Walt Snow had used Modeling Instruction for 18 years when he wrote this post to the physics
modeling listserv. He was Arizona Teacher of the Year in the 1990’s, then moved to Georgia.
You can download his doctoral dissertation on the modeling website. He later retired to Florida.
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008
From: Walt Snow (1990,91)
Subject: Time and Modeling
To: <MODELING@ASU.EDU>
I was recently asked by Jane Jackson to respond to the concerns of a modeler in my own county.
Her concerns are the same concerns I have heard from many other modelers over the years:
finding the time to do Modeling Instruction the way you know you should, when your
school/county/district/state curriculum requires you to keep up with some arbitrary and overly
aggressive calendar.
This is possibly the most important educational issue that faces us as modelers. However, it is
really nothing new. It is just the most recent incarnation of the "breadth vs. depth" fight that has
been with us since people started teaching each other around the campfire. (No don't try to teach
me about the life cycle of the wooly mammoth, just tell me how to KILL one.) And it will still
be raging long after we are gone. So what DO you do when you have to decide, day by day,
whether to do what you HAVE to or what you know you should?
I have been part of Modeling Instruction from its birth. I worked with Malcolm
Wells, David Hestenes and Gregg Swackhamer as part of the original cohort
group that put flesh on the theoretical bones created by Malcolm and
David. I'm certain David and Gregg (and Malcolm, too, as he looks down
on me) remember me as a skeptic who was resistant to this radically new
way of approaching physics teaching until Newton's third law finally
revealed to me what I really didn't understand and could not, therefore,
teach properly. I was teaching AP Physics B at the time and really
struggled with how to do justice to Modeling Instruction and still "cover" what
needed to be covered. So I did then what I have done for the last
eighteen years of my career -- I walked the tightrope. Every day, every
minute, I did the best I could and was always caught mid-sentence when
the bell rang. Then I followed the students out into the hallway, still
teaching and questioning and Socratically badgering them until I had to
run down the hallway to get back to my next class on time. More
recently, I did a qualitative study of the effect of Modeling Instruction on the
physics teachers themselves for my own doctoral dissertation. Modeling Instruction
has been the most career-altering experience I have ever had; and all of
my interview subjects agreed.
I believe in Modeling Instruction. I believe in it because I had the freedom to try
it in the early 90's with the unqualified support of a principal and a
school and a system that still seemed to have faith in the skills, the
1
knowledge, and the integrity of individual teachers. I saw it work. I
had the statistics to back it up. Then I relocated to Georgia; and, shortly
thereafter, NCLB replaced common sense. So here we are in the era of
"accountability," worshipping cookie-cutter education and sacrificing
good teacher judgment on the altar of lowest-common-denominator
"standardized" education.
Years ago, it was the building principal that called the important shots
in regard to curriculum. But NCLB and state graduation tests pretty
much ended that. The county administration in my district (the largest
in my state and one of the largest in the nation) has pretty much taken
complete control and mandated rigid instructional calendars and a new
battery of benchmark tests to enforce them. And I can see the county's
point. The school I teach in has a 40% mobility rate and students move
around quite freely between schools. I can't possibly blame the county
for trying to minimize the damage from students changing schools and
ending up four weeks ahead or six weeks behind their classmates. After
all, we SAY we want to do what's best for kids. That's just putting our
money where our mouths are.
The science sequence in our county is biology-chemistry-physics for all.
Physical Science has been moved to the middle schools. As a result, the
physics we teach to all but the AP/Gifted/Honors students is certainly
not the senior elective physics I once taught and which is still the
norm in most places across the country. I am also part of the "Gang of
Four" that just wrote the new physics benchmark tests for our county.
All I can say to the other physics teachers in my county is, “be glad we
lasted this long without them.” Biology and chemistry have had them for
years. If you want to see which questions I wrote, just look for the
conceptual ones. If it has no numbers, it's mine. I did that to balance
the AP/Gifted/Honors questions that seemed to pour forth from the other
three-quarters of the committee. My other agenda was to reinforce
understanding at the conceptual level. I figured the best way to have
SOME control over the outcome was to join the team. The tests still
didn't come out the way we really wanted, but we HAD to honor the
instructional calendar, which clearly is not modeling-friendly.
A good friend of mine who teaches physics at a nearby college suggested
climbing the ladder of protest right up through the county
administration to the state level. I have no problem cheering on
someone who is willing to fight the good fight, but let’s all be
realistic. No one below the level of the Superintendent's cabinet has
the authority or desire to offer any relief. And I do not believe
anyone at the cabinet level or above sees any value in granting relief.
My county worships a home-grown curriculum that is basically the state
2
standards on steroids; and, now that they have a structure in place for
enforcing it, aren't in the mood for granting any exceptions. And how
could they? Then it becomes a free-for-all with everyone doing their
own thing and any students who change schools (or even teachers within
the same building, for that matter) paying the price. If you plan to
argue that an individual teacher should be allowed the freedom to teach
what they want, I would suggest you line up your alternative employment
first. There is a long, sordid history of people who have tried to butt
heads with the system. And as a department chairman who has seen much
turnover in my department, I'm not sure I think that most teachers can
handle that freedom. Of course, that comment would exclude modelers
(wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
But there's more than one way to skin a cat. You may feel like you are
wearing a straightjacket, but there is more wiggle room than you might
think. I bet you can squeeze some of the inquiry aspects down a bit and
still have the lab experiences you want. For instance, I waste NO class
time whatsoever with the data analysis process. We purchased "Logger
Pro" from Vernier Software and had it installed on the school network.
The site license also allows you to give disks to your students so that
they can load it on their home computers. We collect data one day and
they are expected to walk in with completed lab reports including fully
analyzed graphs the next day. We are into deployment 23 hours after
they finish collecting data.
True to the Modeling Instruction philosophy, I always lead each unit with a
paradigm lab, making the deployment process more efficient and more
relevant. And I make certain to stage all the counter-intuitive
demonstrations early in the unit to get all the misconceptions out on
the table immediately. No, I don't have the time I wish I had; but I
honestly can't remember a time when I ever did, and I would argue that
the time I DO have is much better spent.
Most Fridays are "Hang on to your hats, here it comes" Fridays where I
throw all the "stuff" at them that doesn't emerge directly from
Modeling Instruction. I basically model two and a half or three days a week and
dance to the county's (and the College Board's) tune the rest of the
time. After all, life is about compromise. All the best relationships
require it. And if you think YOU've got it bad, try keeping up with the
AP curriculum. Makes my county's calendar look like a stroll in the
park. Want to teach fluid dynamics? However, I can sympathize with the
fact that the teachers in my state have to teach relativity (thanks to
someone at the state level ramming it into the state curriculum after
having a particularly bad day at home) when it isn't even required at
the AP level. Try using Modeling Instruction on THAT. I guess we all have our
3
crosses to bear.
This rigid standardization is not intentionally obstructionist. It is
just an alternative view of teaching constructed by people who are too
focused on content-as-education and not knowledgeable enough about what
research shows effective education really looks like within particular
disciplines. And I am not optimistic about anything changing in the
near future. The "less is more" argument just doesn't carry much weight
anymore. I began teaching in 1969 and I have watched the philosophical
pendulum swing several times. And it has a very LONG period.
My college teaching friend said the following in a recent e-mail exchange:
"Give me a student who (a) really knows Newton's laws, (b) can manage an
algebraic solution of simultaneous equations and (c) can deploy the
logic of mechanics to model phenomena (real or artificial, I don't
care). Send that student to me and I'll dance a jig until the day I die.
I honest to god, really and truly DO NOT CARE if they can do anything
else in physics. This is the mental discipline that is essential for
everything else. Create it and I'll do the rest. It will reduce the
complexity of both our jobs by half."
I have taken his comments to heart and realize that I can develop those
skills and habits of mind every single day, no matter what the
topic-du-jour. That is exactly what Modeling Instruction is all about. The
school/county/district/state/nation may tell me to move on and keep up
with the calendar (which is their right since they pay my salary) but I
can still do things every day to prepare students that will make my
friend dance his jig.
Dr. Walter R. Snow
Berkmar HS
Lilburn GA
4