June 2014
Physics Modeling at the University of Northern Iowa
Grant# XXXXXXXXX, Carver Charitable Trust
Grant amount: $ XXXXXXX
FINAL REPORT to the Carver Charitable Trust Board of Trustees
Overview
This report addresses the University of Northern Iowa implementation of the Iowa Regents Modeling
Workshops in physics, which received funding through the Carver Charitable Trust. It is a subsequent grant
related to previous workshops receiving funding January of 2011 for the workshop held at Iowa State
University and January 2012 for the workshop held at the University of Iowa. This report will communicate the
final evaluation of the modeling workshop held at the University of Northern Iowa in the summer of 2013.
Comparatively, this workshop was slightly different than the previous two workshops through the inclusion of
PRISIMS resources and activities along with the modeling materials.
2012 Profile of UNI Participants
The UNI workshop hosted 22 participants distributed throughout the eastern two thirds of the state. The makeup of participants differed from previous workshops in several ways. First the distribution of teaching
experience was much different than the previous workshops at U of I and ISU. The previous workshops were
fairly evenly distributed in experience while the UNI workshop had a significant number of participants 12/22
in their first five years of teaching experience. Only three had between five and ten years of experience and the
remaining seven had more than 15 years of teaching experience. Additionally, there were fewer in field
participants than the previous workshops with only four having significant physics or engineering experience as
part of their background. There were a number of participants that did not currently hold a physics teaching
position but were preparing to instruct physics at a school with increasing enrollment or who were pursuing
endorsement to offer physics at a rural school for the first time. Several participants were encouraged to attend
by physics teachers who attended previous workshops with the hope of establishing more continuity in
instructional practices and/or for curriculum articulation purposes.
Impact Assessment:
Participant FCI Data
The 2013 UNI participants produced similar trends to the 2011 ISU group and the 2012 U of I group. The
gains for the UNI group were figured in similar manner as the previous participant groups and are summarized
comparatively as follows. Aggregate UNI participant scores generated an average normalized gain of .43,
which is comparable to the mean of the first two workshops. Averages of participants’ pre and post-test
averages generate a similar normalized gain of .42. These normalized gains are less than the .55 average of the
previous workshop participants figure in a similar manner. Another average was completed excluding
participants with initial perfect scores for the reasons outlined in previous reports. When completing this
average, the UNI group fairs better with a normalized gain of .65 compared to an average of .54 for the previous
groups. This is likely due to the 5 participants well above mastery that finished with perfect scores yielding a
normalized gain of 1 thus raising the overall average of this subgroup. Excluding the participants above mastery
that finished with perfect scores, produces a result of .55 which is comparable to the average of the previous
workshops. As expected, all three workshops have generated participant data consistent with published results
from the ASU NSF and MSN Modeling workshops. Tables of all three years of participant FCI scores are
presented in appendix 1.
To further evaluate participant data in relation to the grant goal of producing well qualified physics
instructors, an evaluation of participants below mastery entering the workshop was conducted. The UNI group
started with 10 participants below mastery which is similar to the previous workshops. The major difference
between the UNI below mastery group compared to the previous workshops participants was a significantly
lower pre-test average. The UNI group started with pre-test average of 14 compared to an average of 18.4 for
the previous workshops participants. This is likely due to the greater number of participants who mainly
instruct physical science and had less overall experience with physics content. While the UNI group finished
with 7 total participants below the mastery threshold, this group began with a significantly lower initial
understanding. The group finished with only one participant below the threshold for understanding with most
participants in this group finishing just shy of the mastery cut off. Participant scores for this subgroup for all
three years follow the FCI scores for all participants in the appendix.
Impact Assessment:
Reflective comments from participants implementation journals
Previous reports for the Iowa Regents Modeling Workshop emphasized weekly reflections during the workshop
and mid-year reflections. The UNI participants kept an implementation journal throughout the year that was
shared with faculty. The excepts below were cut from participant journals at the conclusion of implementation.
In general, similar themes run through each of the three regents modeling workshops. The majority of
participants have indicated significant positive change in their professional growth and noticed significant
changes in their students’ attitudes, behaviors, and academic abilities. Examples from participant
implementation journals follow for those areas.
Reflective comments related to professional growth:
I thought I entered the workshop “knowing” what it was about, but that was not true. I learned so much from
the workshop and the professional conversations we have had this year. My thinking and questioning continued
to develop as I worked through the physics curriculum this year.
The most significant professional change I have experienced that I can directly relate to my participation in this
workshop is my transformation from a teacher centered classroom in physics to a student centered classroom.
Being accepted to the workshop has given me more credibility within my department. It is rather tough to make
suggestions for change with a 43 year career teacher. The workshop gave me the experience, deployments, and
lab equipment necessary to persuade my colleagues to try something different than they had done before.
I feel my most professional change has been the growth in my approach to teaching as well as becoming more
content specific. I pose more questions to students in order to have them become more accountable for their
learning. When in the workshop, everything was put back onto me (as a student) to gauge what I was thinking
and I had to learn to become an accountable learner. This really opened my eyes t what I was I doing in class
and how that needed to change.
The workshop led to a mind shift for me about my approach to teaching and helped me establish a more
student-led classroom in which observations, data analysis, critical thinking, and peer review are much more
prevalent than they were in my classroom in previous years.
Reflective comments related to student attitudes and behaviors:
Much better understanding as evidenced by FCI. Much better at thinking … like being aware of assumptions
and simplifications; like using representation tools; getting away from thinking operation first, and if they do, at
least do unit analysis or arithmetical reasoning; like considering the relationships, imagining the physical
situation — math less.
I have never felt more refreshed from teaching or as excited about teaching as this year with the modeling
curriculum. I am excited to read/learn more to improve my instructional practices. In addition, our district
received the TLC grant; I will be able to work with instructional coaches, curriculum coaches, and model
teachers to improve upon my instruction.
The students’ perception of science was thoroughly challenged and for some they may not value this rigorous
year of science boot camp, but hopefully the thinking and reasoning skills will help them understand how to
think for the sake of thinking.
By struggling through some of the labs and having whiteboard discussions, the students were given an
opportunity to take collaborative ownership of their work. In past years students showed ownership of work by
turning in problem sets, but the whiteboard discussions took the ownership to a new level. Students could be
heard defending their work to other groups and engaging in meaningful discussions with each other. Granted it
took a lot of battling to get the students to use the whiteboards and truly look at their work, but once the routine
was set for our last quarter of classes, the students started to really engage in the discussions. I’m seeing
confidence in some of my lower performing students just in the last week that I can directly attribute to the
modeling and PRISMS atmosphere.
Implementing what we learned from the workshop last summer was both exciting and overwhelming. The
workshop led to a mind shift for me about my approach to teaching and helped me establish a more student-led
classroom in which observations, data analysis, critical thinking, and peer review are much more prevalent than
they were in my classroom in previous years.
I think the biggest difference for the Physics students was their approach to learning. I got them to buy into the
idea of developing problem-solving tools that can be used in a variety of situations. I think the students
demonstrated their mastery of this when we got to the projectile motion unit. I simply presented them with a
scenario of an object moving in two directions at one time and told them to explain the problem. Each group
came up with some ideas, and after a discussion they were able to come to a conclusion as a group, with
basically no input from me. After they solved the problem, I pointed out the growth they had demonstrated over
the course of the year and made sure they were aware of their problem solving strategies and usefulness of
them.
I saw great growth in my physical science student’s ability to think, communicate, and apply their knowledge to
different situations from the beginning of the year to the present. Their ability to think like scientists improved
greatly! Also, I saw improvement in nearly all of my student’s conceptual exams (Scientific Reasoning and
Physical Science Concepts Inventory). Overall, I would say that the PRISMS and Modeling materials, along
with the workshop last summer, proved to be very effective!
Impact Assessment:
2013 Participant TPI Results
The Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI) was taken prior to the workshop and at the conclusion of the first
year of implementation. The delay was intentional to provide an appropriate time frame for actual changes in
any perspective to occur. The TPI identifies 5 perspectives in three areas, beliefs, actions, and intentions. For
any given perspective the highest score possible is a 45 and the lowest possible is a 9. In general averages for
any category are in the mid-thirties and dominant perspectives are those with higher scores. A general
descriptor of each perspective follows:
Transmission- Effective teaching requires a substantial commitment to subject matter or content.
Apprenticeship- Effective teaching enculturates students into a set of social norms and habits of mind.
Developmental- Effective teaching is planned and conducted from a learner’s point of view.
Nurturing- Effective teaching assumes long term persistent effort to achieve comes from the heart as well as the
mind.
Social Reform- Effective teaching seeks to change society in substantial ways.
The TPI also checks for agreement between a teacher’s beliefs, intentions, and actions within each category but
for the purposes of this report, positive changes in these areas are indicative of teachers bringing their beliefs,
intentions, and actions into closer alignment.
The UNI group was the first group to produce a near 100 percent return on the pre and post TPI. Previous
participants struggled with returning the correct information and or neglected to take the final TPI. When
examining the average change in each category we get what we might expect from the content and design of a
modeling or interactive engagement workshop. Significant changes in both the apprenticeship and
developmental categories occurred for the UNI group. This is expected because the instructional design is
based on developing a deep and robust understanding of physics content in relation to what is known
psychologically about how people learn. This trend is generally apparent for all three workshops to varying
degrees and suggests the designs of the workshops are affecting teachers in areas where you would predict
significant effects to occur. When examining UNI participants individual score changes across the
apprenticeship and developmental categories, many participants had shifts bringing these two perspectives into
a better balance with other perspectives. For a number of the UNI participants, these perspectives went from
being a less dominant perspective to the most dominant perspective, with the majority of participants having
their most dominant perspective either of these two on their post TPI. Interestingly, the UNI group did show a
significant positive change in the nurturing perspective while the other two workshop groups posted a negative
and no change in this category. We might speculate this is due to the number of candidates in their first few
years of experience but this is not corroborated with individual changes. A number of more experienced
teachers brought their nurturing perspectives from being less dominant into balance with other perspectives. A
more rigorous comparison of workshop variables and participant make-up would be necessary to address the
differences between workshops. The transmission and social reform categories had the least average change
amongst UNI participants. For the transmission perspective, positive and negative changes seem to occur as a
result of bringing that particular perspective into balance with the other perspectives. The social reform
category remained the least dominant perspective for the UNI participants with the positive change being
accounted for by several participants with substantial positive changes balanced out by several large negative
changes causing a smaller overall positive change. Again, accounting for the differences between each of the
workshop groups in areas such as transmission and social reform would require analysis that goes beyond the
scope of this report, yet noting the differences seems important in relation to the overall evaluation of the
workshops as a whole. A table with all three workshops changes in each category is provided for reference.
A secondary analysis of TPI results consisted of examining the belief, intention, and action changes that
occurred in participants. The average change for all three categories was positive and for the majority of
participants resulted in a better alignment between all three categories. It can be inferred that the large positive
change in beliefs is likely due to the number of participants in their first few years of teaching taking the
workshop. This claim is corroborated by significant positive changes in beliefs for participants in their first few
years of teaching along with less change for more experienced participants. Perhaps attending the workshop
and working with other participants helped affirm their beliefs in relation to any teaching perspective. Changes
in intentions and actions cannot be attributed to any subgroup of the participants and seem to be mostly
attributed to alignment of beliefs, intentions, and actions as a result of attending the workshop.
In general, the workshop and subsequent attempts at implementation likely affect participants’ perspectives
on teaching. The data seem to support a positive effect in both the developmental and apprenticeship
perspectives and a better overall alignment of participants’ teaching perspectives and their beliefs, intentions,
and actions in relation to effective teaching practices. A table comparing the average changes in teachers TPI
scores for all three workshops is provided (Below or in appendix)
TPI Aggregate Comparisons
Average Average
Change
Change
TPI category
UNI
ISU
Transmission
0.86
2.10
Apprenticeship
3.43
1.90
Developmental
2.43
2.50
Nurturing
2.95
-1.40
Social Reform
1.57
0.60
Belief Total
4.24
3.00
Intention Total
3.05
4.14
Action Total
3.62
2.71
Average
Change
U of I
0.00
1.00
1.50
0.00
2.80
NA
NA
NA
Impact assessment:
Student FCI Data and VASS Profiling
To be consistent with first year modelers completing a modeling workshop at ASU, a high quality workshop
should average a student post-test percentage of 52% or a normalized gain of 0.35. The graphic below is a
summary of ASU’s findings for over 7,500 students and serves as the standard for comparing the effectiveness
of the Iowa Regents’ Modeling Workshops.
FCI mean
score (%)
80
69
60
40
42
20
26
Post-test
52
26
29
Pre-test
Instruction
Novice
Expert
type
Modelers
Modelers
FCI mean scores under different instruction types
Traditional
UNI Student FCI Scores:
The UNI participants on average achieved a final post-test average of 50% and an average normalized gain
of .32. These results are comparable to results generated by novice modelers attending ASU’s nationally
recognized workshops and master’s degree program. However, there were 4 UNI participants producing results
that fared worse than traditional instruction with final post-test percentages less than 42% and a normalized gain
of less than .21. These participants were from both ends of the participant experience spectrum and were from
schools ranging in their diversity and socioeconomic status. Factoring these four individuals out leads to an
improvement of the average normalized gain for the remainder of UNI participants to .36 which is slightly
greater than what would be expected from published information out of ASU’s Modeling Instruction program.
Additionally, 12% of students scored at or above mastery in understanding Newtonian concepts with 32% of
students achieving the threshold for having a strong conceptual understanding of Newtonian concepts.
The two highest achieving participants were very diverse in experience and demographics. The highest
achieving participant had 10 years of teaching experience, a 2% minority and 8% Free and reduced population,
with a .61 normalized gain. The second highest achieving participant had 1 year of experience, a 22% minority
and 62% free and reduced population, with a .55 normalized gain. There was a substantial difference in the
number of students taking physics and the overall school population that might explain the differences. Similar
instances can be claimed for participants with average and low normalized student gains. In general, there are
instances of successful and unsuccessful implementation for the UNI participants in rural, urban, and mid-sized
districts as well as districts that vary greatly in their minority and free and reduced population. This
generalization is evident in all three years of data generated by the Iowa Regents’ Modeling Workshops.
Student data summaries for all three workshops have been provided in the appendix.
When comparing the workshops longitudinally, we have to keep in mind the UNI workshop included
PRISIMS interactive engagement materials along with modeling materials. UNI participants self-reported in
their reflection journals whether they implemented a Modeling approach or a mixed Modeling and PRISIMS
approach during the academic year. Almost all participants who reported a Modeling approach provided
evidence of using PRISIMS activities in their implementation journals and those that reported a mix of
approaches varied in their use depending the concept or other instructional decision making factors like student
abilities, math background, number of students, etc. Throughout the workshop participants were encouraged to
think about activities from either approach in relation to meeting their students’ needs. Data was evaluated for
those who self-reported consistently using a modeling approach. This sub group of participants generated a .41
normalized gain. This is consistent with the average gains of ISU and U of I modeling workshop participants
which were .40 for all participants regardless of level of implementation. Evaluating a mixed approach with all
remaining participants is a bit unfair given all four participants producing results with normalized gains worse
than traditional instruction are in that sub group. The entire mixed sub group produced a normalized gain of
.26. A calculation was also completed without the four participants with the lowest student normalized gains.
An average normalized gain of .33 is figured indicating the majority of participants with a mixed approach still
produce results consistent with interactive engagement methods yet slightly less than ASU’s modeling
workshop data. It is also important to note that participants producing normalized gains less than those
documented with traditional instruction occurred in all three workshops with two at ISU and one at U of I.
VASS student profiling:
The Views About Science Survey was also given to students by some participants. Some chose to give the
survey to all students while others gave it to representative groups of students. While the survey can be quite
informative about students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning and understanding the nature of science, the data
reported have turned out to be far too general to substantially contribute to evaluating the Regents’ Modeling
Workshops. For the data returned, there was some consistency in student FCI scores and VASS profiles.
Generally the greater the VASS profile, the greater the post FCI score. However, there seems to be a much
greater range of VASS profiles that produce post FCI scores above mastery than anticipated from the research.
Additionally it was speculated that a correlation might exist between teachers’ average student VASS profile
and the post FCI average. Initially it appeared to be the case with a small set of data but trend did not continue.
Unfortunately no real insight was gained as a result of having participants give the VASS for the purposes of
evaluating the Regents’ Modeling Workshops; however, it is possible individual teachers gained insight to their
students’ attitudes and beliefs. Unfortunately, there was no follow-up with individual teachers giving the VASS
to see if any insights were gained.
Summary of Findings:
The UNI workshop has clearly demonstrated the same level of success as the previous ISU and U of I
Modeling workshops. The majority of participants indicated significant professional growth and changes in
students’ attitudes and behaviors. The TPI provided evidence of greater balance in teachers’ perspectives of
teaching and greater alignment of beliefs, intentions, and actions. Both participant and student FCI scores
generated comparable results to ASU’s Modeling Instruction workshops. The UNI workshop brings to a close
three successful years of Modeling workshops that would not have occurred without the support of the Carver
Charitable Trust. We are grateful to have your support. Your support has provided approximately 75 teachers
with some of the best science professional development available and will continue to affect students for many
years into the future.
Regards,
Iowa Modeling Workshop Consortium
Craig Ogilvie, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, Iowa State University
Mary Hall Reno, Ph.D., Professor and Department Chair, Physics, University of Iowa
Larwence Escalada, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, Chair Science Education Department, University of Northern
Iowa
Shannon McLaughlin, Physics Instructor, Norwalk High School
Jeff Weld, Ph.D., Director, Iowa Math & Science Education Partnership
Appendix 1
2011 ISU Modeling Workshop Participant FCI Scores
2012 U of I Modeling Workshop Part
Number FCI Pre-Test FCI Post-Test Normalized Gain
1
30
30
0
2
30
30
0
3
30
30
0
4
30
30
0
5
29
29
0
6
28
28
0
7
18
18
0
8
11
14
0.16
9
15
19
0.27
10
20
23
0.3
11
26
28
0.5
12
20
26
0.6
13
14
24
0.63
14
27
29
0.67
15
23
28
0.71
16
23
28
0.71
17
18
29
0.92
18
19
30
1
19
27
30
1
20
28
30
1
21
29
30
1
22
29
30
1
AVERAGES
22.44
26.28
0.48
0.51
Normalized gain with Average Pre and Post
Number FCI Pre-Test FCI Post-Test
1
22.00
NA
2
30.00
30.00
3
30.00
30.00
4
30.00
30.00
5
30.00
30.00
6
12.00
4.00
7
28.00
27.00
8
29.00
29.00
9
29.00
29.00
10
23.00
24.00
11
25.00
26.00
12
23.00
25.00
13
28.00
29.00
14
26.00
28.00
15
22.00
27.00
16
20.00
27.00
17
26.00
29.00
18
18.00
27.00
19
21.00
28.00
20
19.00
28.00
21
12.00
27.00
22
23.00
29.00
23
16.00
28.00
24
18.00
29.00
25
16.00
29.00
26
29.00
30.00
Averages
23.27
27.16
Average Normalized Gain N=5 through N=22
0.58
Normalized gain with Average Pre and Post
Average gain N=6 through N=26
Average gain N=7 through N=26
Average gain N=8 through N=26
2013 UNI Participant FCI Scores
Number
FCI-PRE
FCI-Post
27
25
1
25
24
2
30
30
3
30
30
4
29
29
5
27
27
6
18
18
7
10
12
8
18
21
9
19
22
10
15
20
11
14
21
12
21
25
13
6
20
14
27
29
15
11
24
16
26
29
17
11
29
18
29
30
19
27
30
20
29
30
21
29
30
22
27
30
23
Averages
21.96
25.43
Noralized gain with average
pre/post
Average of N=8 to N=23
Average if N=8 to N=18
Normalized Gain
-0.67
-0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.25
0.27
0.33
0.44
0.44
0.58
0.67
0.68
0.75
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.43
0.42
0.65
.55
ISU Participants Starting Below Mastery on FCI
FCI Pre-Test
FCI Post-Test Normalized Gain
18
18
0
11
14
0.16
15
19
0.27
20
23
0.3
20
26
0.6
14
24
0.63
23
28
0.71
23
28
0.71
18
29
0.92
19
30
1
18.1
23.9
0.53
Normalized Gain from averages
0.49
U of I Participants Starting Below Ma
FCI Pre-Test
FCI Post-Te
23.00
24.00
23.00
25.00
22.00
27.00
20.00
27.00
18.00
27.00
21.00
28.00
19.00
28.00
12.00
27.00
23.00
29.00
16.00
28.00
18.00
29.00
16.00
29.00
12.00
4.00
18.69
25.54
without the highlighted anomaly
19.25
27.33
Normalized Gain from averages
UNI Participants Starting Below Mastery on the FCI
FCI-Pre
FCI-Post
Normalized Gain
6
20
0.58
10
12
0.10
11
24
0.68
11
29
0.95
14
21
0.44
15
20
0.33
18
18
0.00
18
21
0.25
19
22
0.27
21
25
0.44
14.3
21.2
0.44
Average N gain
0.44
2013 University of Northern Iowa Student FCI, Vass, and Demographic
Average Average
N
Teacher
1
N
(students)
60
FCI Pre
7.40
FCI Post
14.75
Normalized
Gain
0.32
Average
VASS
Profile
NA
%
minority
6
%F&
R
18
Notes on
U/R implementation
U Modeling
2
16
7.67
13.27
3
11
10.9
18.1
4
46
7.08
10.98
5
29
6.83
9.52
6
36
8.08
16.64
7
20
11.40
21.00
8
41
11.00
16.00
9
67
8.37
15.27
10
35
8.09
21.18
11
12
6.08
19.33
12
12
8.42
16.00
13
80
10.06
16.34
14
36
7.20
11.40
15
10
8.49
10.47
16
10
6.60
12.60
Averages
521
8.35
15.18
N gain average pre and post
Weighted N gain based on N (students)
Average N gain Full Modeling
Implementaion
Average N gain Mixed PRISIMS/Modeling
0.26
0.40
0.17
0.11
0.40
0.53
0.21
0.34
0.61
0.55
0.38
0.33
0.18
0.10
0.26
0.32
0.32
0.32
NA
150
NA
148
NA
130
NA
NA
NA
NA
149
149
NA
153
NA
146.55
4
11
49
11
P
9
15
11
2
22
10
23
31
P
16
43
22
70
55
P
41
17
22
8
62
32
49
52
P
9
R
R
U
M
R
R
U
U
M
M
R
U
M
M
M
Mixed
Modeling
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Modeling
Modeling
Mixed
Modeling
Modeling
Modeling
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Modeling
Student Above Mastery
Students at threshold for
understanding
0.41
0.24
62 or 12%
165 or 32%
2013 University of Iowa Student FCI, Vass, and Demographic
T#
N
Pre
ave
Post
ave
N gain
ave
N>24
VASS
Weigh
ted N
Imple
menta
%
Minori
% F&R
U/R
tion
1
17
9.4
9.2
0.00
0
2
16
7.8
18.8
0.50
5
3
141
7.6
14.7
0.32
8
4
6
10
25
67
17
9.4
9.8
8.7
20.1
23.0
18.4
0.50
0.65
0.47
7
34
4
12
30
6.5
14.5
0.34
3
14
9
7.7
14.0
0.29
1
139.00
18
5
8.6
15.6
0.33
1
149.00
19
18
8.9
15.6
0.34
3
148.00
20
22
79
10
7.8
6.0
16.3
15.2
0.39
0.38
6
0
146.00
141.00
28
14
9.2
14.4
0.26
0
27
66
6.7
15.1
0.37
7
29
112
7.3
15.5
0.37
9
N=15
626
8.1
16.0
0.37
88
Stundets achieving Mastery
15%
136.00
146.00
127.00
ty
Curr.
0.00 Constr
40
NA
U
aints
8.00 Full
20
15
U
Most/
45.12 short
NA
NA
U
time
12.50 Full
NA
NA
Mid Size
43.55 Full
10
13
U
7.99 Most
<5
45
R
Most/l
ow
10.20
NA
NA
R
resour
ces
Most/l
ow
2.61
NA
NA
R
resour
ces
1.65 Full
<5
22
R
Most/
Time
6.12
NA
NA
U
constr
aint
30.81 Full
20
15
U
3.80 Full
30
50
R
Most
3.64 short
NA
NA
R
time
Most
24.42 short
NA
NA
U
time
Most
41.44 short
NA
NA
U
time
0.39 Average Weighted Normalized Gain
0.40 Average Weighted N gain - T#1
0.40 Average Weighted N gain - T#1 For Funded
2011 ISU Student FCI, Vass, and Demographic
Teacher Number
14598 AP
56742
78574
84747
14598 Regular
14879
45668
57832
32585
42789
87888
N
60
41
6
16
61
4
12
4
22
49
73
FCI Post
24.47
20.00
21.00
18.61
18.43
17.50
17.25
17.75
17.09
14.20
12.45
FCI Pre
11.93
8.00
10.80
7.89
8.61
6.00
8.33
8.00
10.41
6.35
6.73
% Gain
41.80
40.00
34.00
35.74
32.73
38.30
29.79
32.50
22.27
26.19
19.06
N Gain
0.70
0.55
0.53
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.43
0.44
0.37
0.34
0.25
85784
97845
98766
9
11
15
15.00
17.73
11.27
10.22
10.91
6.53
15.93
22.73
15.78
0.29
0.37
0.19
Full through unit 6
Full through Unit 7
Full through Unit 6
0
2
9
56788
68522
11
93
487
13.91
12.10
7.00
7.92
23.02
14.56
0.31
0.20
Curricular constraints
Low time/curriculum
57
14
16.80
8.48
27.78
0.39
0.40
18.07
8.46
32.04
0.45
0.46
Cohort Averages All
Participants
Average of N gain
Cohort Averages of full
Implemnt
Average of N gain
Percent of students achieving mastery on FCI=
15%
VASS
150
150
150
147
144
148.06
Implementation
Full
80% w/open inquiry
Full
Full
Full
80%-competitions
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
% minority
25
2
0
44
25
NA
7
1
0
18
5