NC Mathematics Science Partnership Program
Interim Report
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
January 2010
I. Activities and Participants Summary
The Modeling MSP Project is completing a very successful second year. The expansion
of the project from two to three courses and from 40 to 70 participants greatly increased
the impact of the project across North Carolina. The partnership with the NC New
Schools Project has been invaluable to the MSP and brought a great deal of added value
to the content and pedagogical development of the teachers.
The second summer institutes were held on the campus of NC State University from July
7 – 24, 2009 in the Fox Science Teaching Laboratory with the support of the College of
Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty and staff of the Physics and
Chemistry departments. The 69 teachers in the second cohort are currently practicing
their new modeling skills in the classroom with the support of project staff. The teachers
came back for their first follow up workshop at The Science House on November 6-7,
2009 and are preparing for their second follow up meeting on February 5-6, 2010.
Complete details about all activities, partners, and participants can be found at the NC
MSP Data Collection Center. Below is a short summary of some of the key data.
Total Project Summary
The second cohort of participants includes 69 teachers in the following institutes:
Modeling Physics – 19
Modeling Physical Science – 20
Modeling Chemistry – 30
These 69 teachers represent:
44 districts
72 schools
The participants represent:
58 high school teachers
11 middle school teachers
At the time of this report the project has provided 101 activities, representing 620 contact
hours provided over a period of 149 days. These activities include not only the formal
institute hours but also school visits and coaching instruction provided by the two project
coaches.
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
1
The following summaries provide more specifics regarding each institute:
Modeling Physics
Agenda
During the summer institute physics participants covered the following topics:
Unit I: Scientific Thinking in Experimental Settings (experimental design, control of
variables, measurement, underlying assumptions, data collection, mathematical
modeling)
Unit II: Constant Velocity Particle Model (Objects in Translation with Constant Velocity)
Unit III: Particle Undergoing Uniform Acceleration (Objects in Linear Translation with
Constant Acceleration)
Unit IV: Free Particle Model (Inertia and Interactions)
Unit V: Constant Force Particle Model (Force as Cause of Acceleration in Linear
Translation)
Unit VI: Particle Models in Two Dimensions (Describing and Explaining Translation in a
Plane by Combining FP and One-Dimensional Models)
The Modeling Physics participants will cover these additional models during the three
academic year follow up workshops: Energy model, Central net force particle model, and
Electric charge and electric potential models.
Instructors:
Matt Greenwolfe – Cary Academy, Cary, NC
Michael Turner – Providence Day School, Charlotte, NC
Modeling Physical Science
Agenda
During the summer institute physical science participants covered the following topics:
Unit I: Geometric Properties of Matter
Unit II: Physical Properties of Matter
Unit III: Atomic Model of Matter
In addition the Physical Science workshop used two units from the Mechanics
curriculum:
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
2
Unit II: Constant Velocity Particle Model (Objects in Translation with Constant Velocity)
Unit III: Particle Undergoing Uniform Acceleration (Objects in Linear Translation with
Constant Acceleration)
The Modeling Physical Science participants will cover these additional models during the
three academic year follow up workshops: Force and motion (net force particle model),
current electricity using the CASTLE approach (electric charge model), and energy in
systems.
Instructors:
Tom Brown, Watauga High School, Boone, NC
Jason Lonon, Spartanburg Day School, Spartanburg, SC
Modeling Chemistry
Agenda
During the summer institute the chemistry participants covered the following topics:
Unit I: Physical Properties of Matter
Unit II: Energy & States of Matter 1
Unit III: Energy & States of Matter 2
Unit IV: Describing Substances
Unit V: Counting Particles Too Small to See
Unit VI: Chemical Reactions: Particles and Energy
Unit VII: Stoichiometry 1
Unit VIII: Further Applications of Stoichiometry
The Modeling Chemistry participants will cover these additional models during the three
academic year follow up workshops: models of the structure of the atom, periodic table
and trends, energy and temperature, and entropy.
Names and roles of other project staff:
Sharon Schulze - Science House Director
Scott Ragan – Science House Assistant Director & Project Director
Patty Blanton: Project Coach
Angela Gard: Project Coach
Robin Marcus: New Schools Project
Michael Howard: External Evaluator
Partner District Contacts:
Jeannie Dillman– Watauga County (fiscal agent)
Dr. Chris Mansfield – Martin County
Alan Lenk – Buncombe County
Janet Scott – Durham County
Dr. Caryl Burns – Caldwell County
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
3
II. Program Adjustments
Requested Project Changes for July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011
During the first interim report in January 2009 the project proposed a major adjustment
forged from a new partnership with the North Carolina New Schools Project (NCNSP).
Due to New Schools desire for the project to expand to a third institute focused on the
physical science needs of NCNSP schools and teachers, the MSP requested expansion
from two institutes to three and from 40 participants to 70. This expansion was
generously granted for the second and third years of the project. The inclusion of NCNSP
in this MSP has formed a strong partnership and created a greater impact for the project
across the state.
Therefore this interim report does request support that is different from the initial
proposal submitted in January 2008 but is consistent with the first interim report
submitted in January 2009. The project is operating under the expectation that three
institutes and 70 participants will again be funded as the partnership with NCNSP
continues in year three. Therefore the budget referenced in this report reflects that
information. During the third year of the project the Modeling MSP plans to offer the
following institutes:
2010-11 Modeling Institutes
July 6-23, 2010 – Summer Institutes
Modeling Physics II: Electricity, Light, & Waves
Modeling Physical Science I: Physics
Modeling Chemistry
We will once again hold three follow up workshops during the 2010-11 academic year.
Other than the desire to again offer a third institute and hold the participant total steady at
70 teachers as in year two, there are no significant changes in the program.
III. Science Safety (if applicable) – not applicable
IV. Evaluation
Evaluation activities since the Year 1 annual report have focused primarily on gathering
formative feedback on project activities and baseline data on the new cohorts of
participants to document changes through this academic year. Specifically, the following
activities were undertaken in the period June – December, 2009:

Administration of baseline content assessments and teacher questionnaires to
new participants in the chemistry, physics, and physical science cohorts.

Observation of the Modeling Summer Institutes for chemistry, physical
science, and physics, and administration of a Summer Institute Participant
Feedback Questionnaire to all institute participants.
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
4

Observation of the first academic year follow-up session for participants.

Administration of student assessments to pertinent classes of participants. Preassessments were administered at the beginning of the school year, and postassessments at the end of the semester (for those classes on block schedule).

Administration of a Mid-year Implementation Survey to teachers in the
current cohorts.
The remainder of this section summarizes and discusses the data gathered from these
activities.
Teacher Content Assessments
On the first day of the Summer Institutes, participants completed the teacher content
assessment pertinent to their institute – Assessment of Basic Chemistry Concepts
(chemistry), Physical Science Concept Inventory (physical science), or Force Concept
Inventory (physics). Results indicate no atypical characteristics for the chemistry and
physical science groups, but a moderate bimodal distribution for the physics group.
Chemistry (n=30)
Physical Science
(n=19)
Physics (n=20)
Mean %
correct
71.2%
74.9%
66.0%
Distribution of Scores
% scoring
% scoring
% scoring
<60% correct 60-80% correct >80% correct
23%
53%
23%
21%
53%
26%
35%
20%
45%
These results set the baseline from which changes will be gauged when the assessments
are repeated at the final follow-up meeting in March, 2010. Pre/post results will be
presented in the next annual report.
Student Content Assessments
Following the recommendation of the national Modeling program, the same assessment
(ABCC, PSCI, or FCI) is given in a pre/post format to students of participating teachers
as a measure of their learning of the targeted concepts. Several considerations must be
noted regarding administration of the student assessments: 1) In the fall semester, 2009,
about one-third of participating teachers were not teaching the course corresponding to
the Modeling Institute they attended. Student data is therefore not available for these
teachers. Some of them will be teaching the course in the spring semester and will give
the assessments at that time, but about 20% of participants were not assigned the relevant
course at all for the 2009-10 school year. 2) Some schools use block scheduling, so the
student post-assessment would be given at the end of the fall semester. Others are on a
full-year schedule, meaning post-assessment data will not be available until the end of the
school year. 3) Even for those schools on block schedule, the time between the end of the
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
5
semester and the submission of this report was too narrow to allow collection and
analysis of post-assessment data from many of the teachers. The amount of post-data
available for this report was not sufficiently representative to warrant discussion.
Therefore, only the baseline results for the pre-assessment data received to-date will be
presented here.
The table below shows the results of the baseline student assessments:
Chemistry
Physical Science
Physics
No. of
students
667
294
81
Combined data
Mean
# (%) of students
%
scoring
correct
>70% correct
33.7%
6 (1%)
35.0%
5 (2%)
25.3%
0 (0%)
Data by Class Tested
No. of classes
No. of
with class
classes
mean > 40%
33
6
14
4
6
0
The results for each course indicate that at the beginning of their respective courses, the
students’ conceptual knowledge of the targeted topics was quite low.
A fuller discussion of student performance, including pre/post results, will be presented
in the next annual report.
Summer Modeling Institutes
Three 3-week Modeling Institutes were held in July, 2009, addressing chemistry, physical
science, and physics. The chemistry institute was a new addition to the program offering.
Overall, observation of institute sessions and feedback from participants indicated that
the institutes were well organized and effective in introducing teachers to the Modeling
Approach for teaching the targeted topics. Feedback from participants on the
questionnaire given at the end of the institutes was quite positive:

According to participants, the institutes exhibited characteristics of effective
professional development, particularly having facilitators well grounded in the
content, active involvement of participants in the sessions, effective modeling
of strategies, relevance of the sessions to their classroom situations, and
opportunities to learn from each other as well as from the facilitators.

46% of the teachers indicated that their understanding of the content
addressed in the institute was “much deeper” than before; another 39%
indicated their understanding was “a little deeper.”

All but one participant were satisfied with their experiences in the institute.
Among the institute components seen as making major contribution to the
institute were modeling of instructional strategies by facilitators (83%),
discussion focused on building understanding of the Modeling Approach
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
6
(82%), interacting with facilitators (76%), materials and resources received
(70%), and interacting with other institute participants (67%).

Participants reported growth on all the institute objectives, particularly
learning characteristics of the Modeling Approach, becoming familiar with the
instructional strategies used in the approach, learning how units and lessons
are designed when using the approach, and getting to know university faculty
and experienced Modeling teachers who can serve as resources.

All the participants felt that the institutes were well organized and that their
time was well spent. They all indicated that they would recommend the
institute to other science teachers.

83% of participants responded “very true” that they intend to use the
Modeling Approach strategies in their teaching; another 15% responded
“mostly true.” Only one participant was less certain of using the approach.

78% of participants responded “very true” that they expect their science
teaching to be more effective as a result of what they learned at the institute;
the others responded “mostly true.”
In the view of both the external evaluator and the participating teachers, the Summer
Modeling Institutes were successful in achieving their objectives, and set a solid
foundation for implementing the Modeling Approach in participants’ classrooms.
Teachers’ Implementation of the Modeling Approach
In December, 2009 teachers in the chemistry, physical science, and physics cohorts
completed an on-line survey gathering their feedback on implementing the Modeling
Approach during the fall semester (a similar survey at the end of the 2009-10 school year
will gather additional feedback from the current cohorts and last year’s physics cohort).
In all, 65 of the 69 teachers responded, a 94% response rate. Highlights from the
collected responses include the following:

61 of the 65 teachers responding (94%) report that they are currently using the
Modeling Approach in one or more classes they teach. Of these, nearly half report
that Modeling is the core of their instructional approach; about one fourth use
Modeling particularly with lessons supplied through the project; and about one
fourth use Modeling as a supplement to their regular teaching methods.

One concern, known already to the project coaches, is that 20% of the teachers are
not teaching the course corresponding to the Modeling Institute they attended at
all during the 2009-10 school year. This severely hampers their ability to
implement their learning. Despite the lack of a compatible teaching assignment,
though, 9 of these 13 teachers reported that they are implementing the Modeling
Approach in their current classes.
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
7

About two-thirds of the teachers already feel comfortable using the Modeling
Approach, although most of these feel they need to improve their implementation.
About one-third do not yet feel effective using the approach.

Overall, the teachers are enthusiastic about using Modeling. 80% responded
“Definitely yes” that they plan to continue implementing the approach in the
spring semester; another 13% responded “Probably yes”. When asked to describe
changes in their teaching this year all but two teachers responded with specific
descriptions of things they were doing differently, such as use of whiteboards,
Socratic questioning, becoming more student-centered, and becoming more
sensitive to student misconceptions. The following are two typical (but wellstated) examples of their comments:
I try to spend less time lecturing and more time engaging students in meaningful
activities (labs, problem solving, etc). I also place more emphasis on concepts
rather than memorization. I have realized that students have become very good at
remembering information for a long enough period of time to pass the test but
soon enough forget it. The emphasis on concepts opens the door to some of
Bloom's higher level thinking skills. If I can get my students to think, they will be
able to succeed once they move beyond my class.
Students become
uncomfortable when they are required to think. They are most comfortable in the
realm of memorization. They like multiple choice and matching questions.
Students also prefer for you to ask them to solve problems that are exactly like
problems you have already solved for them. Unfortunately, it is not good for
students to simply regurgitate information. If they do not learn something that
they can apply somewhere other than on a test, the time and money spent on their
education is useless. We should place the emphasis on learning how to learn and
not on learning how to repeat.
I have made the modeling method the pedagogy that I follow for both of my
science classes this year (physical science and chemistry) and also for my precalculus class. I am working on ways to make it a more dominant part of my
discrete math and algebra 2 class. I have used some of the physics models in all
of my classes this year, but they have no reached the point of becoming the soul
method of teaching yet. I rely less and less upon lecture and teacher centered
instruction since my learning about the modeling method. I have gotten to the
point where I refuse to just tell them the answer if they get stuck, to the point of
frustrating students who are used to that method of teaching. Instead, I force
them to confirm their guesses to the answer with a physical observation. I have
utilized more time in lab per week than I have in the past, and the labs are not
confined to the controlled environment of the classroom. I have taken multiple
labs outdoors or into the hallways so that they can see that physics and chemistry
are not something that only exists in the classroom. This had been a huge
struggle for me in the past.

When asked about challenges they face implementing the Modeling Approach so
far, the most frequent issues revolved around time – taking too long to address the
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
8
topics (needing to “cover” more material) or too much preparation time needed
for the materials and equipment. Concerns about preparing students for district
and/or state assessments were also cited, as was lack of equipment and materials
needed for the laboratory activities. Teachers also report finding it a challenge to
step back from a “telling” or “explaining” role in their instruction, delaying use of
formal terminology, and having students design their own approaches to
investigate a question.

Teachers report feeling most successful thus far implementing use of whiteboards
for student discussions, having students work effectively in collaborative groups,
and having students explain their ideas in a variety of ways – orally or using
mathematics, graphs, or pictures.
Overall, most project participants are reporting good progress in their use of the
Modeling Approach, and are eager to continue improving their implementation.
Remaining Evaluation Tasks for 2009-2010
Several evaluation-related tasks for Project Year 2 are scheduled for the remainder of the
school year:

Post-assessment of teacher content knowledge and completion of the teacher
post-questionnaire, to be conducted at the final follow-up session, to measure
knowledge gains from project participation.

Collection of student post-assessment data from the fall semester courses and
pre/post student assessment data from the spring semester courses, to measure
knowledge gains by participants’ students.

Compilation of classroom observation data collected by the project coaches
during their support visits through the year, to complement participants’ selfreports of their practice on the questionnaires.

Administration of an end-of-year Modeling Implementation Questionnaire to
teachers in both the first and second participant cohorts, to gather formative
information about their successes and challenges using the Modeling
Approach.

Administration of an end-of-year Participant Feedback Questionnaire to the
current cohort of teachers, to gather their perceptions of the quality of the
project’s professional development and support, and its overall impact on their
teaching.
V. Budget Update
The current budget status is very good. The project will not have any problem funding all
proposed activities. One minor issue is in regards to the travel funds allocated to the two
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
9
project coaches. Because Angela Gard is required to travel overnight to support her
teachers more often than Patty Blanton, she is projecting to come in over budget on her
travel funds. However the other coach appears to be tracking under budget on her funds.
Therefore it may be necessary for the project to shift travel funds from Watauga and
Coach Patty Blanton to Manteo and Coach Angela Gard. However this proposed change
will not require the request for more travel funds for the current year.
As stated earlier in the section on program adjustments, there are no significant
adjustments to the planned program for year three. The project does plan to again offer a
third institute in partnership with the New Schools Project, as proposed and accepted in
last year’s interim report.
As such the total budget requested for July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2001 is $749,103. This
reflects a 4% increase over the current year. An updated budget is included with this
report.
Other than the proposal’s original increases in anticipated state salary and benefits raises
for project staff, there is only one minor proposed budget change. In the revised budget
submitted in January 2009 travel for the two project coaches was estimated at $45,100 for
travel and subsistence for the two project coaches. This was not equally divided between
the two coaches. Patty Blanton in Watauga was budgeted at $29,500 per year and Angela
Gard in Manteo was budgeted at $15,600 per year. Current estimates indicate that the
travel funds for Blanton will come in under budget while funds for Gard will be over
budget. In order to alleviate this discrepancy for year three, the project is requesting that
the total travel budget for both coaches be increased to $54,000. These funds will be
equally split between the two coaches who both require extensive travel across the state
in order to support all 70 participants. This slight increase in budget will also provide
funds for both coaches to attend the U.S. Department of Education’s annual MSP
meetings and to attend and present at local and national science conferences.
VI. Timeline Update
The Modeling project is on schedule with the timeline outlined in the original proposal.
The second cohort of teachers went through the summer institute and first academic year
follow up and still have two follow up workshops to complete:
July 7 - 24, 2009 Summer Institutes – complete
November 6-7, 2009 First Academic Year Follow Up – complete
February 5-6, 2010 Second Academic Year Follow Up
March 12-13, 2010 Third Academic Year Follow Up
Recruitment for year three participants began in the fall of 2009 and will continue
throughout the spring of 2010. As of this report we have already received 85 applications
for the anticipated 70 slots and expect many more applications to arrive in the next
couple of months. Demand is high and we will have no problem filling all three institutes.
The 2010 summer institutes will also be held on the campus of NC State University on
the following dates: July 6-23, 2010.
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
10
VII. Challenges
One of the major challenges we have faced in year two is the same as last year and was
noted in the evaluation section. Approximately 20% of the teachers are not teaching the
course (physics, physical science, or chemistry) corresponding to the Modeling Institute
they took during the summer. This percentage is down from last year as steps were taken
to alleviate this problem. Prior to being accepted into the program the teachers and their
administrators were asked to sign a letter of commitment. That letter stated:
In order to maximize the effectiveness of this project and the knowledge and skills
gained by the teacher, it is a requirement for selection that he/she has at least one
section of (Physics, Physical Science, or Chemistry) during the 2009-10 school
year. While we realize it is difficult to make any guarantees regarding teaching
schedules, we hope the school and administration will work to ensure this is the
case.
Unfortunately the project does not have the power to enforce this requirement upon the
schools and administrators, we can only strongly promote and encourage it. Before
returning to school at the end of the summer some teaching assignments were
unexpectedly changed. Despite this challenge the investment in the teachers has not been
wasted. As noted in the evaluation section the large majority of the teachers facing this
situation are still reporting they are implementing the Modeling Approach into their
current courses with full support from the project coaches. Regardless of what their
teaching assignment is, the experience of the immersion workshop helps improve content
knowledge and confidence in their instruction and exposes them to the pedagogical
approaches necessary to reform science instruction. The professional development they
are receiving in their respective institute will also be of great use when they hope to get
new teaching assignments in the next academic year. At that time the project staff and
coaches will continue to support them in any way possible.
A challenge that seems more pronounced in year two is the number of schools that are
poorly equipped to do inquiry based instruction. We have found some schools lack basic
lab necessities and supplies. While it is difficult for the project to meet this challenge, we
have strived to help as much as possible, even if it means simply being an advocate for
the teachers to get this support from their schools and administrations. We have also
helped by providing some inquiry based loan equipment to the participants. Both coaches
have a set of equipment that is available to the teachers. In addition the satellite offices
of The Science House have provided support to many teachers in their service areas.
One final note is more of an idea to meet a future need than a current challenge. While
our participants are largely high school teachers (84%), we did accept some middle
teachers, the vast amount of who are in the Physical Science Institute. The middle school
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
11
teachers have benefited greatly from participation in the institutes and improved their
content knowledge and pedagogical skills. However there may be a better way to serve
them with a Modeling course tailored to their needs and curriculum, something to
consider for future projects and professional development.
Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry
12