A slight edit in Dec. 2008 of a report submitted on Sept. 4, 2001 to the Arizona Community
Foundation.
MEMO
To: Susan Perkins, Program Officer, Arizona Community Foundation
From: David Hestenes and Jane Jackson, Department of Physics, Arizona State University,
Tempe
Jane.Jackson@asu.edu 480-965-8438
Subject: Final report for the ACF 2000 grant, “Physics Modeling Workshop for School
Technology Infusion”
Arizona students’ gain in understanding of the force concept doubles after one
year of teachers' full implementation of the Modeling Method of Instruction,
compared to traditional instruction.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP
Since 1989, the National Science Foundation–funded Modeling Workshop Project based
at ASU [1,2] has evolved into a nationwide program to train high school physics teachers as
leaders of science teaching reform and as local experts on best use of technology in science
teaching.
In consequence of its well-documented success, the Modeling Workshop Project has
stimulated formation of the Arizona Science and Technology Education Partnership (AzSTEP),
which aims to institutionalize the reforms and methods of the Modeling Workshops in a
statewide program for professional development of inservice science teachers.
The mission and service of AzSTEP are professional development of inservice and
preservice science teachers, and collaboration with school districts: advice on planning and
implementing science education reform. In every high school of the state, AzSTEP aims to
establish and maintain at least one fully equipped classroom with an expert teacher who keeps
up-to-date in the rapidly evolving uses of technology in science teaching.
Already more than half of the high school physics teachers in the state are engaged in
AzSTEP. These teachers are being cultivated as a cadre of leaders for science education reform at
all grade levels. AzSTEP is steadily building a strong presence in schools and school districts
throughout Arizona, but especially in Maricopa County; two-thirds of Maricopa County physics
teachers have participated in at least one Modeling Workshop, resulting in documented large
increases in student understanding.
Twenty-six inservice and preservice teachers participated in the 18 day Arizona
Community Foundation funded Physics Modeling Workshop in mechanics in July 2000. The
workshop was held in the physics classroom of peer leader Sheila Ringhiser at Washington High
School in Glendale. The workshop co-leader was Bill Doerge, formerly the physics teacher at
Central High School in Phoenix.
1
Nine participants (1/3) were women. Six taught this year at schools with large
percentages of disadvantaged minority students. One taught in Yuma, one in Sierra Vista, and
the rest in the Valley.
Teachers had 30 hours per week of instruction plus homework. Two follow-up day-long
Saturday sessions were held in September and October, for a total contact time of 120 hours. The
course carried four semester hours of graduate credit in physical science at ASU.
1. HOW FUNDS WERE USED
All of the $24,000 directly benefited the teachers.
Participant stipends: $9350
Peer leader fees: $8600
Participant workshop materials, whiteboards, computer lab interfaces, probes: $4990.94
Laser printer for Sheila Ringhiser's classroom (in lieu of facility use fee): $1008
Mailing: $37.68.
2. OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
Medtronic Foundation: part of a $15,000 grant for classroom technology for physics teachers in
the Valley was used to buy computer lab interfaces and probes for 4 teachers.
Arizona StRUT, a corporate-funded business, donated 23 refurbished computers to 4 needy
teachers.
3. EXTENT TO WHICH OUTCOME OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN REALIZED
Twenty-one inservice teachers were supported with $25/day stipends. Of these, four participants
taught only subjects other than physics this year: math (2), biology (1), and physical science (1).
One physics teacher was able to participate only the first week, for PUHSD required him to
attend 2 weeks of induction workshops thereafter. One physics teacher quit teaching in December
2000, and one died suddenly in February 2001. One did not respond to our request for data. One
preservice teacher student-taught in the physics classroom of an expert modeler this year; she is
included in our analysis of 14 practicing physics teachers.
A. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS: STUDENTS
What matters most is: do the students learn more, due to their teacher's workshop experience? To
answer this question, we attempted an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction in
the classes of all participants. Since the workshop focused on mechanics, we assessed student
understanding of the force concept (which has several dimensions). The evaluation instrument,
Force Concept Inventory (FCI), is well established, with an extensive data base to support
objective evaluation comparing results from high schools and colleges throughout the country.
[1,3,5,6,7] Unfortunately, in spite of our efforts, only 7 of the 14 teachers gave the FCI in the
2000-01 school year.
Student class average scores for the 258 students of the 7 teachers who sent us data are:
FCI 2001 post-test: 57%
normalized gain (Hake factor, see Ref. 5): <g> = 0.42
2
These numbers are significantly higher than a comparable group of 26 Arizona teachers who
participated in Eisenhower funded modeling workshops at ASU and NAU in 1998; for those
groups,
FCI 1999 post-test: 49%
<g> = 0.32
These FCI scores are a large improvement over the abysmal baseline posttest scores of 40% 42% (<g>=.2) under traditional instruction before the teachers’ modeling workshop, both in
Arizona and nationwide. (The typical FCI pretest class average is 26%, a nearly random score.)
In sum, these 7 teachers' class FCI results are evidence that student understanding of the force
concept doubles, as measured by <g>, after one year of full implementation by the teacher.
These data are in agreement with our results for 20,000 high school physics students nationwide.
A proviso: six of the seven teachers who submitted FCI student scores said that they
implemented Modeling Instruction regularly. In fact, nine of our 14 teachers reported this; the
other five said that they implemented Modeling Instruction frequently, sometimes, or (for one
teacher) seldom. We expect that students of the latter 5 teachers didn't learn as much as they
could have, because their teachers didn't implement the modeling method regularly. Our evidence
from more than 20,000 students is that teachers who implement Modeling Instruction the most
fully have the highest student FCI posttest scores.
Three levels of physics are offered in many high schools: regular (which uses only algebra),
honors (which uses trigonometry), and Advanced Placement or second year physics. Of the 14
teachers who taught physics this year, 65% taught regular, 30% taught honors, and one-fifth
taught AP or second year physics. (These are typical percentages.) The FCI data have been
broken down by course type and are shown in Table 1 (available in print from Jane Jackson).
B. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS: TEACHERS
Assessment of teacher understanding of the force concept was via the FCI and the Mechanics
Baseline Test (MBT) [8]. These two tests were given at the start of the workshop and again at a
follow-up day in October, two months into the academic year. For the 10 teachers who
participated in the workshop and the follow-up, and who taught physics in 2000-01, average
scores are:
FCI: 73% initially; increased by 10 percentage points to 83%,
MBT: 61% initially; didn't change, although some teachers' scores greatly increased.
These results show that the workshop resulted in improved teacher understanding of the force
concept but didn't sharpen teachers’ problem solving skills, for that is the focus of the MBT.
This workshop group started out considerably weaker than the 1998 groups. (The 26 Arizona
teachers in the 1998 workshops had an initial FCI average score of 90% and an initial MBT
average score of 68%; their FCI average increased by 6 percentage points and their MBT by 10
percentage points, but over one year, rather than two months.)
3
Figures 1 and 2 (available in print from Jane Jackson) show the teachers’ FCI and MBT scores.
Four of the 14 physics teachers are not included, for they did not attend the follow-up day.
Included on the figures are a math teacher, a biology teacher, and a preservice teacher.
C. QUALITATIVE RESULTS
The commitment of the participants and their high schools to technology infusion and
educational reform was assessed by several qualitative measures, including:
(a) Installation of computer hardware and software for the teacher's classroom.
(b) Implementation of the Modeling Method in the teacher‘s physics classes.
(c) Technology training of other science teachers in the participant’s school.
(d) Adoption by local teachers in other sciences (and at other grade levels) of some of the
teaching techniques and technology (this can only be measured long-term).
In July 2001 these data were gathered by e-mail and phone interview using a self-reporting form.
Results are:
a) COMPUTERS AND SCIENTIFIC PROBES ADDED:
The 14 teachers now have 95 computers in their classrooms. Thirty-three are additions this year;
of these, 23 are donated refurbished Pentiums or PowerMacs from Arizona StRUT.
The number of photogates doubled (53 initially, 50 added). Motion sensors increased by 75% (37
initially, 28 added), and force probes increased modestly (20 initially, 6 added) over the year.
Grants from the Medtronic Foundation and the Arizona Community Foundation account for the
majority of scientific probes obtained. Most teachers need more basic probes, especially
motion sensors and force probes!
In 50% of classrooms, there are enough computers and probes so that three students can work at
each lab station; for the other 50%, four students must work at a lab station. This is a bad
situation, especially because teachers report that enrollments are increasing this year!
Five of the teachers’ classrooms aren't connected to the Internet. The Internet is not crucial to this
program.
b) IMPLEMENTATION OF MODELING INSTRUCTION:
Of the 14 teachers who taught physics this year, 2/3 said that they regularly follow the modeling
cycle, and 20% said that they frequently follow it. One-third rated their understanding of the
modeling cycle as very good; over half rated it good.
No one rated their overall implementation of the modeling cycle as very good; however, 80%
rated it as good, 2 teachers as fair, and 1 as poor. Forty percent said that the modeling cycle is
much better than traditional lecturing, with respect to their students’ understanding of course
materials; and 40% said it is better. FCI posttest data bear this out.
70% use whiteboards regularly or frequently. All but two regularly ask students to work in
groups. All but 2 regularly or frequently ask their students to debate their ideas in class. One-
4
third lecture seldom, and half lecture sometimes. 65% say that their students react favorably to
the modeling cycle, and 20% say that their students react very favorably.
Each of these indicators of implementation is comparable to (but some are a bit weaker than)
previous groups of Arizona teachers after their first workshop.
c) and d) SCHOOL LEADERSHIP:
The 14 physics teachers this year reported that they taught something that they’d learned in the
workshops to 34 other science and/or math teachers at their school. Three of them led a school
inservice (ex. on whiteboarding strategies).
Long-term goals are to increase the number of students, and particularly underserved students,
who take physics. For the 14 teachers, the number of sections of physics that they taught was 35
and the number of students was 740. (These numbers are comparable to previous groups.) In
some schools teachers report that the number of sections has increased this fall (2001) as a result
of Modeling Instruction.
The median percentages of girls and disadvantaged minorities were about 50% and 25%,
respectively. (These percentages are comparable to previous groups.) Our extensive data in our
nationwide program indicates that Modeling Instruction is gender-neutral. This report is due too
soon to measure an enrollment increase in girls and minorities in this group; but teachers who
were in our pilot workshops nearly a decade ago say that a larger percentage of girls take physics
since they started using Modeling Instruction.
Teachers were pleased with Modeling Instruction and with technology.
Here is an example of teacher satisfaction, from an experienced teacher at a charter
school for the fine arts where all students take physics but many have traditionally hated (been
afraid of?) math. She is a new modeler, and she had told me earlier in the year that her students
loved working with the classroom technology to learn physics, and for the first time in their lives,
math made sense to them. Her class average fractional gains on the Force Concept Inventory
were 2 1/2 times higher than those under traditional instruction.
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001
Dear Jane,
You asked me to give you some of my thoughts about how and what my students
learned due to the use of modeling vs. traditional methods.
You already have my students' FCI results and so it is apparent that they have
improved their understanding of force. I had some who were still not "Newtonian" by
the end of the year, but each student improved. I know from the articles I have read
on the FCI that they improved more than would be expected using traditional
methods, so have made the assumption that the modeling I used in my classroom this
year made the difference.
If I could have videotaped the students performing the constant velocity lab and
compared it to a tape of the circular motion lab, for instance, the difference in their
5
competence with experimental design, set-up, performance and evaluation would
stand out. I was so pleased to observe them taking up a question and figuring out
how to go about answering it. They got used to blatently using scientific method
without thinking about the process. Their ability to determine variables, figure out the
variables that could interfere with results, and understanding which were most
important to the results grew dramatically. I could stand back and watch this happen!
The students became very adept at using the probeware and computer
programs to gather and analyze the data they collected. They demonstrated the
ability to work in teams to solve problems, and to be responsible to each other for
completing their tasks. They clearly showed that they could ask questions and find
the means to answer them themselves. What more could we want for critical thinking
development?
I felt much better about the conceptual understanding of physics that my
students took away this year compared to other years, because I could really
evaluate it. Modeling uses much more verbalizing and questioning, and it allowed me
to evaluate my students level of understanding much better. I really saw the
misconceptions mentioned in the literature, but this time I dealt with them in a
different and more helpful way. I knew to look for student misconceptions actively.
Comments from other participating teachers are in the Appendix.
4. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY AZSTEP, DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS
GRANT
The program was disseminated via a talk and invited poster presentation given by Project
Director Jane Jackson at the American Association of Physics Teachers (AZ-AAPT) Summer
meeting and Physics Education Research Conference in Guelph, Canada in August 2000.
5. PROBLEMS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE GRANT YEAR
Most principals pledged in writing in spring 2000 to seek opportunities for teachers to lead
school inservices on integrating technology into science classroom instruction. After the
workshop we sent a follow-up letter to principals, asking them again to do this. Nevertheless, it
didn't happen in most cases. Teachers report that this isn't a habit in their school; little if any
content-related staff development is offered.
In prior years, at least half the teachers returned for a second modeling workshop. Of this group,
only 6 returned; that is about 1/3 of the physics teachers enrolled. Furthermore, teachers who
need it most, as indicated by the fact that they implemented modeling instruction least, didn't
return. One reason is that no stipend could be offered this summer (although a tuition waiver was
available). Teachers must have incentives to receive high quality professional development; a
sizable stipend is an important incentive.
Teachers of mathematics and biology reported that they weren't able to use as much of Modeling
Instruction as they wanted to, because no ready-made curriculum was available and no unifying
theme was apparent in those subjects.
6
6. OUR PLANS FOR CONTINUING THE PROJECT, AND FOR FUNDING
To extend Modeling Instruction to middle school and to related high school subjects, this
week the Arizona K-12 Center and physics and mathematics faculty in Arizona's 3 universities
are submitting a proposal to the National Science Foundation. [Note: unfunded] The summary is:
"... to establish the Arizona Science and Technology Education Partnership
(AzSTEP) as a statewide program to provide K-12 schools with the resources they
need for high-quality, systemic reform in science, mathematics and technology
education.
To provide professional development in best teaching practices and
curriculum materials, AzSTEP will organize and support a Coalition of AzSTEP
Providers, involving faculty from all three state universities and a statewide
Council of Master Teachers. The providers will collaborate in developing an
integrated suite of graduate courses designed to meet the needs of the schools and
satisfy state and national standards for science and mathematics education. In
particular, middle and high school courses in physical science, physics and
chemistry will be integrated by a common conceptual thread with thematic strands
in scientific modeling, structure of matter, energy and use of calculators and
computers as scientific tools. Mathematics instruction will be coupled to this
thread at all levels through an emphasis on mathematical modeling.
To provide schools with ready access to the educational expertise of the
Providers, AzSTEP will broker partnerships with school districts throughout the
state. To participate, school districts must agree to a plan for educational reform
and share in funding to support it. Five school districts distributed across the state
will participate initially, and efforts to expand participation will continue
throughout the duration of the grant.
The long-range goal is to establish AzSTEP as a permanent resource to
assist all school districts in continuous upgrades of science, mathematics and
technology education. AzSTEP will stand as a national exemplar of University
support for K-12 education reform."
To develop an associated component of AzSTEP, namely high school physics teachers'
professional development, this week David Hestenes submitted another proposal to the National
Science Foundation. [Note: it was funded from 2002 through 2005.] The summary is:
" This project will consolidate and extend a graduate program that prepares high
school physics teachers to lead science education reform in their schools and
school districts. The program will be available to teachers nationwide and serve as
a national resource and an exemplar for professional development programs at
other universities. The program is tailored to meet the needs of inservice teachers
with studies in contemporary science, effective pedagogy, use of technology,
leadership and community building. Courses are in three main categories: (1)
Research-based physics pedagogy and peer community building in full accord
with the National Science Education Standards; (2) Interdisciplinary courses to
promote collaboration among teachers in different sciences and understanding of
relations among science, society and environment; (3) Major advances in 20th
7
century physics. Courses in the latter two categories will be taught by research
scientists to share their insights and excitement directly with the teachers. At the
same time, teachers will share with the faculty what they know about science
pedagogy. All courses will be offered in the summer to make the program
accessible to teachers nationwide. This leads to a Master of Natural Science
degree that can be completed within three summers."
7. MAJOR BENEFITS OF THIS GRANT TO AZSTEP AND TO THE COMMUNITY
This grant strengthened AzSTEP's foundations in Arizona, especially in the schools of
participating teachers. It produced a few outstanding teachers who will be involved in leadership
roles in the two NSF grants described above, should they be funded. Time will tell what longterm benefits will accrue, but we expect that the positive effects will amply reward your funding
of this workshop.
8
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] Modeling Instruction in High School Physics (NSF Grant ESI 9353423, 1994-2000), D.
Hestenes, PI. Information about the workshops can be obtained by visiting the Project’s
web site at http://modeling.asu.edu.
[3] D. Hestenes, Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55: 440-454
(1987).
[4] 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).
[5] 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 ). Also,
unpublished data in the Modeling Workshop Project for more than 20,000 students.
[6] I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students, Am. J.
Phys. 53: 1043-1055 (1985).
[7] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, The Physics Teacher
30: 141-158 (1992).
[8] D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A Mechanics Baseline Test, The Physics Teacher 30: 159-156
(1992).
APPENDIX: more comments by teachers in the ACF modeling workshop
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
As I taught math last year, I did not give my students the FCI. However, the modeling
workshop did improve my teaching. I learned new ways to tie math and physics together, and
experiments that I could modify for AlgebraII/Trigonometry. I also got tips and practice on
how to question students instead of lecturing.
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
Since this was the first year I taught, I have nothing to which I can compare the modeling
method. I still believe it is a good way to teach physics because I believe teaching students how
find answers to life's questions is better that giving them answers. If what they know is limited
to what I know, then they cannot exceed my understanding of physics.
Here is a quote from a student of mine that might help you with your report:
"Don't ever change your method of letting us experiment in labs to figure out equations, and by
making us think through not giving out all the answers."
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
I had a wonderful year teaching physics this year because of the modeling method. Although I
did not cover the breadth of topics that I used to, I covered mechanics and dynamics in much
more detail. I felt that many of the students had an excellent grasp of these topics and I also
know that many preconceived ideas about "how things work' was changed. The discussion in
the classroom was often rich and in great detail. The students like the class. Many of them told
9
me that they felt they were better math students. One girl asked me "how come they don't teach
math this way?" Our physics sections have grown from 4 to 7 for next year. The class has the
reputation of being fun and you learn a lot. I am excited about next year and I am already
working on how to fine-tune what I did as a facilitator. Tighten some portions of the class.
Putting the responsibility for learning on the students was great and I feel very successful.
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
I am sorry to say I did not give the FCI this year. I gave it once the year before but I did not
keep track of the data. I'll just give you as much info as I can. This past year I had
approximately 90 physics students. The vast majority of these students were Caucasian, with a
small amount of Afro-American students, a small amount of Asian students, and a small
amount of Hispanic students. I would say the crop was about evenly split between boys and
girls. Out of the 90 students I had a total of 5 that failed the course. My students definitely
benefited by having me take the modeling workshop. I was better organized after the workshop
and proceeded through my units of study in a more logical order. I also became much better at
using and teaching the modeling concepts such as "force diagrams," and "motion graphs." My
students used graphs and graphing more extensively and really came to understand how to
interpret complex information from graphs. Compared to the year before I took the modeling
workshop my students definitely performed better this year. There were fewer failures and
fewer frustrated students. A considerably wide range of abilities was represented in my student
crop this past year and many students who had doubts at the beginning ended up doing very
well in the class. Perhaps the single greatest benefit to the students is simply the fact that I am a
better teacher because of my participation in the workshop. I feel much more solid and
confident using and teaching modeling methods as well as any other method of physics
instruction I may use.
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
As you may recall, I was not scheduled to teach physics in the school year 2000-2001, so I
cannot comment on how my students would have done. Sorry that I was not a valuable
participant. I really did enjoy it very much and I came away with some very valuable tools that
I hope to use soon.
The teaching was excellent!
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
This was my first experience in using the full modeling approach. I have taught using
Hewitt's text Conceptual Physics at three other schools, 5 different classes. This was my first
year teaching physics at ------ High School.
I found the students made huge strides, better than any other physics classes I've taught,
using the modeling curriculum that I received summer training through ASU and the Arizona
Community Foundation. The students who used the techniques and battled their
misconceptions with peer discussion, lab development of the concepts, and whiteboarding
gained a much clearer, coherent mental picture of Classical Mechanics. They were able to
approach problem-solving from conceptual and graphical models and not just plug-n-chug
equations. In the end I believe they enjoyed it and became less instructor-dependent.
------ went from a 7 to a 22 on the FCI Inventory. He battled the system until the last 3
months. He also was tough on me with criticism that I didn't answer questions directly and
10
made him think it out. He loves science and technology and learning apart from strict formula
approaches. He obviously made significant progress. He even complimented me the last day
of class and appreciated modeling.
Therefore, I highly praise Jane Jackson, David Hestenes, ASU, and the Arizona Community
Foundation for this profound improvement and enhancement to my teaching tools. I'm not
great at it yet, but I learned a lot, and expect to be better with the modeling approach. ...
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
The FCI results were quite an improvement but I think if I continue to develop my skills in
modeling for next year they may be better still. Many students still maintain many of their
misconceptions. Also I have to work on getting smaller groups. This may not be possible
because classes have increased in size. Some classes had 4 to 5 to a computer. All scores for the
AP B are for a first year course.
Jane, I really want to thank you for your assistance and want to thank Medtronic for the
equipment. I have really enjoyed using the modeling concept this year and hope to use in my
Chemistry classes next year. I will be having two regular Physics classes and one AP B Physics
class which I believe are quite large and two Chemistry classes. We are short a chemistry
teacher for a section therefore I don't have the luxury of four smaller Physics classes.
11