Reported by the External Evaluator:
Rose Shaw, Ph.D.
Metrica
1703 36 th Avenue Court
Greeley, CO 80634-2807
970.330.3161 roseshaw@cybox.com
Report Date: July 29, 2008
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008
1

Introduction to the Project
Project Impact: Peer Leaders
Project Impact: Teachers from the Partner District
Project Impact: Becoming More Highly Qualified
Summative Evaluation: RTOP Observations Over Time
2007-08 RTOP Observation Narrative Report
Project Strengths
Project Challenges
Internal Evaluation Process
Evaluation Instruments and Protocols
External Evaluation Activities
Interview of Patricia Burr
PHS 534: Two Teachers’ Reflections
Use of the RTOP by Teachers
External Evaluator’s Comments
Appendix A: Jane Jackson (6/24/08 and 6/25/08) Emails
Appendix B: Challenges to Teaching Inquiry Science
Page 1
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 8
Page 20
Page 21
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 28
1
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

1
The Arizona State University Department of Physics and Astronomy and its chief high-need
Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD) formed a partnership to implement Modeling
Instruction in High School Physics , which was designated exemplary in 2000 by the U.S.
Department of Education’s Mathematics and Science Education Expert Panel, to improve the quality of participating teachers’ physics, chemistry, physical science and mathematics pedagogy and Arizona standards-based content. Teachers will participate each summer for two years in summer modeling workshops and other content courses in the physical sciences with mathematical modeling, and three full-day follow-up sessions each year. The physical sciences, technology and mathematics are integrated in this professional development with thematic strands in scientific and mathematical modeling and the use of technology as a scientific tool.
Previous evaluations of Modeling Instruction verified that the science courses taught by the participating teachers will be more rigorous resulting in improved student learning in science.
One of the impacts of this project was that it provided the opportunity for teachers who participate in the workshops and courses to become Modeling Instruction leaders. Peer leaders, teachers who are invited by the Modeling Instruction Program co-lead workshops with experienced modeling workshop leaders. Peer leaders of four workshops CHM 594, PHS 530,
PHS 542 and PHS 594 highlighted their strengths in lesson planning and implementation. The
CHM 594 peer leader wrote, “I’ve taught chemistry for over 25 years. I’ve worked hard to find ways to organize the high school course around models instead of topics, as is most curricula today. I am able to help teachers recognize that teaching by telling is ineffective and can help they find ways to get their students to develop a better conceptual understanding of chemistry. I have a good grasp of the current chemistry education research and help the teachers in the workshop recognize I conceptions and how to deal with them.” All four peer leaders reported having had a high quality experience as a peer leader working with an experienced workshop leader. Two of them commented on their experience:

I have had the opportunity to work with several dedicated and talented colleagues who have not only helped me run workshops, but have also developed the skills to lead workshops in their own right.

I learned a lot as a new workshop leader—about the issues teacher in other states and countries have and of the apprehensions that they feel about implementing in their classrooms.
They all provided anecdotal evidence pertaining to the impact of the workshop on the participating teachers:

Teachers tell us that the workshop is a “transformative experience”; i.e., that they cannot go back to teaching in the manner that they have been using prior to the workshop.

I received an email from one of the participants who is implementing student blogs, as a way of connecting student discourse outside the class. This was something she learned in our workshop. Another teacher from the workshop returned to ASU this week to attend the
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

2
AMTA (American Modeling Teachers Association) meeting held there. He was impressed enough with modeling to want to drive back, from Southern California, to learn more and collaborate and socialize with other modelers.

No teacher leaves a modeling workshop the same as they came. One phrase we constantly used while looking at relationships between two quantities was “Are they ‘the same’, ‘not the same’ or ‘the same but not the same’?” My most special moment I in the third week after we relaxed and got to know each other: At lunch a Jewish woman from NY/Phoenix and a
Muslim woman from Kuwait were sitting like sisters and discussing differences and similarities in being women in their religions. God was smiling: “Same but not the same.” I am crying as I think about this. I was “the leader” in this workshop yet grew the most.

Each summer I see teacher who took my workshop the previous year. The fact that they are coming back for another class should indicate that the modeling workshops have a positive impact on teachers. I also get a chance to hear about their successes in the classroom. They become firm believers in the modeling method.
Four teachers from the partner school district who participated in the ITQ project during its two years summarized the impact of their participation.

The impact of the modeling courses has been enormous. My background, like many physics teachers, was NOT in physics. When I was told that I would be taking over the general physics classes at my school, I immediately started calling around my district for help from other physics teachers – I fully intended to steal, beg, or borrow anything I could get. Lucky for me what I got was advice to take the first of the modeling courses. I used a lot of
“cookbook” labs when I taught chemistry. Now, I can't imagine doing that – everything is inquiry. Everything is discussed, debated, turned upside down and inside out. The students tend to resist at first; they're much too used to sitting passively and taking notes. But once they buy in, they love it. I love it. The students get much more out of the content and I get more enjoyment out of teaching.

It has motivated me to refine and continue to improve the way I work with students to provide them with opportunities to learn and understand the concepts they are asked to master.

Modeling has been a huge impact and continues to be today. I am making progress each year in getting my students to think (my overall goal when I started in 2006). Modeling allows me to use the different strengths of students when they are grouped and help them help each other to understand the topics we are covering. I’m looking forward to this year and with the new ideas I want to try out in class. Last year was a bit harder to try since we had just received a new book and the school asked us to try and stay on the same page on testing and other assignments. That made it difficult since I was not familiar with the new book.

The impact of modeling has been tremendous. It has influenced me to put the onus on the student to think on how to solve problems (mathematically and physically). It also highlights misconceptions that students have and constantly addresses them. I especially like the representations offered by modeling that helps students visually what is happening.
Although, I think that modeling is lacking on the writing component of science and some sort of reference text.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

3
The impact of the project is also reflected in the motivation the Modeling Program provides for teachers to continue with this professional development model. Three teachers talked about their motivations for continuing with the modeling workshops during the two years of the project:

The primary reason is that I need them for my MNS degree. However, I would have taken the modeling classes even if I wasn't working on the degree; they provide a fantastic combination of physics content and teaching methodology.

I have been motivated by the quality of the classes and the different ideas that I can use and incorporate into my own classes. And the price is also something I can afford, being a new teacher in this area; otherwise I could not take these classes.

I am motivated by the innovated ways of teaching physics and as well as the content review. I took Mechanics and Optics in the modeling classes. A nice byproduct is the interaction of fellow modelers, too.
Three of the four teachers who teach in the partner school district and were not highly qualified at the beginning of the project became highly qualified. One of the teachers referred to becoming more highly effective even though she was highly qualified.
 Becoming “highly qualified” through the modeling courses was MUCH better for me than if
I'd taken more “traditional” content classes. These classes provided the content AND the methodology in ways that really pushed me to think and process. This will translate much better into the classroom.

I am going to take the physics test later this year and hopefully become highly qualified there.

I was already highly qualified in physics and mathematics. But it sure did help a lot to be in the courses and workshops.
Just as they had during the interviews in 2006, teachers were asked about how highly they implement seven components of modeling. Rating means and standard deviations are displayed below. These are self-reported, non-rubric determined ratings that should not be overly interpreted. One of the teachers who recorded 2008 ratings of 3.5 on modeling strategies and
Socratic questioning wrote, “While I tried to make full use of all of the above, I'm still working on how well/effective that implementation is. I scored myself lower on the last two (and thus the strategies category as well) as those are the areas that I struggle most with. However, I do recognize the issues and am working to improve.”
These teachers reported being more effective at implementing all aspects of Modeling as a result of having participated in the project for two years.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

4
The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) was developed as an observation instrument to provide a standardized means for detecting the degree to which K-20 classroom instruction in mathematics or science is reformed.
1
The protocol was used to assess levels of implementation of reformed science instruction by 10 ITQ project teachers from the partner district, Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD). To ensure confidentiality, after the observations, no information about the observations was shared with PUHSD or the teachers.
The External Evaluation contacted Deedee Falls of PUHSD about the observations; teachers and their principals approved the observations. The following table summarizes when the ten teachers were observed. Note that four teachers (A, B, C and D) were observed all three times.
Table 1: PUHSD chemistry, physics and physical science teachers observed during project years
1 and 2
Teacher by
Code
Spring 2007
Pre-
Fall 2007
Post-
Spring 2008
Post-post
A X X X
B X X X
C X X X
D X X X
E X X
F X
G X X
H X
I X X
J X
Summative RTOP Evaluation: Mean Ratings
The highest possible total score on the RTOP is 100. Ratings are 0 to 4 (0-never occurred; 4very descriptive) for 25 dimensions of effective instruction grouped into five categories: Lesson
Design and Implementation, Propositional Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge, Communicative
Interactions and Student/Teacher Relationships. The following bar graph displays the mean total scores for pre-, post- and post-post time frames. The mean ratings for each dimension for each of the three observations are displayed in the tables that follow the bar graph. The means of the subtotals for each of the five categories are also displayed in the five tables.
1 http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/RTOP_full/about_RTOP.html
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

5
Lesson Design and Implementation
1) The instructional strategies and activities respected students’ prior knowledge and the preconceptions inherent therein.
2) The lesson was designed to engage students as members of a learning community.
3) In this lesson, student exploration preceded formal presentation.
4) This lesson encouraged students to seek and value alternative modes of investigation or of problem solving.
5) The focus and direction of the lesson was often determined by ideas originating with students.
SUBTOTAL
Content: Propositional Knowledge
6) The lesson involved fundamental concepts of the subject.
7) The lesson promoted strongly coherent conceptual understanding.
Pre-
Mean
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.6
1.1
7.1
Pre-
Mean
2.3
1.4
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008
Post-
Mean
3.0
3.3
2.5
1.4
2.1
12.3
Post-
Mean
4.0
1.9
Post-post
Mean
3.7
3.0
2.2
2.0
3.0
13.8
Post-post
Mean
3.3
3.0

6
8) The teacher had a solid grasp of the subject matter content inherent in the lesson.
9) Elements of abstraction (i.e., symbolic representations, theory building) were encouraged when it was important to do so.
10) Connections with other content disciplines and/or real world phenomena were explored and valued.
SUBTOTAL
Content: Procedural Knowledge
11) Students used a variety of means (models, drawings, graphs, concrete materials, manipulatives, etc.) to represent phenomena.
12) Students made predictions, estimations and/or hypotheses and devised means for testing them.
13) Students were actively engaged in thought-provoking activity that often involved the critical assessment of procedures.
14) Students were reflective about their learning.
15) Intellectual rigor, constructive criticism and the challenging of ideas were valued.
SUBTOTAL
Classroom Culture: Communicative Interactions
16) Students were involved in the communication of their ideas to others using a variety of means and media.
17) The teacher’s questions triggered divergent modes of thinking.
18) There was a high proportion of student talk and a significant amount of it occurred between and among students.
19) Student questions and comments often determined the focus and direction of classroom discourse.
20) There was a climate of respect for what others had to say.
SUBTOTAL
Classroom Culture: Student/Teacher Relationships
21) Active participation of students was encouraged and valued.
22) Students were encouraged to generate conjectures, alternative solution strategies, and ways of interpreting evidence.
23) In general the teacher was patient with students.
24) The teacher acted as a resource person, working to support and enhance student investigations.
25) The metaphor “teacher as listener” was very characteristic of this classroom.
SUBTOTAL
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008
Pre-
Mean
1.6
0.3
2.1
1.9
1.3
7.1
2.6
1.9
1.1
9.3
Pre-
Mean
1.0
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.3
7.6
Pre-
Mean
2.0
1.0
1.6
1.9
1.4
7.9
4.0
2.5
2.4
14.7
4.0
3.0
2.3
15.7
Post-
Mean
1.6
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.6
10.9
Post-post
Mean
2.2
2.5
3.2
2.8
2.7
13.3
Post-
Mean
2.1
1.7
3.0
2.6
3.0
12.5
Post-
Mean
3.6
1.5
3.5
3.1
2.7
14.5
Post-post
Mean
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.5
3.0
13.5
Post-post
Mean
3.5
2.5
3.8
3.3
3.0
16.2

RTOP Ratings for Teachers A, B, C and D from Pre to Post-post
Teachers coded as A, B, C and D were observed pre, post and post-post. The total RTOP scores for these three teachers are displayed in the following bar graph. Total RTOP scores increased significantly over time (repeated measures AOV, F = 13.59, p = .0059).
7
Mean pre, post and post-post scores for each of the category subtotals are displayed in Table 2 for the group consisting of the four teachers who were observed all three times. All five mean subtotal (highest possible score was 20) and the total scores (highest possible score was 100) increased significantly from pre to post-post.
Table 2: Mean RTOP Category Subtotals and Totals of Four Teachers Pre, Post and Post-post
Category Pre Post Post-post
Lesson Design and Implementation
Content: Propositional Knowledge
8.7
10.0
14.3
14.3
14.5
16.0
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

8
Content: Procedural Knowledge
Classroom Culture: Communicative Interactions
8.0
8.5
13.0
14.7
14.0
14.3
Classroom Culture: Student/Teacher Relationships 9.0 16.7 17.0
TOTAL SCORE 44.3 73.0 75.7
Conclusions
RTOP ratings recorded by certified RTOP observations of project teachers during project years 1 and 2 indicated that project participation increased the use of effective teaching strategies.
External Evaluator’s Note
We are going to submit a manuscript of this summative study to Physics Teacher Online. The writing of it is in process.
This is a narrative report of the spring 2008 RTOP observations. Quantitative analyses were included in the summative RTOP evaluation report. Teachers in this report are identified by the codes in the summative external evaluation RTOP report: Teachers A, B, C and D were observed three times during this project and teachers E and I were observed twice.
Teacher “A”
Class began with bell work on the overhead projector:
1.
Draw particle diagram representing 5 molecules of gas A in a container and 10 molecules of gas B in another container the same size.
2.
How does the pressure in the 2 nd
container compare to that in the first?
3.
Represent a 3 rd container that contains all the molecules in the other 2 containers (5 of A and 10 of B).
4.
Predict how the pressure of the mixture of gases would compare to that in each of the other containers.
The teacher set a timer for 10 minutes. Some students chatted about the bell work questions and others about social stuff. Most students appeared to be attempting the bell work. “We did these particle diagrams so long ago.” The teacher stood at the front of the room responding occasionally questions from students—most of these were of a logistical nature. The teacher warned them when there was two minutes remaining.
When the timer went off the teacher got out a stamp pad and asked them to put their homework from the previous night on their desk. The teacher went around the room stamping papers and then began to go over the bell work. The teacher raised the projector screen to reveal three containers drawn on the board underneath and then arranged big plastic molecule stickers on the board, asking about pressure and number of collisions, and how much greater will the pressure of
B be than of A. Triadic dialogue ensues, eventually arriving at Dalton’s law of partial pressures –
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

9 the pressure of two combined gasses in a container is the sum of the partial pressures of these gases. “Can we say what percentage of the pressure is due to A and what is due to B?”
A student replies, “It’ll be 25 and 75 won’t it?”
They suggest how they might calculate a result. The teacher walks them through a calculation, asks if there are questions, and gives them some clues about proportional reasoning, and then asked them to try the next problem themselves. After a minute the teacher asked a student for answers which the teacher filled into a chart projected on the board, and then students moved on to the next problem. The class continued in this fashion as they calculated partial pressures of a number of gasses and looked for patterns in the data table as it filled. When the worksheet was completed the teacher described the lab they will be doing on Friday and assigns homework.
RTOP strengths : The bell work questions were well designed to introduce the day’s lesson and prompted the use of multiple modes of representation. There was a fairly high proportion of student to student talk throughout the lesson.
RTOP weaknesses:
The students’ conversation frequently drifted off task and the teacher did not always appear to be listening, although the teacher was available to them if questions were asked. The setting of arbitrary time intervals to complete certain tasks was not an effective use of time. Students finished quickly and then socialized while they waited for the teacher to call time.
Item # Score Comment
1
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
Prior knowledge was invoked in the bell work activity.
The day’s activities did use some opportunities for collaborative work among students
Student exploration occurred during the initial bell work activity
5 2
Students sought various modes of problem solving but when they asked for help they were steered toward a standard solution strategy
The direction of the lesson was largely a function of the teacher’s agenda for the day although the student questions did shape the direction of the discussion following the bell work
6
7
4
3
8
9
10
11
12
4
3
2
2
2
Pressure of gases is a fundamental concept of chemistry
The lesson promoted a conceptual understanding making good use of various representational tools
The teacher had a solid grasp of the content
Symbolic representations, i.e., diagrams and equations were created and used by students
Connections with real world phenomena were only occasionally made
Students used primarily diagrams and equations to represent phenomena
13
14
3
2
Students made no predictions but did offer hypotheses connected to prior understandings for the behavior of the system they were considering
Students were sometimes engaged in thought provoking activity and at other times they were following proceduralized directions.
Students were somewhat reflective about the concept under
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

10
Item # Score Comment investigation
15 2 The teacher valued intellectual rigor but it was not always apparent that the students did
16
17
18
19
3
2
2
2
Students communicated via whiteboarding and discourse
The teacher questioning occasionally generated divergent thinking but was mostly aimed toward producing convergent thinking.
There was a moderate proportion of student talk
The discourse was driven by students at times but most of the time it was driven by the teacher
20 3
21
22
23
3
2
3
Teacher and students were polite and respectful of one another most of the time
Active participation was emphasized
Some students generated alternative ways of thinking but most were just interested in getting the right answer
The teacher was fairly patient but she set time limits for everything they did and moved on whether they were ready or not
24
25
2
2
The teacher acted as a resource person during the bell work and whiteboarding
The teacher listened initially to students’ approaches to problem solving, but as class wore on she mainly listened for the answers she wanted to hear.
Total score: 62
Teacher “B”
On this day students worked together in groups of four to solve review physics problems in preparation for an exam on the following day. Students enter the classroom, get out their notebooks and settle into seats at tables of four to work a warm-up problem that is projected on the board at the front of the room.
“For an elevator going up find the acceleration
F
N
= mg = 200 N
F
Max
= mg+ma = 240 N”
There is murmuring at tables as they work together to solve the problem. After about 5 minutes a girl goes to the overhead projector and shows her group’s solution to the problem. The explanation is fairly procedural. When she is done the teacher asks if everyone gets it. At first there is no response. The teacher prods them into beginning to ask the girl questions, and when the discussion is through he talks about how her solution had all the steps of a good solution
(force diagram, sum of forces, etc.) and could be used as a template for their work.
Students are instructed to go get a whiteboard for each table and are assigned a follow-up problem to work on together at their tables. They work well together—almost everyone in the room appears to be on task. After 5 minutes a timer goes off and the teacher polls the class to see if they are ready to present. All the groups are still working on it. The teacher offers them a hint and sets the timer for 3 more minutes. After time is up the teacher directs students to places their whiteboards in the chalk tray across the front of the classroom for everyone to see. After a
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

11 few minutes of studying the boards a girl begins the questioning and a member of the group being question goes to his board in the front and begins fielding questions. Then the teacher invites another group to explain their board as they seemed to do the problem differently than others. A boy from the group defined a couple of terms and then explained their calculation.
When he was done the teacher assigned the next question and told the class that the next time the teacher would like to see girls up there answering the questions that people asked.
Students are fairly on-task as they begin the next problem. As students finish at one table they begin circulating and helping classmates at other tables. After about 10 minutes time is called.
Four girls and one boy go up to the front with their boards to field questions. Students ask questions of the whiteboard presenters that various students answer.
After the discussion about this problem is complete the teacher has them put whiteboards away and tells them to do the next problem with paper and pencil. Students appear engaged in the task and are helping each other make sense. As class draws to a close the teacher announces that there will be a test tomorrow so there is no homework this night: play close attention to the first three problems on their review sheet. Students pack up in preparation to leave.
RTOP Strengths: This classroom has come a long way since I observed them in the fall. There is a culture of collaboration and the students and teacher listen to each other and engage in productive discourse. On the day I visited there was no hands-on activity—students were working together to solve review problems to prepare for a test the following day. The lesson design respected students’ prior knowledge and encouraged students to value alternative approaches to problem solving. A high proportion of the classroom discourse took place between students, and little time was wasted by students on non-physics conversation.
RTOP Weaknesses: To some degree, the content focus of student discourse favored procedural knowledge over conceptual knowledge, and there was little reference to real world applications once the problem under study had yielded up the necessary quantities. Students tended to view the exercise as an algebraic one rather than a model application problem. They drew force diagrams but did not seem to understand what a vector was beyond the idea that it represented the direction of a force (but this is not unusual in a freshman physics course).
Item # Score Comment
1 4 The teacher opened the lesson by giving them a variation of a problem
2 4 they had seen previously over the course of the unit
Students worked very well in groups and responded as members of a team
3 3
4 2
The lesson involved students whiteboarding (in groups of 4) solutions to practice problems in review for a test tomorrow
The lesson favored a particular mode of representing a problem solution but within this framework honored a variety of ways of thinking about the elements of the model under investigation
5
6
4
3
The focus of the lesson relied on student contributions; goals were set by the teacher
Net force is a fundamental concept of dynamics
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

12
Item # Score Comment
7 3
Conceptual coherence was obviously a goal of today’s review session
8 4 The teacher had an excellent grasp of the content
9
10
11
12
13
14
3
2
2
2
4
3
Force diagrams were employed to illustrate what was being discussed
Teacher and students made a few connections with real world phenomena – as they were represented in the problems they were solving
Students utilized force diagrams, mathematical formulas and lexical information
Students compared the problems they were solving to ones they had encountered earlier in order to predict the directions of forces on the system under investigation
Students were very engaged throughout the 55 minute class period
Students made good use of prior knowledge when discussing in small groups and were able to justify answers when called upon to do so
15
16
17
18
19
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
The teacher challenged students intermittently to justify their answers and students challenged one another
Students communicated ideas orally, in writing and diagrams and equations on whiteboards and on their own notebook paper
The teacher attempted to highlight divergent approaches to problem solving
There was a great deal of student-to-student conversation around what was represented on the whiteboards—I did not see anyone opt out of the exercise during the 55 minute class period.
The whiteboard discussion relied heavily on student contributions to determine its direction
Students and teacher were respectful and polite to one another 20
21 The teacher was very encouraging of participation; particularly encouraging girls to step up take the lead in presentations.
The teacher probed for alternative solution pathways 22
23
24
25
4
4
4
4
The teacher was very patient
The teacher was very supportive of student discourse
The teacher appeared to listen carefully to student conversations, as the teacher moved from table to table monitoring each whiteboard group.
Total: 86
Teacher “C”
On the day of my visit to this chemistry class, students were doing a performance assessment that the teacher had developed in collaboration with other chemistry teachers in the district. This was a new instrument that no one had tested yet and she was piloting to see how long it would take the students to complete and whether or not it was within the capabilities of most of her students. The activity involved making sodium chloride with hydrochloric acid and sodium bicarbonate.
Class began at the bell. The teacher pointed out to student reminders that were on the board.
Students listened quietly. The teacher explained to them that they were doing a performance
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

13 assessment and that they would need to do their calculations themselves because each student would be making a different amount of sodium chloride. The teacher asked if there were any questions (there were none), wished them luck and then passed out papers. The teacher spent a minutes going over the information on the paper and then the students began working quietly as the teacher laid out lab equipment on the tables. Within 10 minutes 6 girls were done with their calculations and had begun to work at separate lab stations. They worked carefully. All donned safety goggles and aprons without being told. By 8:30 all student were up and working at lab tables. They occasionally asked the teacher for help—two needed help lighting Bunsen burners.
The teacher circulated, making sure that everyone was aware of the time and had the things that they needed.
Evaporation of their solutions took longer than planned and by 8:40 it was apparent that they would not be able to complete the activity in one class period. Because she had not yet begun to evaporate her solution, one girl asked to come in after school.
The teacher told them what they needed to do with their solution if they were not going to be done yet, and with about 5 minutes to go they began to clean up and put things away. Students worked efficiently—it was obvious that they knew how to conduct themselves in a laboratory.
By the time the bell rang they were done cleaning up and everyone was back in their seats.
RTOP strengths : This was a student-centered activity that depended heavily on prior knowledge. It involved making a prediction based on calculations and then testing their prediction in the laboratory. The lesson required a coherent understanding of the stoichiometry of double replacement reactions. Students were actively engaged in critical thinking throughout the class period, while the teacher remained in the background watching and listening—acting as a resource person.
RTOP weaknesses: This was not designed to be a collaborative activity. Unlike most labs that the students do during the course of the school year this assessment required that t he students work alone. They were obviously disappointed that they were not able to work in pairs as they usually do—the teacher confided in me that she was expecting them to complain about this and they did—but only briefly. Since they were required to work alone there was very little talk on this occasion and most of it was between the teacher and individual students. Student to student communication was confined to asking each other for shared equipment. Under the circumstances it is not particularly surprising that this teacher’s RTOP score would be lower on a test day.
Item # Score Comment
1 4 Students activity for the day relied entirely on prior knowledge
2
3
4
5
2
2
2
4
Students spent almost the entire time working on their own—they occasionally asked one another for help finding something they needed
This activity consisted entirely of student performance assessment
While students devised some of their own procedures and made decisions about how much data to collect and across what range, the basic procedural outline were specified by the teacher
The activity was very student directed
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

14
Item # Score Comment
6 4 The assessment asked students to predict how much reactant would be needed to produce an amount of product, and then to test their prediction by performing the experiment
7 4
8
9
10
11
12
4
3
2
2
4
The lesson required a coherent understanding of double replacement reactions
The activity was designed by the teacher and demonstrated a firm grasp of the stoichiometry of a double replacement reaction
Students made diagrams, graphs and calculations in the course of completing this activity
Other than the teachers initial remarks there were few references to other subjects or real world phenomena in the course of this activity— there as very little student talk
Students employed graphs and equations to represent the data they collected
The activity called for students to predict their product before performing the reaction
13 4
14
15
16
4
2
2
Students were actively engaged in critical thinking and reasoning throughout the class period as they gather and analyzed their data
Students appeared to think through their process carefully
The design of the assessment indicated high expectations and most students appeared to expect that they could accomplish the task
Students wrote equations, constructed tables and graphs, and performed calculations
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
2
0
2
4
2
The teacher did not ask the class questions during the task but she did question individuals moving from station to station
There was little conversation but what there was between students and it related to procedural matters
This was a test—it was designed by the teacher—the students had a handout detailing what they needed to accomplish
Students were very polite and cooperative with one another
All students participated actively. This was clearly a cultural norm in the classroom
Each individual generated their own conjecture but since this was a test they did not discuss it with others
23
24
25
4
4
The teacher was exceedingly patient and tolerant
The teacher was in the role of resource person for all but the first and last few minutes of the class
The teacher appeared to be listening carefully to students as the teacher 2 moved from table to table but they spoke little
Total score: 72
Teacher “D”
As class began the teacher went down the rows, stamping papers with the problem they had attempted for homework. Then the teacher discussed with them oxidation-reduction rules written on the side board. Many of these rules they seemed already familiar with. The teacher let
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

15 them walk through some representative examples on the board, determining the changes of carbon and oxygen in CO
2
and (CO
3
)
-2
. There were a few questions by students, and then students formed groups with whiteboards to solve some problems on a worksheet they had received. They work well together—no one seems to struggle although there is a little grumbling that the same element can have so many different charges. After they complete these exercises the teacher directs them to each sign up for a problem in the text, and then work together to see if they can solve it. They do this, and finish their whiteboards pretty quickly. Students take turn presenting their solutions to the class. There are occasional questions—mostly from other students, and occasionally someone has to re-do a problem that they have discovered an error in.
The teacher asks them to distinguish between net charge and individual charge. Some groups struggle with this and the teacher talks them through the thinking process. When the board meeting is done they erase their boards and put them away and she asks them to try a textbook problem for homework just as the bell rings.
RTOP strengths: This late in the school year students obviously had plenty of prior knowledge upon which to base their understanding of the new idea introduced on this day—oxidationreduction reactions. They also had good collaborative work habits, demonstrated by the ready way in which they formed groups and worked out the exercises the teacher gave to them. The bulk of the discourse was student-to student while the teacher remained available to answer questions as needed. The teacher circulated and monitored their progress—making an occasional suggestion but never really telling them how to do it.
RTOP weaknesses: There was little reference to real world applications in this lesson, and not a lot of exploration prior to beginning the activity, but I’m not sure what students could have predicted under the circumstances.
2
Item # Score Comment
1 4 The lesson relied to a large extent on students’ prior knowledge although the application of that knowledge entailed a new concept.
4 The students worked throughout the period together as a learning community.
3
4
5
6
2
3
3
4
The lesson entailed a little student exploration.
Student devised their own procedures determine the charges of atoms in a compound
The direction of student discourse determined the direction of activity in small groups
The concept of charge in oxidation reduction reactions is fundamental to the study of chemistry
7
8
9
10
3
4
4
1
Some students pursued a more coherent understanding, others found a procedure that worked for them and stuck with it
The teacher obviously had a solid grasp of the content
Abstraction and symbolic representations were used but largely these were empirical and algebraic formulae
There were few connections with the real world, the teacher used a
MacDonald’s Happy Meal metaphor to explain the “package deal” of assigning charges
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

16
Item # Score Comment
11 3 Students relied for the most part on symbolic and algebraic
12 2 representations but some made diagrams to explain their thinking
There was some predicting going on.
13 3
14
15
16
3
4
3
Students were actively sense-making as they applied rules and procedures to the problems they were solving.
Students were very reflective.
Students challenged each other to explain what they were doing
Communication was primarily the discourse that surrounded whiteboarded problem solving.
17
18
19
20
21
3
4
3
4
4
Teacher questioning triggered occasional divergent thinking.
The class was almost entirely student-to-student conversations
The direction of conversations was largely a function of student questions and comments
Students were polite and respectful of one another as was the teacher.
Active participation was a norm in this classroom
22
23
24
3
4
4
Students were encouraged to find their own solution pathways and strategies
The teacher was extremely patient and tolerant
The teacher’s primary role in this lesson was as resource person
The teacher was a good listener 25 4
Total score: 83
Teacher “E”
The teacher opened this physical science class by circulating around the tables and checking off students’ homework that they had on the table in front of them. The teacher asked if there were any questions about the homework. There were a few. Then the teacher asked what answers they had gotten. Students called out quantities: 72J, 98 J. The teacher answered a few more questions—mostly about algebra—and then told them that they would be doing an exploration and said that some objects were put into the freezer overnight and they were going to see how cold they felt. “You can’t use the same finger on all of them because your finger will get cold and then it won’t be a good temperature sensor. Go through the list and rank them from one to six—coldest to warmest. After you’re done with the first part of the lab, measure 3 cm down from the top of your cup and I’ll fill your cup with warm water and we’re going to see how long it takes for the samples to warm up. Be careful not to spill. The water is hot enough to make your finger red if you stick it in. Time how long it takes each one to get warm.”
Then the teacher recapped the directions again briefly, asked for questions (there were none) and passed out worksheets that had a data table and the procedure on them. The teacher returned with cups of objects that were passed out. The students split into groups of two or three.
They worked together well—conferred with each other about which is the coldest and occasionally asked the teacher what an object is made of. As they finish the teacher passed out rulers and stopwatches. Students conversed in a mix of Spanish and English.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

17
As they finished with the first part of the exercise the teacher poured water into their Styrofoam cups. They began timing the warming times of their samples. The teacher circulated from table to table monitoring student activity—answering procedural questions, making sure they remember how to use the stopwatches.
The teacher collected rulers, cups and stopwatches as they finished, reminding them not to dump their water in the sink as it was clogged. Then the teacher asked the groups to report their coldness rankings and as each group read them off the teacher entered them into a spreadsheet.
Then the teacher asked them for the warming times they recorded for each of their samples and entered these into the spreadsheet as well. The teacher tells them that on Monday they will learn the averages of the times from all four classes for them to compare on Monday. For the remainder of the class (about 5 minutes) they are allowed to finish an assignment from the previous day.
RTOP strengths : The lesson was designed to engage students in the process of exploration and theory building. Students worked together well in small groups and most were on task throughout the activity. In general it seemed that these students were more cooperative than the physics class I observed in the fall. The teacher had a nice rapport with these students and they seemed to want to work for him.
RTOP weaknesses: There was little opportunity for whole group discussion of the experimental findings, and the lesson took place on a Friday so by the time the class met again it may have been a struggle to get them back into the concept space they were in at the end of the activity. If time had been managed a little better they might have gotten an opportunity to debrief the big ideas of the activity.
Item # Score Comment
1 3
2 3
The teacher asked them questions that activated prior knowledge before beginning the day’s activity
The lesson was designed to promote a collaborative learning community
3
4
3
2
5
6
7
8
9
2
4
3
4
3
The lesson was designed to allow for a great deal of student exploration
The procedure for the activity was very open-ended but most students ended up imitating one another
The lesson occasionally followed student lines of questioning but for the most part was determined by the teacher’s agenda
The lesson involved a fundamental physical concept-energy transfer
The lesson was directed toward promoting understanding theory building
The teacher obviously had a solid grasp of the content
10
11
12
3
2
2
The students tried to come up with possible explanations for the relative warmth of the objects that they were testing
There were a number of connections with real world phenomena made by both students and teachers
Students collected data which they arranges into a table
There was a little theorizing by a few students who attempted to explain what they were observing.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

18
Item # Score Comment
13 3 Most of the students were engaged in thought-provoking activity, a few
14 3 were somewhat distracted.
Most of the students were reflective about the phenomena they were
15 3 observing
The teacher encouraged intellectual rigor and constructive criticism
16
17
18
2
2
3
Student communication was both oral and written
Teacher questioning triggered divergent thinking among a few students
They participated well in the small group activity but not in the whole group discussion
19 3
20
21
22
23
24
2
3
2
4
3
Student questioning did drive most of the small group discussions but most did not participate in the whole group discussion
The teacher and most of the students were polite and respectful…a few of the students were disengaged
Active participation was encouraged
Students were encouraged to generate interpretations of what they observed although not everyone participated
The teacher was extremely patient and tolerant
The teacher was a resource person for student activity
25 2 The teacher listened to student contributions to the conversation
Total score: 69
Teacher “I”
Chemistry class opened at the bell with a rundown on the day’s agenda. The teacher handed out a review packet for the final and went over the policy for make-up work; gently prodded students to put away yearbooks and cell phones (they had just come from lunch).
After all the students’ questions were answered, the teacher told them that they would be spending class reviewing the procedures for the tie-dying lab that was to take place on the following day. Students perked up and asked for the shirts they had brought in. The teacher handed these out to them and asked if any had looked at the websites given them previously. A few raised their hands. Then the teacher spent a few minutes showing them t-shirts with various designs that made in previous years, discussing colors and design features.
The teacher cautioned them to wear old clothes the next day and then went through the steps they would take and reminded them to wear gloves. “After soaking the shirt in fixer in one of four buckets, wring it out and place it on a piece of cardboard on your lab table. Leave your gloves on. Twist it in whatever way you have planned to make a spiral or double spiral-he demonstrates.
Can you visualize what will happen? (One girl responded with a description.) You will be applying color with squirt bottles. Students were given the plastic bags and paper towels that they will use to take their shirts home. The teacher reminded them: do nothing with your shirts for 24 hours—it takes this long for the chemical reaction to take place between the dye and the fabric. Then put on latex gloves and wash out your shirts in a sink to wash away excess dye— then wash it with a teaspoon of dish soap and hang it out to dry—don’t put it in with the family laundry! Then wear your shirt to school Thursday for extra credit points...!”
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

19
For the remainder of the period the teacher let them practice tying their shirts. The teacher circulated helping students who were struggling, and answered a lot of “what-if” questions.
Toward the end of class the teacher told them to put their shirts back in the boxes at the front of the classroom and reminded them that they should be working to complete worksheet 2. Students chatted until the bell rang a couple of minutes later.
RTOP strengths: Tie-dying was a fun end of year activity that the students were obviously looking forward to. The teacher did a good job of connecting it to concepts they had learned in chemistry throughout the year, and made numerous references to textile chemistry and other real world applications. The teacher did a good job of getting students engaged in the planning process in spite of the fact that most really would have preferred to sign each other’s yearbook.
RTOP weaknesses: The nature of the lesson—pre-lab directions and discussion for a very procedural lab precluded much student exploration or investigation.
Item # Score Comment
1
2
4
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
1
3
1
2
4
2
4
2
3
The lesson was entirely based on prior knowledge
The prelab discussion was meant to engage students as members of a community although some opted out
There were only a few opportunities for student exploration toward the end of the lesson
There was little opportunity for student investigation in this lesson
Student questions and concerns determined to a moderate degree the direction of the lesson
The lesson involved an specific application of chemistry—tie-dying
The lesson promoted a somewhat coherent conceptual understanding that will probably become more coherent after students engage in the laboratory activity
The teacher had a good grasp of the concept
The teacher introduced a few symbolic representations
The teacher made numerous references to chemical reactions in the real world
Students used chemical symbols and particle diagrams
13
14
15
16
17
18
2
2
2
2
2
2
Students made conjectures about the sequence of dyes and ties that would produce a particular pattern on their t-shirt
Students were prompted to think critically from time to time but there weren’t many who took the bait
Student occasionally made some comment that was based upon previous chemistry learning
The teacher occasionally called on individuals to makes sense of some situation
Students were very involved once they had their shirts to work with in the design process
Students demonstrated some divergence of thinking initially but as class wore on their thinking converged
Students answered teacher’s questions and were occasionally prompted
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

20
21
22
23
24
25
Item # Score Comment to discuss things with one another.
19 3 Student questions and comments sometimes determined the direction of the conversation.
20 3
3
2
4
3
Students were reasonably polite and respectful. The teacher was unfailingly polite and gentle.
Active participation was encouraged.
The teacher prompted students to offer conjectures from time to time.
The teacher was very patient.
The teacher was often a resource person—occasionally an authority.
3 The teacher made an effort to listen and respond to all student contributions, but ultimately did most of the talking.
Total score: 63
The external evaluator has identified the following project strengths:

The project has continued to use the RTOP findings to inform and improve instruction, program structure and provide information to the partner school district.

Inquiry instruction based on modeling has increased in the partner district, PUHSD, which is evident in their adoption of an inquiry based curriculum for 9 th
grade Physical Science and teachers are provided semester long professional development title Pro-Growth supporting teachers in the implementation of the curriculum.

The use of the RTOP has grown within the district and is part of Pro-Growth. Teachers use the RTOP to assess one another and reflect on what they learn.

This grant provided substantive professional in which many teachers would not have participated without the stipends this grant provided.

The Modeling Method is a nationally recognized program for improving science education and student achievement. The emails written by Dr. Jackson, Project Director, reflect the reputation and access to the public that the ASU Modeling Program has (Appendix A).

The Modeling Program has been at ASU for 14 years; during that time formative and outcome evaluation data have been collected. The data collected and analyzed during the two years of this project confirm the program’s effectiveness at increasing teacher content knowledge and skill levels and increases in student achievement.

Dr. Jackson continues to oversee the Modeling Program with dedication to quality. Each teacher is important to her and a phone interview started with reference to her is an immediate
“hook”. In many ways she is modeling at ASU.

The project has encouraged the use of assessment to inform practice including the RTOP and
The Inquiry Based Teaching Self Assessment, a self-evaluation form for the RTOP, developed by Drew Isola and Carl Wenning. Dr. Jackson reported that the self-assessment was used by
DeeDee Falls, the Science Specialist in PUHSD, in the district’s professional learning communities of high school physics, chemistry and physical science teachers. It was used in follow-up sessions in chemistry and physical science, especially in physical science. It will also be used in PHS 534 by the lead instructor, Patricia Burr.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

21

The pressure of NCLB testing forces many teachers to “teach to the test” even if it isn’t in the best interest of teaching inquiry science. It’s a difficult situation for many teachers
(Appendix B) and Arizona teachers are not exempt.

Full implementation of Modeling in participants’ schools is challenged by (a) time constraints, (b) need for deeper understanding of Modeling among school administrators; (c) limitations in reflective practice; and (d) curricula that are not fully aligned with Modeling.
In an attempt to provide deeper understanding of Modeling to PUHSD administrators (one of these challenges to full implementation) a workshop was provided in May 2008 through the most recently funded ASU ABOR ITQ grant and 10-12 principals from the partner district attended but there have been many challenges to continuing to foster a professional development relationship with the principals.

The transition to fully implemented modeling in science classrooms is difficult because it requires a great deal of planning and resourcefulness. It’s a difficult transition for teachers to go from “textbook instruction” to “modeling (inquiry) instruction.”
The internal evaluation of this project is a well-established part of the evaluation of ASU’s
Modeling Program. The internal evaluation follows a process established with previous Arizona
Board of Regents grants. Because the Modeling Program has been implemented for a number of years the internal evaluation has embedded processes for determining the impact on student learning and teacher improvement.
The internal evaluation has quantitative data from the Modeling Program’s previous evaluations pertaining to the documentation of the extent to which the grant activities:

Meet the anticipated outcomes outlined in the grant proposal

Measure increases in teacher content knowledge and teacher skill levels in the core area as defined by the proposal

The impact of the grant activity on teacher instructional practices and the correlation to student achievement.

All internal evaluation instruments and protocols are available from Dr. Jackson, co-PI.
These are some but not all the instruments used during the summer of 2006:
► Survey on Your Views about Professional Development
► What PHS Courses do you Prefer Next Summer (2007)?
► Modeling Workshop II: Survey of Participant Experiences
► Questionnaire on Teaching Credentials (AZ is using this to track HQ teacher status)
► Modeling Workshop in Mechanics: Participant Workshop Evaluation
► Modeling Workshop in Mechanics: Survey of Participant Technology
►
Force Concept Inventory (Also, Guidelines for Administering the FCI)
► Physical Science Concepts Inventory
► PHS 530: Modeling Workshop in Mechanics
► Basic Energy Concept Inventory

The RTOP was used for the classroom observations.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

22

The Inquiry Based Teaching Self Assessment (Drew Isola & Carl Wenning authors) was used for formative internal evaluation and professional development.

External evaluation interview questions: To what extent did the 2-year grant impact the school district, school, students, and student achievement? The number of HS students enrolled in advanced science courses? Strengths of implementation? Challenges?

External evaluation interview questions: 1.
What has motivated you to continue to participate in the modeling workshops and courses at ASU since 2006? 2.
What do you know about the
RTOP and do you use it in any way? 3. In 2007-08 (last school year), how highly do you feel you implemented each of the following in your science classes? Rate the implementation from
1 to 5, 1 = not at all, 3 = somewhat implemented and 5 = very highly implemented
Inquiry methods
Instruction that promotes critical and creative thinking
Cooperative learning
The use of technology
Modeling strategies
Socratic questioning
Use of White Boards to enhance student learning
4.
Did you become “highly qualified” in the subject(s) you teach as a result of taking the modeling courses/workshops? 5.
Please comment on the impact of the modeling courses/workshops on your teaching since July of 2006.

Developed an external evaluation web-based questionnaire for peer leaders to complete.

Communicated periodically with Dr. Jackson.

Arranged for the observations by a certified observer and then analyzed the data and wrote several reports: one for distribution within the district. Started dissemination process for submission of RTOP study to Physics Teacher Online.

Interviewed Patricia Burr who was the lead instructor for PHS 534: Physical Science with
Math Modeling Workshop about the use of the Inquiry Based Self Assessment (that I recommended in last year’s evaluation report).

Interviewed Dee Dee Falls who was the Curriculum Director in PUHSD in 2007-08. (The new Curriculum Director is Pam Richards.)

Gathered information from teachers who were in the project for two years and peer leaders.
PUHSD’s Patricia Burr, the lead instructor for PHS 534: Physical Science with Math
Modeling Workshop used the Inquiry-Based Self-Assessment and the RTOP in the course. She also uses the Self-Assessment and RTOP in the PUHSD Pro-Growth professional development program for 9 th grade teachers. Ms. Burr was involved in the development of the district’s inquiry-based Physical Science curriculum that was adopted two years ago. She uses modeling strategies in the professional development she provides as well as in her own classes. Teachers in
Pro-Growth reflect after self-assessing and then they complete two RTOPs, one on another teacher and one on themselves.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

23
When asked if there is value to using the RTOP and self-assessment she responded,
“Absolutely.” It is in assessing themselves and colleagues that they see their strengths and the areas in which they need to improve. Pat also reported, “I will use it (RTOP) all the time in Pro-
Growth
.” She went on to explain that they evaluate teachers using the RTOP and the district instrument and the information helps them plain continuing professional development.
A challenge to implementation of inquiry-based instruction in PUHSD’s Physical Science classes is that even though the curriculum is in place “the management needs to be there. There has to be a lot of careful thought put into the planning so it’s still a challenge. There are some teachers who continue to prefer to use the text.” Professional development over an entire semester instead of a one-day workshop is a more effective way to more effectively align teachers’ thinking with inquiry learning (modeling).
Students in PUHSD enroll in Biology in their second year after completing Physical
Science in the first year. The Biology teachers have reported that since the curriculum change students are entering Biology with better critical thinking skills and better analysis, synthesis and evaluation skills. When AIMS was piloted in the schools, the administrators of the test commented, “You’re doing something right because your students were comfortable taking the test.” The district is looking forward to learning the AIMS and CRT results.
Pat emphasized that modeling instruction (inquiry) is student driven and student interactive and she ended the interview with the statement, “It’s ALL about the kids.”
Patricia Burr gave the External Evaluator copies of two teachers’ reflections about the Self-
Assessment the teachers completed during PHS 534. These excerpts are important because they show increased teacher understanding of modeling (inquiry) instruction and commitment to implementing inquiry strategies.

After completing the self assessment I realized there are many areas where I can improve my goal to create an inquiry-based learning environment. So much of my first two years has been surviving the day to day issues of classroom management and becoming comfortable in front of the class that I have had little time to assess my teaching methods. Taking this class has given me such a fresh perspective that I believe I can now improve the in areas in which I scored low. I now realize that I can present students with a question, guide them through an activity and then use that lesson to derive whatever concept is essential for students to learn.
The white boarding is where the students really begin to think through the lesson and rework their misconceptions. This is where I really have the ability to become a “teacher listener”.
Physics is an area where I need to do a lot of catch up work on content. In this case I may have more difficulty using the approach we learned in PHS 534. Socratic questioning will be difficult if I do not have a good grasp of the material. However I have dedicated a great deal of my summer to improving in this area and I hope it will pay off. I will be going into the fall semester with a lot of fresh ideas and enthusiasm.

This assessment showed how I could become a much better teacher than what I am. It really showed how I teach the way I was taught, which research has shown is not best practice!!
Each part of the test was revealing. My lesson plans and implementation are more teacher directed than student directed. I have a certain amount of things to cover and this is how I am going to do it regardless of what students I have. In my class there is very little difference in procedural knowledge and the way it is addressed. Communication and
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

24 relationships are not reformed for the most part: teacher speaks, students listen! My classroom is definitely teacher-centered. I probably could have given myself a zero on some of the questions, but I do feel, however seldom it happens, that I have little glimpses of inquiry. Do I think these should be part of my teaching? YES!!! Are they at this time?
NO!! I guess my grade on this would be “falls far below”!
Four teachers who participated in this project over its two years commented on their knowledge of RTOP and whether they use it: 3 (75%) of the two teachers reported knowing a little about the
RTOP and not using it. These were the responses from the teachers with knowledge of the
RTOP:

I've attended a few seminars on the use of the RTOP. It's a fantastic teaching assessment tool.
While I do try to keep it in mind while I lesson prep, I don't use the RTOP itself very often.
It's a very time consuming form to go through and I tend not to make the time for it.
 I’m not sure I remember what that is unless it’s the pre-test for my students to see where they are currently, and then test them again to see where they are now.

I have had some exercises in using the RTOP but not in my own practices. From my memory, it measures the level of inquiry and discourse within a class. It is always a concern when I develop a lesson plan in math and physics.
The four peer leaders of CHEM 594, PHS 530, PHYS 542 and PHS 594 were asked, “Were you satisfied with the rigor of the content and the degree to which the workshop promoted strong, coherent conceptual understanding?” All four responded, “Yes” and elaborated:

I was, but more important, no doubt, is the fact that the teachers gave very favorable evaluations at the end of the workshops. They felt that they had a better grasp of the key concepts themselves (especially with respect to energy) and felt that they could help their students do more than solve quantitative problems using algorithms.

Yes, we spent a lot of time discussing not only implementation but deep understanding of concepts. The discussions were rich and involved most all of the teachers, not a "top down" approach.

Yes! We were all about developing models of the primary relationships that exist between quantities in science and mathematics.

Yes, I believe the participants were challenged by the curriculum, but came away with the conceptual understanding necessary to teach any of the models of light in their own classroom.
The four peer leaders described the in-class activities in these workshops as “all the time” (n = 2) or “usually” (n = 2) thought-provoking and all four reported that they were hardly ever “activity for the sake of activity.”
The four peer leaders rated the effectiveness of the implementation of the workshop they co-led
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

25 from 1 to 5, 1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = good and 5 = excellent. Their ratings are displayed below.
Inquiry methods
1 2 3 4
1
5
3
Instruction that promoted critical and creative thinking
Cooperative learning
The use of technology to enhance learning
Modeling strategies
Socratic questioning
Use of white boards
1 1
1
3
2
2
2
3
4
1
2
2
These were their suggestions for improving the Modeling Workshops at ASU:

The only improvement that I can recommend is for these workshops to become institutionalized so that they become a dependable opportunity for professional development for high school teachers.

Three weeks feels like barely enough time. Another week would have been nice.

I would not change a thing. It is working very well with many teachers leaving with the tools to empower kids in math and science. If anything expand the number of workshops and provide stipends for all teachers who can attend.

Get more teachers involved.
 It was evident during this project that teachers who are “highly qualified” are frequently not
“highly effective”. Teachers who continue to participate in the Modeling Program professional development report increased effectiveness in implementing important
Modeling Instruction strategies including: inquiry methods, critical and conceptual thinking, cooperative learning, the use of technology to enhance instruction, modeling strategies,
Socratic questioning and using white boards.

The project has used evaluation findings to improve the professional development. This was especially evident in the increased use by the partner district of RTOP (and the selfassessment) to inform practice. It was disappointing that awareness and use of the RTOP as a lesson-study, reflective tool continues to be limited although the partner district has embedded its use in some of the district’s professional development.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

26
A report from the Modeling Instruction Program at Arizona State University:
This summer, 170 teachers are participating in our seven Modeling Workshops and four other graduate courses. Included are six teachers from Singapore; this is the third year that Singapore has sent physics and chemistry teachers here!
Our courses are for lifelong learning for teachers of high school physics, chemistry, physical science and math, and grade 8 science and math. They can lead to a Master of Natural Science
(MNS) degree. Forty teachers have earned this degree in the past five years.
Our courses are content-intensive; and integration of physics, chemistry, and math is emphasized. The ultimate target is not the teachers themselves but their students. Therefore each course addresses the subject at a level that prepares them to entice and inform their students.
Modeling Workshops are peer-led. Modeling Instruction is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as an EXEMPLARY K-12 science program.
-------------
OUR ASU COURSES for teachers THIS SUMMER (in 2 sessions):
Modeling Workshops in mechanics (two sections) Modeling Workshop in electricity & magnetism Modeling Workshop in chemistry A sequence of two Modeling Workshops in 8th-
9th grade physical science Integrated Math & Physics (8th-9th grade. A modeling workshop)
Energy & the Environment
Integrated Physics & Chemistry
Light & Electron Optics
Leadership workshop (1 credit)
-------------------------------
FUNDING:
We fund Arizona teachers with a $200,000 per year NCLB state "Improving Teacher Quality" grant. (Priority is given to teachers in a high-poverty school or who aren't highly qualified according to NCLB or are in a rural school or are preparing to be a teacher-leader.)
The Salt River Project, a regional electric utility, recently granted us $10,000 for tuition scholarships.
------------------
TEACHERS' COMMENTS:
"Thanks to taking physics modeling course work, I am highly qualified in physics."
"I learned a tremendous amount and am all fired up to teach physics this fall!"
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

27
"I learned more about teaching and physics this summer than in 5 years of college!"
"Great chem workshop"
"I LOVE this program!"
"It was, without a doubt, the single greatest professional development experience of my career."
-----------------------
A TEACHER IN OUR MNS DEGREE PROGRAM WROTE:
"I make about 38k a year. I have a degree in chemical engineering -- I should be making at least double that. This almost kept me out of teaching. But some things are more important than money.
I'm reaching the end of my fourth year teaching science and my second teaching physics. In those last two years, I've doubled the population of students registering for the general physics class at my school. I've poured enormous effort into improving the program. The reason I've been able to do this is because of what I've learned through the modeling program at ASU, both in terms of knowledge and superior teaching practices. It is by far the best science methodology out there. Unlike traditional science classroom practices, the modeling program stresses the
PROCESS of science. Students not only learn the requisite science curriculum but how to design and implement experiments that will address a question, how to work well in a community of peers, how to collect and process data, how to think logically and critically - basically, how to be effective problem solvers. Not only do these skills serve to help knowledge retention and increase general interest in science but these are skills that transcend the science classroom."
[Jane Jackson posted this on June 25, 2008 to the AAPT listserv of the Committee on Teacher
Preparation.]
CTP colleagues,
To follow up on my post yesterday, here are thoughts on Modeling Instruction.
One of our most important tasks as educators is to teach people to think scientifically. We need a populace who can think clearly, in this day of rapid change and vast power for good or bad in our world.
The Modeling Method of physics instruction teaches people to think scientifically.
The Modeling Method is used by thousands of high school teachers. They tell me that their students thank them for teaching them to THINK; that students say that they've never had to think before, in any other course.
Students say that the Modeling Method transfers to other subjects, even outside of the sciences.
This makes sense to me, for students are learning new habits of mind -- habits of mind that can infuse MANY aspects of life.
We will all benefit if we implement model-structured inquiry into our courses. Please browse our website for insights and resources. http://modeling.asu.edu
.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

28
Subject: C'mon Nathan, Science Doesn't Really Count in Illinois
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:04:13 -0700
From: "Brendan Noon" <bnoon@argo217.k12.il.us>
To: "PhysicsFirst" <physicsfirst@lists.aapt.org>
I do hope that did catch your attention!
I know all of us are trying to figure out the BEST methods to deliver what we feel is necessary to build a successful society,
SCIENCE!
But I would like to inform you of a disturbing trend in education.
Unlike Math and Reading, the Science Test is not a high stakes NCLB test in Illinois!
Due to a recent change in administration and poor MATH scores at my school (Argo Community High
School in Summit, Illinois) we have started a new campaign to TEACH TO THE TESTS across the
Curriculum and across the grade levels 9-12!
(Yes, in the shortsightedness of our current administration we have been asked to do weekly test preparation to all students, even our seniors who have already taken the standardized test in their JUNIOR year!!!)
Although our school has consistently improved on science test scores on an annual basis, we have been asked to take time from the science curriculum to give practice tests in MATH and READING!
Why?
Because everyone knows, "SCIENCE DOESN'T COUNT IN ILLINOIS!"
And as Barry mentioned, although it's tough enough to cover the goals "of Science in Science", it means even less time for science if you're spending time EVERY WEEK giving practice tests for MATH and
READING!
You may think that this is just happening at MY school, but I have met a number of teachers in other districts around Chicago that are experiencing the same requests from their administrations.
COMING SOON TO A SCHOOL DISTRICT NEAR YOU!
This is not a simple complaint, but an eye opening warning for those who truly care about improving the current level of science education in America.
I've attached a couple emails from our administration describing how we should be preparing our students to be more successful in life.
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008

29
And although everyone but Mike might tend to agree that Physics First for all students would be a great way to improve MATH test scores, our new Principal doesn't seem to agree on that one! Just Drill and
Kill!!!
Oh Yeah, Here's a Kicker! When Our Science Department Chair tried to set up a Field trip for our
Science Students to see a free lecture by RENOWNED Paleoanthropologist Dr. Donald Johnson this upcoming Feb 19th, she was told no because it would interfere with classroom test preparation, when she told parents to call their kids in sick and take them to see this once in a lifetime free presentation, SHE
WAS FIRED from department head chair!!!!!
Sincerely,
Brendan Noon
Science, Math and Reading Test Prep Teacher Argo Community Test Mill
7329 W. 63rd Street
Summit, IL 60501
(708) 728-3200
ASU ITQ Project – Year 2 – Final Report – July 2008