observation
research-based, constructivist instructional Protocol (RTOP)
practices?
Teacher questionnaire, given preworkshop and end-of-year
2.2
. . . do participating teachers effectively
integrate technology tools into their
science teaching?
Teacher questionnaire, given preworkshop and end-of-year
Lesson/unit plans reviewed by project
24
Obj. Evaluation Question: To what extent . .
Data Source
coach
2.3
. . . do leaders in participants’ schools
demonstrate knowledge and actions that
support effective use of the Modeling
approach in participants’ classrooms?
Teacher questionnaire, given preworkshop and end-of-year
Mentor’s reports (as of April 2010, a
principal’s questionnaire is developed but
has not been used)
GOAL 3: STUDENT UNDERSTANDING
3.1
. . . do students of participating teachers
demonstrate growth in their knowledge of
the physical science concepts detailed in
the state standards?
Concept Inventory (FCI, ABCC, PSCI), as
appropriate, given beginning and end of
the school year to all relevant classes
3.2
. . . do students of participating teachers
demonstrate decreased frequency of
common misconceptions regarding
targeted physical science concepts?
Concept Inventory (FCI, ABCC, PSCI), as
appropriate, given beginning and end of
the school year to all relevant classes
GOAL 4: SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS
Teacher feedback form, given end-of-year
4.1
. . . do participating teachers participate in
a learning community of practitioners to
support implementation and provide
ongoing learning opportunities for the
Modeling approach?
Teacher feedback form, given end-of-year
4.2
. . . do participating teachers enhance their
awareness and use of state and national
resources for the Modeling approach,
including university faculty, exemplary
high school teachers, and validated
instructional materials?
25
Project records of online and onsite
interactions, reviewed end-of-year
Project records of online and onsite
interactions, reviewed end-of-year
Obj. Evaluation Question: To what extent . .
4.3
Data Source
. . . are Modeling workshops implemented Project records of workshops planned or
by the project institutionalized as a regular given, reviewed end-of-project
part of the professional development
program offerings by the Science House?
26
Additional formative evaluation questions address the fidelity and quality of project
implementation, to provide ongoing feedback into project planning and decision-making:
Formative Evaluation Question: To what
extent . . .
Data Source
. . . do project professional growth activities
(courses, institutes, school-based support, etc.)
demonstrate consistency with research on
adult learning and effective professional
development?
Observation of 5 p.d. activities per year by
external evaluator
. . . are school-based and electronic support
activities effective in enhancing participants’
knowledge and skills, engaging them in
collegial networks, and addressing their
concerns about implementation?
Teacher feedback form, given end-of-year
. . . do partners work effectively together in
planning, delivering, and supporting project
activities?
Partner interviews, project records, reviewed
end-of-year
Participant feedback forms from each p.d.
activity and end-of-year
The combination of qualitative and quantitative data collected provides a rich set of
triangulated information with which to document the project’s progress and impact. The
instruments and procedures for collecting evaluation data are described briefly below:
Assessment of teacher and student content knowledge. Content knowledge of both teachers
and students is assessed using the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), Assessment of Basic
Chemistry Concepts (ABCC), or Physical Science Concept Inventory (PSCI), as appropriate for
the particular workshop. These nationally developed concept inventories have a solid history of
use for both research and instructional diagnosis, and their validity and reliability are wellestablished. Because adults and students can both hold the same common misconceptions, the
same instrument is used for both groups. Participating teachers will take the assessment on the
first day of the summer workshop, on the final day of the workshop (to measure growth due to
the workshop), and at the end of the school year (to measure sustained understanding). Students
of participating teachers will take the assessment at the start and end of the school year, to
measure growth in their understanding.
Teacher and administrator questionnaires. The external evaluator will construct
questionnaires to be administered to participating teachers and their school administrators. Most
questionnaire items will be drawn from existing validated instruments, such as the National
Survey of Mathematics and Science Teachers (Horizon Research, Inc.). The teacher
questionnaire addresses participants’ perceived content and pedagogical preparation, perception
of challenges and supports for their teaching, and frequency of using particular instructional
27
strategies. The questionnaires are administered prior to the summer workshop and at the end of
the school year, to look for changes in perceptions and reported practice. The administrator
questionnaire addresses their perception of standards-based science, knowledge of the Modeling
approach, and actions to support classroom implementation of reform-based instruction.
Classroom Observations. As the project coach visits participants’ classrooms, she will
conduct structured observations of the lessons using the Reformed Teaching Observation
Protocol (RTOP). The RTOP is a valid, reliable instrument, developed through a National
Science Foundation project, and since used in numerous research and evaluation studies. It
examines specific aspects of instruction associated with an “inquiry” approach and produces
ratings in five dimensions. Dr. Howard will work with the project coach to ensure she has the
training to use the RTOP protocol in a reliable manner.
Participant logs. During the summer workshop, each participant will be required to keep a
log of activities done, personal notes and reactions, summaries and reflections on the readings,
and comments on expected student difficulties and how to address them. The logs will be
reviewed by project staff for degree of understanding of the implications of using the Modeling
Method. Using rubrics designed by project staff with input from the external evaluator, the logs
will provide data on the impact of the summer workshop on participants’ views of science
teaching and the scientific process, as well as their comfort with the science content.
Participant feedback forms. Dr. Howard will develop feedback instruments to gather
participant perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of project activities (workshops,
coaching, electronic networks, etc.). The instruments will have both “participant rating” items
and open-ended prompts for narrative response. They will be completed by participants in each
major project activity and as an end-of-year reflection.
Research Design: In addition to conducting the evaluation of its impact on participants,
the Modeling project will conduct research designed to contribute to the broader knowledge base
concerning effective professional development. It investigates two questions, each using a quasiexperimental design:
Research Question 1: To what extent are participant impacts observed in this project
comparable to effects observed in other sites conducting Modeling workshops? The national
Modeling Project has fully documented the impact of its professional development approach on
participants’ content knowledge. This project will therefore measure its effectiveness by
investigating the extent to which it achieves results similar to the national research base. First,
pre-assessment FCI results for project participants will be compared to national pre-assessment
data for participants and comparison teachers, to establish degree of similarity of the groups.
Then pre/post FCI gain scores for project participants will be compared to gains for the national
groups, using Analysis of Variance statistical testing. Results of the analysis will yield
conclusions about the effectiveness of the project’s professional development, compared to what
would be expected from the national model.
Research Question 2: To what extent are different student outcomes observed when the
project’s instructional model is implemented to a greater or lesser degree? The project will use a
variety of data, including classroom observations, participant feedback, lesson/unit plans, project
coach rating, to group participating teachers according to their level of implementing the
project’s instructional model – low, moderate, or high. It is hypothesized that greater
28
implementation fidelity will yield greater gains in student understanding of the targeted concepts.
The analysis will use data from the pre and post-testing of participants’ students, using the
pertinent Concept Inventory assessment. Pre/post gains will be compared for students whose
teachers are in the three implementation groups, using Analysis of Variance statistical testing. To
allow the pre/post data from the different assessments to be combined for analysis, students’ gain
scores will be normalized by converting to z-scores. Pooling the data in this way, rather than
analyzing each assessment separately, allows for greater statistical power in the analysis.
O. Dissemination
The Modeling Workshop paradigm has an excellent record of replication and
dissemination,1-6 and so the proposed project is already a replication, both of a national 20-year
effort and of the workshops held in North Carolina from 2000 – 2004. The best instruments of
dissemination are the teachers themselves, through their daily interactions with others in their
schools and at local teacher meetings. Participants will be encouraged to make Modeling
presentations in their district during the school year. Modeling instructors, the coach, and Science
House staff are also available to make presentations to their teachers and administrators.
Although this will not enable attendees to fully implement Modeling, it will expose them to
appropriate scientific pedagogy and create a demand for more professional development
activities consistent with this program. Modeling workshop instructors, modeling alumni and
Science House Staff will give presentations on modeling and the findings of the program at
statewide meetings of science teachers, including North Carolina section meetings of the
American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Chemical Society, as well as the
North Carolina Science Teachers Association's professional development and summer science
leadership institutes. Several project staff, particularly Patty Blanton, Mike Turner, and Matt
Greenwolfe, have experience presenting to groups of faculty and administrators in a variety of
different contexts. Their presentations on modeling have been well received in past years.
29
References
[1] M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, “A Modeling Method for High School Physics
Instruction,” Am. J. Phys. 63: 606-619 (1995).
[2] D. Hestenes, “Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers,” in E. Redish & J. Rigden
(Eds.) The Changing Role of the Physics Department in Modern Universities (American
Institute of Physics, 1997).
[3] R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six Thousand-student Survey
of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74 (1998)
[4] D. Hestenes, “Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction,” Am. J. Phys. 55: 440-454
(1987).
[5] Unpublished data in the Modeling Workshop Project at ASU for over 10,000 students.
Reported in the “Findings” section of the final report to the NSF; download at
http://modeling.asu.edu. Click on “Research and Evaluation”, then “Download Findings”.
[6] Available at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/math-science.html
Promising and Exemplary Programs in Science (1-2001)
[7] M. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change (Teachers College Press, 2001).
[8] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force Concept Inventory,” The Physics
Teacher 30: 141-158 (1992).
[9] D. Hestenes and M. Wells, “A Mechanics Baseline Test,” The Physics Teacher 30: 159-166
(1992).
[10] J. M. Cervenec & K. A. Harper, “Ohio Teacher Professional Development in the Physical
Sciences,” in Proceedings of the 2005 Physics Education Research Conference, Heron, Franklin,
& McCullough, editors (American Institute of Physics, 2005).
[11] 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/
30
Appendix A: 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 discuss5ion 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.
31
Appendix B: Modeling Cycle Example—Constant Velocity
I. Constant Velocity Paradigm Lab
A. Pre-lab discussion
Students observe battery-powered vehicle moving across floor and make observations. The
teacher guides them toward a laboratory investigation to determine whether the vehicle moves
at constant speed, as it appears, and to determine a mathematical model of the vehicle’s position
B. Lab investigation
Students collect position and time data for the vehicles and analyze the data to develop a
mathematical model. (In this case, the graph of position vs. time is linear, so they do a linear
regression to determine the model.) Students then display their results on small whiteboards and
prepare presentations.
C. Post-lab discussion
Students present the results of their lab investigations to the rest of the class and interpret what
their model means in terms of the motion of the vehicle. After all lab groups have presented, the
teacher leads a discussion of the models to develop a general mathematical model that describes
constant-velocity motion.
II. Constant Velocity Model Deployment
A. Worksheets
Working in small groups, students complete worksheets that ask them to apply the constantvelocity model to various problem-solving situations. They are also asked to prepare whiteboard
presentations of their problem solutions and present them to the class. The teacher’s role at this
stage is continual questioning of the students to encourage them to articulate what they know
and how they know it.
B. Quizzes
In order to do mid-course progress checks for student understanding, the modeling materials
include several short quizzes. Students are asked to complete these quizzes individually to
demonstrate their understanding of the model and its application. Students are asked not only to
solve problems, but also to provide brief explanations of their problem-solving strategy.
C. Lab Practicum
To further check for understanding, students are asked to complete a lab practicum in which
they need to use the constant-velocity model to solve a real-world problem. Working in groups,
they come to agreement on a solution and then test their solution with the battery-powered
vehicles.
D. Unit Test
As a final check for understanding, students take a unit test. (The constant-velocity unit is the
first unit of the curriculum. In later unit tests, students are asked to solve problems using models
developed earlier in the course, emphasizing the spiral nature of the curriculum.)
32
Appendix C: MODELING INSTRUCTION in HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS
Mechanics Course Description and Syllabus (2008 version 2)
The Modeling Workshop in mechanics is an intensive 3-week course with these goals:
1. educate teachers in use of a model-centered, guided inquiry method of teaching high school physics.
2. help participants integrate computer courseware effectively into the physics curriculum.
3. help teachers make better use of national resources for physics education.
4. establish electronic network support and a learning community among participants.
5. strengthen local institutional support for participants as school leaders in disseminating standardsbased reform in science education.
Syllabus/Agenda
Week 1
Mon
Day 1
Tue
Day 2
Wed
Day 3
Thu
(am) Welcome, introduce participants, schedules, workshop description, goals, FCI
overview, FCI and Mechanics Baseline Test: pre-tests
(pm) Unit I: Scientific Thinking in Experimental Settings Pendulum lab, graphical
methods, lab report format, grading of lab notebook
Readings: 1)Hestenes, “Force Concept Inventory,” (at http://modeling.asu.edu)
2)Hestenes "Wherefore a science of teaching.” (on modeling website)
(am) Discuss readings, clarify Unit I lab. lab write-ups, worksheets/test unit 1.
(pm) whiteboarding, presentation criteria, discuss unit materials
Unit II: Particle with Constant Velocity. Battery-powered vehicle lab, post-lab
discussion, motion maps, deployment. MBT pre-test.
Readings: McDermott, "Guest Comment: How we teach…"
Arons, ch 1 (special attn: sections 8, 9, 11, 12)
(am) Discuss readings, problems, worksheets/presentations, Intro to Body modeling,
Sonic Rangers
(pm) Unit II lesson plan, Whiteboard WS and test.
Intro. Unit III: Uniformly Accelerating Particle Model
Readings: Hake, "Socratic Pedagogy in the...", Arons 2.1-2.6
(am) Discuss readings, Timer software, ball-on-rail lab, whiteboard results
(pm) Sonic Rangers, post-lab extension: instantaneous velocity, acceleration, motion
maps, deployment worksheet/whiteboard
Day 4
Reading: Mestre, "Learning and Instruction in Pre-College..."
33
Fri
(am) Discuss readings, Intro to Graphs and Tracks, instructional comments,
descriptive particle models, more deployment exercises. wrap up unit III materials,
test, free fall w/ picket fence
Day 5
Reading: Arons 2.7-19. Minstrell, "Explaining the 'at rest' condition…"
Turn in notebooks for grading
Week 2
Mon
Day 6
(am) Discuss reading, Unit IV: Free Particle Model-inertia & interactions inertia
demo (Newton 1), the force concept, force diagrams, statics lab, normal force
demo questioning strategies
(pm) deployment worksheets/whiteboard, force probes, paired forces, Newton 3
wrap up unit IV, critique activities, test
Reading: Introduction & chapter 1, Preconceptions in Mechanics, Camp & Clement
Reading: Beichner: Tug-K article and TUG-K2 test
Tues
Day 7
Wed
Day 8
Thu
Day 9
(am) Discuss reading, more deployment exercises. wrap up unit IV materials, test,
test (turn in lab books)
(pm) Unit V: CDP Model-force and acceleration, weight vs mass lab, modified
Atwood's machine lab (compare different equipment)
Reading: Arons 3.1-4. Hestenes, Wells: "A Modeling Method For High School...
(am) Discuss reading, whiteboard results of previous day’s labs, post-lab extension:
derivation of Newton 2, lab write-up
(pm),deployment worksheets/whiteboard, Unit V test
Reading: Arons 3.5-9
(am) Discuss reading, friction lab: pre lab and data collection, whiteboard.
(pm) Unit VI: Particle Models in Two Dimensions, combinations of FP and CDP
models, deployment
Reading: Arons 3.15-24. Rex Rice: Role of lab practica.
(am) Discuss reading; worksheets/whiteboard, projectile motion lab, explore video
technology,
Reading: "Making Work Work,” by Gregg Swackhamer (on modeling website)
Day 10 Turn in notebooks for grading
Fri
34
Week 3
(am) Discuss reading. Unit VII: Work, Energy, & Power, Stretched spring lab,
work on lab notebooks, graph, whiteboard prep & practice critiques.
(pm) Gravitational potential energy, work-kinetic energy theorem,
Day 11 Reading: Arons 4.1-5, 8, 9. Hestenes: Modeling Methodology for Physics ..."
(am) Discuss readings, Further discussion of working/heating as means of
changing internal energy of system. Energy practicum
Tue
(pm) Unit VIII: Central Force Model, uniform circular motion lab,
Day 12
collect/analyze data; further use of spreadsheets
Mon
Wed
Reading: Arons 5:1-6. Hestenes: Modeling Methodology for Physics ..." (re-read)
am) Discuss readings, circular motion lab practicum. Alternative tests and testing.
(pm) Unit IX: Impulsive Force Model, conservation of linear momentum lab,,
collect data, plot rfinal Vs rinitial .
Day 13
Thu
Submission of lesson plans for those contracting for an A grade
(am) deployment worksheets, worksheets/tests, instructional comments, test
(pm) a look at second semester materials w/ modeling approach. Notebooks.
Take FCI posttest
Day 14
Turn in notebooks for grading
Fri
(am) Take MBT posttest. w/b presentations, more deployment exercises,
worksheets/tests. closing remarks
Day 15
Each follow-up session focuses on implementation successes and challenges.
Review units, and more indepth. More practicums. Discuss parents night, school inservices,
school board presentations. Schedule visitations. Fill out survey.
35