modeling.asu.edumodeling.asu.edu/modeling/professdevelop/MSPgrant... · Web viewFor the physical science workshop, Introductory Physical Science (8th edition) by Haber-Schaim, Gendel,

Title II, Part B Mathematics Science Partnerships

Program Title: Workshops for Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science and Chemistry

Name of Fiscal Agent LEA: Watauga County school districtNames of Partners: Caldwell, Buncombe, Durham, and Martin County school districts and The Science House at North Carolina State University

A three-year project. First year funding of $400,000 was authorized in April 2008. Most additional funding (over and above the $250,000 in the budget here) is for increased teacher stipends, room and board for teachers, and pay for the mentor (increased to a 12-month position).

For information, please contact Matt Greenwolfe [email protected] secondarily Patty Blanton [email protected]

Suggestions by Jane Jackson for future replications/adaptations of this project:1) include a student worker and/or part-time clerical –10 hours per week in AY and 20 hours

per week in summer. ($8 to $15 per hour). For data entry, web update, records, copying.2) Allow up to 24 teachers in a workshop. A few can find their own funding.3) Budget more resource books for participating teachers. For all workshops, Introductory

Physics: a Model Approach by Robert Karplus (edited by Fernand Brunschig, 2003, $40). For the mechanics workshop, Preconceptions in Mechanics by Charles Camp and John Clement (~$40). For the physical science workshop, Introductory Physical Science (8th edition) by Haber-Schaim, Gendel, Kirksey, Pratt ($50).

4) Inquire about Lab-Physics from Gerald Meisner: (336) 334-4217 (w), 543-6524 (cell).5) Ask the university to give graduate credit and provide tuition waivers or reduced tuition.6) Budget these probes: gas pressure sensors, stainless steel temperature probes, light

sensors. Also CASTLE economy kits and capacitors.7) Budget lab supplies for each participant, to enable a convenient quick start in

implementation: a dozen whiteboards ($30), 8 constant motion vehicles ($40), a dozen dry erase markers ($10). For the physical science workshop, budget class sets of stop clocks ($70), metric tape measures ($40), 1 cm plain cubes ($25), 1 cm interlocking cubes ($30), volume relation sets ($200), two electronic balances ($250), Graphical Analysis software ($80). The physical science & chemistry teachers need the Eureka DVD Heat and Temperature (broadcast quality master $300, licensing fee $50 ea).

8) Budget in Year 1 for two potential chemistry leaders to travel to Arizona State University or other site and take a chemistry modeling workshop. Likewise for a team of a physical science and a math teacher. Teams should preferably teach at the same school.

9) Hold 2 physical science or 2 chem workshops: each includes one semester of content.

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Abstract North Carolina faces a severe shortage of science and engineering professionals as well

as a critical shortage of qualified high school physics and physical science teachers. As a result, biology, chemistry or math teachers end up teaching physics without an adequate understanding of the content simply because no better qualified teacher is available. Existing teachers face new challenges in their jobs. End of course tests mandated by state and national standards add an extra layer of pressure and accountability to teachers who are already struggling as they teach out of field. Without additional training for teachers, the results of these tests are likely to confirm the results of the past several decades of physics education research, that traditional instruction does not do a good job in transforming students' conceptual understanding of physics. The challenges are many: to increase the number of physics teachers; to improve the content knowledge of all of our physics teachers; and to help teachers teach in a way that leads to deep conceptual understanding by students.

Workshops in the Modeling Method of instruction are a proven method for improving physics instruction in line with national and state standards. The Modeling Method is a coherent and student-centered program that has been shown, through the most impressive student assessment program in science education, to be an effective method of teaching and learning science. During an intensive 4-week training program, teachers transform their teaching methods while developing a deep understanding of the physics content. Alternating in roles as teacher and student, participants dramatically improve their content knowledge because they benefit from the same effective teaching methods they are learning to deliver to their own students. Several Modeling Physics workshops per year were held in North Carolina from 2000 - 2004, but only one small workshop has been held each summer since.

In this proposal, Buncombe, Durham, Martin, Caldwell and Watauga County School Districts, a group of dedicated modeling physics instructors and The Science House at NC State University have joined their efforts to request funding to hold two modeling workshops per summer. This is a state-wide grant request, so participants will be sought from throughout the state. In addition to holding one workshop in modeling physics each summer, we seek to hold the first modeling workshops for physical science, chemistry, and second semester physics in the state. Each workshop will provide 135 hours of instruction, stipends of $80 per day, free lunch, continuing education and graduate credit. Participants will receive additional support in implementing the modeling approach through a coach who will visit classes and be available for consultation throughout the year, by access to the modeling list serve and the modeling wiki that connect a nationwide network of modeling science teachers, and by providing financial incentive for their principals and administrators to join the workshop for a day to learn first hand about the approach. High school physics education in North Carolina is reaching an alarming state and the partner districts have taken the bold step of moving beyond their self-interest to solicit resources to address a critical statewide need. To honor that commitment modeling workshops in physics, physical science and chemistry will become part of the regular summer program of The Science House, turning this initial funding into a seedbed for a statewide program to rejuvenate physics instruction in the state.

2

C. Table of Contents

Table of ContentsA. Proposal Cover Page ..................................................................................................................1B. Abstract .......................................................................................................................................2C. Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................3D. Partner LEA forms .....................................................................................................................4E. Partner IHE Form .......................................................................................................................8F. Evaluator Information .................................................................................................................9G. Needs Assessment Forms .........................................................................................................10H. Critical Needs ...........................................................................................................................15

Enhancing teacher understanding of content material: ............................................................18Effective methods of science instruction for all students: ........................................................19Research-based pedagogy that is scalable and long-lasting: ....................................................20Training teachers to use technology effectively: ......................................................................21Supporting a community of professionals: ..............................................................................21

I. Goals .........................................................................................................................................22J. Program Activities ................................................................................................................24Summer Workshops: ................................................................................................................25Continuing Support: .................................................................................................................28Recruitment: .............................................................................................................................32

K. Timeline ...................................................................................................................................32L. Alignment with North Carolina Standard Course of Study ......................................................37M. Partnership Management Plan .................................................................................................38N. Evaluation Plan and Research Design......................................................................................48O. Dissemination ...........................................................................................................................56P. Budget........................................................................................................................................57Q. Budget Narrative ......................................................................................................................63

3

4

H. Critical Needs Our nation faces a severe shortage of scientific and engineering professionals and

technical workers. It's a widespread problem with a solution that starts in K-12 education. Currently, fewer than one-fourth of high school students take physics yet our physics education system plays a major role in maintaining our supply of about 18,000 physicists and 1.8 million engineers, and in preparing about 600,000 physicians and 1.9 million computer professionals. A sound knowledge of physics is also prerequisite for workers in emerging fields such as biotechnology. Reversing the disheartening achievement levels that U. S. students demonstrate on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) is an important part of preserving American pre-eminence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Data for the schools in participating LEAs show some interesting and troubling facts (see Appendix E). In schools that offer physics, enrollment in physics is well below half of Chemistry enrollment. Those schools in which the majority of students choose to take physical science typically have low enrollment in physics as well as show low EOC scores in Physical Science. It appears that in those schools, most students are choosing to take biology, earth science, and physical science to meet graduation requirements (see Figure 1). Eleanor Hasse, DPI 9-12 science consultant, provides statewide information presented at a Koury Conference in March 2007 on the topic of increasing the enrollment in higher level science courses in NC. These data point to the problem of recruiting eligible students to enroll in anything beyond required science courses. In North Carolina in 2004-2005, there were 71,000 students who had met the math prerequisites for physics but only 12,000 enrolled in physics. In 2005-2006, 90,000 had the prerequisites but the number enrolled in any type of physics course in North Carolina remained steady at 12,000. The problem is more pronounced in the black population: almost 17,000 had the math prerequisites and almost 11,000 enrolled in chemistry, but less than 2,000 enrolled in physics. Clearly, math prerequisites are not the problem. There are many students who could be taking chemistry and physics to gain the skills and knowledge for future success. These students are not choosing to take these courses.

Data from a study conducted by the Council of State School Officers State Indicators of Math and science Education, 2005, State-by-State Trends and National Indicators provide further troubling statistics for North Carolina in comparison to national averages. For example, in 2004 chemistry enrollment figures nationwide have increased by 5% while in North Carolina, there has been a 7% drop in enrollment over the same time period. Physics enrollment is up 1% nationwide yet down by 7% in North Carolina. Higher level science class enrollment for NC has dropped to 25% while the national average is 32%. Since earth science and biology are both requirements for graduation in North Carolina, the figures show that NC matches the national average of 95% enrollment in biology and is well above the national average (28%) for enrollment in earth science (90%). The economic success of the citizens on North Carolina demands that those citizens be prepared in all areas of science, mathematics and technology to meet employment needs and be able to function in an increasingly technical society. The current state of physical science education must be improved if we are to meet these basic economic needs. Therefore, the biggest need in North Carolina science education is clearly in the physical sciences.

Although every district we contacted recognized the need for teacher training in the physical

5

sciences, many elected not to participate. Most of these cited lack of physics teachers in their district as the primary reason that they could not participate. Even though these districts were well aware that this is a statewide grant and they only had to provide a few teachers for the workshops, they felt that they could not fulfill even this minimum requirement, as many high schools have no physics teacher at all. Among districts meeting reasonable qualifications as "high need," of course, the situation with regard to physics instruction is even more critical. You may wonder at our choice of Watauga County as our Lead LEA and fiscal agent, when it is clearly not the highest need district among the six partners to this grant. Watauga's physics program is healthy, and their physics teacher is in fact one of our potential workshop instructors, a highly capable teacher with experience as an educational leader. Watauga's primary needs for this program are to expand their successful program in modeling physics to their physical science and chemistry teachers, whose students do not currently match the EOC performance of their physics students. Our project is the only option for Watauga to receive this training, as our project will provide the first training in modeling instruction for physical science and chemistry teachers in the state.

In addition, we must be up front about our choice. Finding a fiscal agent was difficult because the districts perceive they would expend considerable energy and time to benefit a small number of their own teachers. While the districts are happy to take a risk and join in a statewide effort, they aren't in a position to incur that level of fiscal liability when so few of their teachers are involved. We face a variation of the "tragedy of the commons," in which the state's need for a courageous district to take a leadership role on behalf of physical science instruction far outweighs the benefits that single district will receive, yet a single district must accept all of the liability in the case of an auditing exception. We were very fortunate indeed to find even one district, Watauga, that was willing to take this risk. Although we recognize that the choice of Watauga County as our fiscal agent may be viewed as a weakness of this proposal, we feel that the statewide need for this program is so great that we must submit the best proposal that we can.

6

Figure 1. New educational standards and improved testing programs are both positive trends,

but experience shows disappointing test results rarely lead to increased achievement. It is essential that teachers receive additional education and support to meet the demands placed on them. Teachers and administrators at the North Carolina Science Teachers Association annual meeting and the Department of Public Instruction's Summer Science Leadership Conference have expressed interest in additional education in research-based teaching methods. This proposal is aimed at five core needs of an effective system of science education.

Enhancing teacher understanding of content material: Our shortage of qualified physics teachers at the high school level is severe. Nationwide, roughly 600 to 800 physics teachers are needed each year just to fill replacement jobs but only about 400 new high school physics teachers are produced annually. As a result, over two-thirds of the physics teachers employed by the nation’s schools do not have a degree in physics or physics education. North Carolina is no exception.

New science standards and testing programs have placed added demands on teachers’ content knowledge and skills. "Models and modeling" have been adopted as a unifying theme for science and mathematics education by both the National Science Education Standards (NSES) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Project 2061. The North Carolina State Standards have also been recently revised to emphasize models, hands-on and discovery-based laboratories and conceptual understanding instead of rote memorization. National testing, required by No Child Left Behind, as well as statewide End of Course testing is based on the new standards. Without additional training for teachers, the results of these tests are likely to confirm the results of the past several decades of physics education research, that traditional instruction fails to transform students' conceptual understanding of physics. Avoiding this unfortunate situation will require extensive re-education, which few teachers will be able to accomplish in weekend workshops, in brief in-service activities, in on-line courses, or on their own. One key to reform is to help teachers achieve robust and flexible knowledge of physics.

Effective methods of science instruction for all students: The North Carolina Standard Course of Study emphasizes the use of effective teaching methods by including “Science as a Human Endeavor,” “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge,” and “Science as Inquiry” prominently among its unifying themes and program strands. Science as Inquiry gets additional emphasis as competency goal number 1 of the standard course of study in all science subjects. Teachers are instructed to weave these themes, strands and goals “through the content goals and objectives of the course.” However, many teachers are not adequately prepared to teach physics or to stay up to date in the field. They tend to teach as they were taught and textbooks are written with a focus on words and equations rather than concepts and experiences. Careful research has shown that such traditional modes of physics instruction fail to raise the average student’s understanding of Newtonian physics concepts to the level of basic competency. Discouraged students come to regard the discipline either as hopelessly abstruse or as a jumbled collection of facts, formulas and tricks which must be memorized and shuffled

7

through to get answers to the contrived problems posed in class. These dismal results occur regardless of the instructor's knowledge, experience and teaching style, which suggests that the problem lies more in the pedagogy than in the instructor.

When teachers learn physics by engaging in inquiry and constructing their own understanding, when they experience their own knowledge growing and deepening as a result, they will be much more likely to use the same approach when they teach. Therefore, it is important to deliver physics content with reformed and effective pedagogy so that teacher's benefit from the same effective teaching methods they are learning to deliver to their own students. Another key to reform is thus professional development in methodology for the teacher.

Research-based pedagogy that is scalable and long-lasting: Through the efforts of high-quality education research, much more is now known about how students learn science: typical preconceptions they bring into the classroom; successful pedagogy for correcting misunderstandings, building upon scientifically correct notions, and instilling an appreciation for the process of science; and valid methods for assessing student outcomes in these areas. Recent research in cognitive science reveals much about how people learn. Many professional development activities expose teachers to the ideas of cognitive science and education research, but give them at most a few techniques or sample lessons to bring back to their classrooms. More intensive exposure to practical examples of good pedagogy is required to infuse these results throughout high school science instruction.

Training teachers to use technology effectively: Electronic technology is becoming an integral part of modern society, and is rapidly finding its way into our classrooms but questions remain about how effectively it is being used. Most technology training for teachers is targeted at using the computer as a word processor and accessing the Internet. Science teachers often use simulations that allow students to interact with moving images using the keyboard, mouse and graphical controls. Many of the results of such activities can just as easily be realized using more conventional methods with the added advantage of providing all students with first hand experience with the physical world in an atmosphere of observation and inquiry.

Practicing scientists use the computer as a scientific tool for data acquisition, analysis and modeling in a way that is difficult to replicate in classrooms. Educational research has established that computers in the science classroom enhance student learning only when there is a carefully designed plan for their use. 2,11 In other words, the pedagogy is responsible for the learning. The computer can enhance pedagogy, but not replace it. Therefore use of computers in science classrooms must be coupled to reform in science pedagogy.

Supporting a community of professionals: Many high school teachers in the physical sciences experience a sense of isolation. That isolation can be crippling, especially to teachers trying new and innovative teaching strategies. Reform is much more likely to last in a supportive environment. Therefore, it is important that teacher training provide the participants with support from their own school system as well as

8

avenues to share ideas, seek answers, and find new ideas by connecting with other teachers. Coaching from experienced teachers, the chance to meet periodically with like-minded teachers during the school year, access to online tools for sharing ideas, lesson plans and materials, and exposure to university researchers and results can all help to connect teachers to a larger community.

I. Goals In response to the needs discussed above, this project provides physics, chemistry and physical science teachers with education in content and pedagogy, bridging the gap between educational research and the application of its findings to the improvement of classroom instruction. It also promotes systemic reform by providing a corps of expert teachers and building professional development communities. Project activities are designed to address the following goals and associated objectives:

Goal 1: Enhance teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in science.

Objective 1.1: Participating teachers will improve their understanding of key science concepts identified by the project and aligned with the NC Standard Course of Study.

Objective 1.2: Participating teachers will improve their understanding of current research on student learning in science and its pedagogical implications.

Objective 1.3: Participating teachers will demonstrate appropriate understanding of the key characteristics of the Modeling approach to science teaching.

Objective 1.4: Participating teachers will express greater confidence in their ability to design and implement high-quality science instruction.

Goal 2: Effectively implement the Modeling approach into science classrooms.

Objective 2.1: Participating teachers will demonstrate increased frequency and fluency in using research-based, constructivist instructional practices.

Objective 2.2: Participating teachers will effectively integrate technology tools into their science teaching.

Objective 2.3: Leaders in participants’ schools will demonstrate knowledge and actions that support effective use of the Modeling approach in participants’ classrooms.

Goal 3: Improve student understanding of key science concepts.

Objective 3.1: Students of participating teachers will demonstrate increased knowledge of the physical science concepts detailed in the state standards.

9

Objective 3.2: Students of participating teachers will demonstrate decreased frequency of common misconceptions regarding targeted physical science concepts.

Goal 4: Create sustainable partnerships to provide ongoing support for classroom implementation of the Modeling program.

Objective 4.1: Participating teachers will participate in a learning community of practitioners to support implementation and provide ongoing learning opportunities for the Modeling approach.

Objective 4.2: Participants will enhance their awareness and use of state and national resources for the Modeling approach, including university faculty, exemplary high school teachers, and validated instructional materials.

Objective 4.3: Modeling workshops implemented by the project will be institutionalized as a regular part of the professional development program offerings by the Science House.

J. Program Activities All activities are based upon the highly successful Modeling Instruction program, an evolving, research-based program for high school science education reform supported by the NSF since 1989. It was recognized by the National Science Foundation as one of the seven best K-12 educational technology programs out of 134 programs evaluated in 2000, and one of two exemplary programs in science education in 2001. The program is concerned with reforming high school physics teaching to make it more coherent and student-centered and to incorporate the computer as an essential scientific tool. Modeling Instruction helps students discover that learning occurs through actively seeking understanding, and that problems are solved by applying fundamental ideas, as opposed to listening to a teacher, taking notes, and memorizing facts and procedures. Recently modeling has expanded to embrace physical science and chemistry, and efforts are underway in middle school math and high school biology. Modeling Workshops have been offered for nearly 20 years and have demonstrably improved the learning of tens of thousands of students.1-5 (See http://modeling.asu.edu. and Appendix F for more detail).

The proposed program builds on prior offerings of modeling physics workshops in the state, which successfully reached over 100 physics and physical science teachers through support by the National Science Foundation and the now discontinued Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program. We seek to expand upon those earlier efforts by offering the first physical science and chemistry modeling workshops in the state, and to offer one physics workshop in mechanics and one other workshop in physical science, chemistry or second semester physics topics each summer for the next three years. We also seek to enhance the program by providing a coach, incentives to administrators to observe the workshop first hand and discuss the program with participants, by arranging for experienced modeling teachers to meet with administrators and participants, and by exposing participants to the tools available from North Carolina's active pre-college and university physics education research community.

10

http://modeling.asu.edu/

Summer Workshops: All programs will commence with a 14-day summer workshop for 20 participants. Additionally, three follow-up sessions will be held on Fridays and Saturdays during the school year, for a total of 20 days or 120 hours of formal contact time per teacher per year. Friday and Saturday schedules will be determined in consultation with participating teachers and in keeping with local teacher release policy. Principals will be asked to sign a document of support for participating teachers. Time spent on homework assignments along with informal contact at lunches and coffee breaks bring the student's total course time to at least 135 hours. Participants will be able to earn graduate credit in physics or chemistry at NC State University, or receive CEU (license renewal) credits.

The workshops will address all aspects of high school physical science teaching, including modeling of the integration of teaching methods with course content shown to be successful in the high school classroom. Participants will be exposed to Modeling as a systematic approach to the design of curriculum and instruction. The workshops incorporate up-to-date results of science education research, best practices in high school science teaching, use of technology, and experience in collaborative learning. The Modeling cycle, Modeling method, and workshop format are outlined in Appendices A and B. Day-by-day workshop schedules are in Appendix C.

Physics: All workshop activities are in the context of mechanics. Participants begin the workshop in “student mode,” performing class activities as if they were their students. Instructors lead reflective discussions in “teacher mode” addressing the details of the Modeling cycle and any concerns that arise along the way. As the workshop progresses, the participants get increased opportunities to “play teacher” and lead the class. After leading activities, participants debrief on the experience and share strategies for dealing with potential difficult situations. By the workshop’s end, participants have a thorough understanding of the mechanics curriculum, as well as experience leading Modeling laboratory sequences and classroom scientific discourse sessions. In addition, each teacher receives all the materials necessary for teaching the North Carolina Standard Course of study in both paper and electronic formats. At least one workshop in first or second semester physics (see below) will be offered each summer.

Physical Science: The Physical Science modeling workshop is an expansion to younger students of the Modeling Instruction Program in high school physics for 11th and 12th graders, providing teachers of 8th and 9th grade physical sciences and mathematics with a deep understanding of standards-based content. Content of an entire semester course in integrated science and mathematics is reorganized around basic models to increase its structural coherence. Participants are supplied with a complete set of course materials (resources) and work through the activities alternately in the roles of student or teacher. Thematic strands woven into the course include structure/properties of matter, energy, force, scientific modeling, and use of computers as scientific tools. Mathematics instruction is integrated seamlessly throughout the entire course by an emphasis on mathematical modeling.

11

The course includes these scientific models and modeling activities specific to physical science: 1. Modeling geometric properties of matter: length, area and volume 2. Modeling physical properties of matter: mass and density 3. A small particle model of solids, liquids and gases 4. Modeling transfer of energy and its relation to physical properties of matter

The course continues with a study of the first half of the modeling physics workshop, but with content simplified to better match the background and ability of the population of physical science students. Our goal is to offer at least one physical science workshop during the three year period of the grant.

Chemistry: The Modeling chemistry workshop is organized in a manner similar to the Physics and Physical Science courses, with an emphasis on instructional techniques, content sequencing, and material applications. The goal is to maximize student understanding and retention of fundamental concepts in chemistry from the perspective of systematically developed particle models for matter. Strategies include a coherent approach to the role of energy in physical and chemical changes. Participants use energy storage and energy transfer mechanisms in addition to Kinetic Molecular Theory to visualize solids, liquids, gases, and phase transitions. Participants explore the particulate nature of matter through macroscopic and microscopic descriptions of compounds, elements, and mixtures and when matter undergoes physical and chemical changes. Microscopic models increase in complexity during the workshop as content demands additional explanatory power. Particle interactions are explored through the mole and mole relationships in chemical reactions. Energy and chemical change are explored in the bonding of atoms and the rate of reactions. Throughout the workshop, the historical context in which humans have come to understand chemistry is highlighted. Our goal is to offer at least one chemistry workshop during the three year period of the grant.

Second Semester Physics: This workshop is a continuation of the physics modeling workshop, exploring topics in waves, Electricity, Magnetism and Light. Our goal is to offer at least one second semester physics workshop during the three year period of the grant.

Continuing Support: Recent investigation by Melissa Dancy (from UNC Charlotte) and Charles Henderson supports casual observations by modeling physics workshop leaders - that teachers also must overcome a variety of systemic barriers to the implementation of research based teaching methods in their classrooms. Dancy and Henderson document that even experienced, dedicated teachers who are dissatisfied with their current practices and have beliefs consistent with physics education research often fail to implement these practices in their classrooms. Barriers to implementation include student and parent resistance to change, mandated curricula and pacing guides, perceived lack of class time for in depth investigation, lack of instructor time, lack of administrative and peer support, lack of technology and equipment, and end of course testing.

These systemic barriers must be addressed outside the classroom. North Carolina has taken

12

positive steps in that direction with revisions of the North Carolina Standard Course of Study in physics and physical science. The intensive summer sessions will provide another crucial component as teachers spontaneously discuss the barriers and how to cope with them, and support each other as they improve their practice and skill. Group discussions during lunch, follow-up weekends during the school year, a coaching program, an online component linking teachers to a nationwide network of modeling teachers, and the chance to network with school administrators, educational researchers, and “alumni” from past modeling workshops are all provided in the proposed project and are all crucial supporting components that can give teachers confidence and freedom to implement what they learn.

Follow-ups: In three follow-up sessions during the year, participants discuss and troubleshoot difficulties they have encountered. Participants continue their Modeling development, as outlined in Appendix C. There is also processing time built in to allow participants to share successes and difficulties.

Coaching Program: An experienced Modeling instructor (Patty Blanton) has been identified for the position of Modeling Coach. Patty will visit participants through the school year, observe their classes, and work with them to successfully improve their teaching practice and overcome challenges. The coach will work closely with the program director in communicating with participants and recruiting additional participants. She will also provide a critical, friendly, experienced link between participants and instructors, as well as help participants advocate for themselves with parents, principals, students, and other stakeholders. By serving as a go-between between instructors, workshop participants, and the larger physics education community, the coach provides a critical communication link so the participants' needs are met, so instructors know what those needs are and can help address specific situations, and so the larger physics teaching community grows in numbers and diversity of experience and opinion. The coach is a critical component of the project and a major point of distinction compared to previous Modeling physics efforts in North Carolina. Specific coaching activities will include visiting classrooms, being available to answer questions that teachers may feel awkward asking, being available for just-in-time support, providing access to equipment that the teachers can borrow and use in their classrooms, meeting with principals and other district administrators, providing feedback to the project director and other organizers, and facilitating communication between participants, evaluators, instructors, and the project Leadership Team.

Online Component: Participants will be subscribed to the very active national Modeling listserv, which currently has 1600 subscribers. The resulting discussions will give additional support to participants as they implement Modeling. In addition, participants will learn to use the modeling wiki, hosted at the National Science Digital Library. Using this online tool, teachers can browse materials contributed by hundreds of teachers throughout the country and collaborate with other teachers to customize materials for a particular teaching environment or to create new content.

13

Outreach to Administrators, modeling Alumni, and educational researchers: School district administrators from principals to district officials will be given cash incentives to visit the modeling workshops and engage in structured discussions with current and past participants and educational researchers. The structured one-day visit will help participants and administrators to find common ground for discussion about physics curriculum issues. The more that administrators understand about the program, the better they will be able to support teachers, especially during the crucial first few years of innovation. Connections to alumni who have successfully navigated barriers to implement modeling instruction also provide a valuable resource to participants.

North Carolina State University is home to the largest physics education research unit in the United States. In addition, North Carolina is home to a very active group of physics education researchers at a variety of colleges and universities, both public and private. The partnership with NCSU is a natural since the Physics Education Research (PER) unit and The Science House have a history of strong partnership and will work as a team to provide state of the art content and pedagogy to participants. Participants in the workshop will learn about further professional development opportunities available to them through these programs. University researchers, including NCSU professors Bruce Sherwood and Ruth Chabay, authors of an introductory physics text and course (Matter and Interactions I and II) that is extremely well-respected nationwide and a perfect follow-on to Modeling instruction, will be invited to the workshop to explain their programs in person.

Visiting Education Experts:

Two nationally recognized experts, one in physics education and one a high school teacher who uses Modeling Instruction, will be selected from a pool of individuals with experience in the Modeling physics approach with a broad range of students from across the county. The experts will give a brief presentation during the workshop and help oversee activities for the day. Alumni who have completed past modeling workshops will be invited to these presentations as a way to continue their own professional development and to meet and connect with the new generation of modeling teachers. Alumni will also be invited to lunch several times during the workshop to informally share their experiences with current participants and their visiting administrators.

Recruitment: Participating school districts will publicize the workshops to their teachers, and help to organize informational meetings, during which modeling workshop leaders and alumni can answer teacher's questions about the program. Several statewide initiatives, including the New Schools project, have expressed an interest in the Modeling approach and they will be asked to participate in publicizing workshops and recruiting teacher participants. The Science House will publicize the program through its regular publications and its high volume, high quality web site. A link will be placed on the national modeling web site at Arizona State University. Modeling Workshop instructors, modeling alumni and Science House Staff will publicize the program at statewide meetings of science teachers, including North Carolina section meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Chemcial Society, as well as the

14

North Carolina Science Teachers Association's professional development and summer science leadership institutes. In all communication, school districts will be informed that modeling instructors, the coach, and Science House staff are available to make live presentations to their teachers and administrators. See the timeline for specific details of the recruitment plan.

K. Timeline 2008

Spring: Establish online presence on The Science House website, with links to the national Modeling physics web site at Arizona State University and the Modeling physics site wiki maintained at the National Digital Library. Recruit participants with help of statewide listservs, partner districts, professional organization websites, and Modeling physics alumni. Gather applications and collect letters of intent, including signed commitment for administrative support. Announce participants, who will give their current students a post-test that will be used to compare results of achievement by students taught using Modeling physics methods with results of students taught by other means. Comparisons will be primarily for individual teachers' use. Instructors meet to plan details of summer workshops. Leadership team meets to review proposal, including evaluation plan, and propose schedule for follow-up dates (in consultation with course instructors).

Summer: Hold two concurrent 3-week summer workshops, one in physics and one in either chemistry or physical science, including visits from participants' school administrators, physics education research and teaching experts; participants’ administrators, education research and teaching experts, and alumni attend the workshop. Participants are added to the national Modeling listserv. Presentations are made at various conferences and meetings to recruit additional support for the program. Leadership team meets to review results of summer workshops and discuss enrollment, budget, or implementation issues that have arisen.

Fall: Participants begin applying the Modeling method in their own classrooms and administer pretests to their students; coach makes contact with all participants and schedules classroom visits. Two follow-up sessions are held, led by course instructors. Presentations at the North Carolina Science Teachers Association professional development institute are given to increase awareness of the Modeling approach and recruit participants for the next academic year. Leadership team meets to plan for spring recruitment, review enrollment, budget, or implementation issues that have arisen.

2009

Spring: Third follow-up session, led by course instructors. Coach continues visiting and supporting participants and working with the Leadership team and school district personnel. Recruit participants with help of statewide listservs, partner districts, professional organization websites, and Modeling physics alumni. Gather applications and collect letters of intent, including signed commitment for administrative support. Announce participants. Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 teachers will give their current students a post-test that will be used to compare results

15

of achievement by students taught using Modeling physics methods with results of students taught by other means. Comparisons will be primarily for individual teachers' use. Instructors meet to plan details of summer workshops. Leadership team meets to review progress, examine evaluation data to date and propose schedule for follow-up dates (in consultation with course instructors). Present project at physics meetings (American Association of Physics Teachers; American Physical Society) and make presentations to schools and districts as requested.

Summer: Hold two concurrent 3-week summer workshops, one in physics and one in either chemistry or physical science, including visits from participants' school administrators, physics education research and teaching experts; participants’ administrators, education research and teaching experts, and alumni attend the workshop. Participants are added to the national Modeling listserv. Presentations are made at various conferences and meetings to recruit additional support for the program. Leadership team meets to review results of summer workshops and discuss enrollment, budget, or implementation issues that have arisen.


2010

Spring: Third follow-up session, led by course instructors. Coach continues visiting and supporting participants and working with the Leadership team and school district personnel. Recruit participants with help of statewide listservs, partner districts, professional organization websites, and Modeling physics alumni. Gather applications and collect letters of intent, including signed commitment for administrative support. Announce participants. Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 teachers will give their current students a post-test that will be used to compare results of achievement by students taught using Modeling physics methods with results of students taught by other means. Comparisons will be primarily for individual teachers' use. Instructors meet to plan details of summer workshops. Leadership team meets to review progress, examine evaluation data to date and propose schedule for follow-up dates (in consultation with course instructors). Present project at physics meetings (American Association of Physics Teachers; American Physical Society) and make presentations to schools and districts as requested.

Summer: Hold two concurrent 3-week summer workshops, one in physics and one in either chemistry or physical science, including visits from participants' school administrators, physics education research and teaching experts; participants’ administrators, education research and teaching experts, and alumni attend the workshop. Participants are added to the national Modeling listserv. Presentations are made at various conferences and meetings to recruit

16

additional support for the program. Leadership team meets to review results of summer workshops and discuss enrollment, budget, or implementation issues that have arisen.


2011

Spring: Third follow-up session, led by course instructors. Coach continues visiting and supporting participants and working with the Leadership team and school district personnel. Cohort 3 will give their current students a post-test that will be used to compare results of achievement by students taught using Modeling physics methods with results of students taught by other means. Comparisons will be primarily for individual teachers' use. Leadership team meets to review final status of the project, make plans for sustainability phase of the project, and examine evaluation data from all three years of the project. Present project at physics meetings (American Association of Physics Teachers; American Physical Society) and make presentations to schools and districts as requested

Summer: Complete collection and final analysis of evaluation data and pre/post-test results from all three cohorts. Gather information for final report. Leadership team meets one last time to begin implementation of sustainability phase of the project, including establishment of a program at The Science House to offer fee-based modeling workshops to school districts or groups of school districts upon district request. Review potential sources of additional funding to offset costs to districts.

L. Alignment with North Carolina Standard Course of Study The North Carolina Standard Course of Study emphasizes the use of effective teaching methods by including “Science as a Human Endeavor,” “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge,” and “Science as Inquiry” prominently among its unifying themes and program strands. Science as Inquiry gets additional emphasis as competency goal number 1 of the standard course of study in all science subjects. Teachers are instructed to weave these themes, strands and goals “through the content goals and objectives of the course.” Modeling Instruction is unique in literally accomplishing this goal. Teachers do not lecture, do example problems or perform demonstrations, so students in a modeling course never experience science as the receiving of facts from an expert. The entire activity of the modeling course is a guided process in which students formulate questions scientifically, design and carry out investigations, report results to each other, and apply the resulting models in different contexts, becoming increasingly independent in all of these activities over the course of the year. Students understand that science

17

is a human activity when they construct their own understanding. Students understand science as inquiry when they are accountable for understanding and using the results of their own investigations. Students understand the nature of scientific knowledge when they are required to justify solutions to problems by referring back to fundamental concepts. In Modeling Instruction for students and modeling workshops for teachers, these activities constitute the entire course of instruction. They are not restricted to a single unit or scattered inquiry activities. Teachers begin to believe that it is possible to weave inquiry throughout an entire science course when they experience success themselves in a workshop that is taught in this manner.

The North Carolina Standard Course of Study in Physics was written specifically to accommodate high quality inquiry-based, hands-on instruction exactly like that offered by the Modeling approach to teaching physics. As noted above, the Chemistry and Physical Science curricula also place a premium on inquiry-based, hands-on instruction. Each workshop will address a different set of content-specific standards. Appendix D constitutes a side-by-side comparison of the competency goals of the standard course of study with the content of each workshop.

M. Partnership Management Plan The partners in this proposal are working together on an effort that benefits the entire state. Districts are participating as a benefit to their own teachers and students but they are also incurring the risks involved with any major project for the benefit of teachers and students across the state. By joining in this project and providing a recruiting hub, partner districts will have a part in developing a network of highly trained teachers of physics, physical science, and chemistry. Those teachers will be able to form a supportive network for one another as well as engage their colleagues. Given the small number of physics teachers in a given school district and the complete lack of physics teachers in many schools, it is highly unlikely that individual districts will be able to effectively address physics education on their own. By joining in a statewide project, Buncombe, Durham, Martin, Caldwell and Watauga Counties are making a statement about their level of commitment to teachers and students across the state and their confidence in the capacity for their teachers to become leaders in physics, physical science, and chemistry education around North Carolina.

The districts, North Carolina State University, and a small group of extremely dedicated physics instructors will form a Leadership Team composed of Matt Greenwolfe (head of the Leadership Team and key developer of the project), Patty Blanton (experienced Modeling instructor, key developer of the project, and Modeling coach once the project is funded), a representative of The Science House, and key representatives of each partner districts. The Leadership Team will meet at least once each summer, fall, and spring, with additional email, telephone, and face-to-face communication as necessary. The Leadership Team is responsible for making sure funds are being spent in keeping with the funding contract, to develop solutions to problems that may arise around enrollment, contractual issues among districts, scheduling of workshop and follow-up dates, and any other matters that require attention from a central policy body. Members of the Leadership Team will be involved in every aspect of the program, providing a base of experience and knowledge that will allow sound decisions to be made.

18

Partner Organizations:

The Science House at NC State University: The Science House annually reaches over 3,500 teachers and over 25,000 students from six offices spread across the state. Its mission is to increase student enthusiasm for science by partnering with K-12 teachers to promote hands-on inquiry-based science learning. Its student science enrichment activities, teacher training programs, and curriculum-related programs link the research university to the needs of K-12 science and mathematics education. Science House hands-on learning activities include, laboratory safety workshops for teachers, classroom technology equipment loan programs, summer student research programs, and development of learning materials. Its programs are guided by the best research and practices in science and mathematics education.

The Science House will be directly involved in communication among the school districts and participants and will be a part of the Leadership team. It will work closely with the coach and the workshop instructors, publicize workshops through its web site, publications and attendance at professional meetings, help identify and book workshop locations, purchase and distribute workshop supplies. The Project Director, as an employee of The Science House, will work with the coach, instructors, and district contacts to arrange travel, lunch, parking, room and board for participants. It will also work closely with the external evaluator on project assessment efforts and collect and analyze the pre- and posttest data for primarily internal use. The Science House has led the K-12 outreach projects for two multi-university science research centers that are at the cutting edge of their disciplines, and has been the partner IHE for two previous Math and Science Partnership grants. It has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to lead a collaborative project of this magnitude.

Watauga County - Lead LEA: In addition to the responsibilities described below for participating LEA's, the Lead LEA will be responsible for receiving and holding the grant funds, disbursing funds to partners, paying salaries and stipends to instructors and participants, and for all accounting associated with the handling of the money. As a school district serving over 4500 students, it is well prepared to meet these responsibilities.

Buncombe, Durham, Martin, Caldwell, and Watauga Counties - partner LEA's: Partner LEA's will publicize the workshops to their teachers, and help to organize informational meetings, during which modeling workshop leaders and project alumni can answer teachers’ questions about the program. They will also support their teachers as they implement the modeling method of instruction, particularly in the crucial first few years of innovation. The workshops will support their mission to provide high-quality science instruction to their students, to improve the preparation and education of their teachers, and to retain highly-qualified teachers.

Individual districts will pay for substitutes for follow-up session release time for participating teachers.

19

Project Staff:

Sharon Schulze: Dr. Schulze is the current director of Science House. She manages the day-to-day operations, works with various grant-funded projects, and actively pursues collaborations and partnerships to improve K-12 STEM education in North Carolina and across the country. Dr. Schulze has high school classroom experience in physics and mathematics. A native Texan and graduate of Texas A&M University and the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Schulze started her work in North Carolina at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Dr. Schulze will have primary administrative responsibility for the grant and will supervise and assist Scott Ragan in his responsibilities as project director.

Scott Ragan – Project Director: Is the professional development coordinator at Science House, in charge of many of its workshops and professional development activities. He has a great deal of experience in using technology in math and science education. He has also coordinated three successful NSF projects: Team Science, EMPOWER, and the first year of the Science and Technology Center. Scott, a former high school science teacher, has B.S. degrees in Science Education and Environmental Engineering from NCSU. The grant will pay one-half of his Full Time Equivalent Salary to be the primary project director, with assistance from Patty Blanton and workshop leaders. He will coordinate communication among all partners and arrange the logistics of the workshops to make sure Science House fulfills its responsibilities under the grant as described above.

Patty Blanton: Patty is the coach for the program. She has a BS in Physics and General Science and a Masters in Secondary Science Education from Appalachain State. She has over 40 years of experience teaching physics at Watauga High School, where she was the Technology Educator of the Year for North Carolina in 1995. She was one of the first people in the country trained in modeling instruction, personally led modeling workshops from 1998 – 2004, has been Assistant Editor and Columnist for The Physics Teacher magazine, and has assisted and inspired numerous physics teachers throughout the state through mentoring programs, summer workshops and presentations. Her responsibilities are to visit participants through the school year, observe their classes, and work with them to successfully improve their teaching practice and overcome challenges. The coach may also assist the program director in communicating with participants and recruiting additional participants. During the late spring and summer, when coaching responsibilities are light, the coach may also assist in administrating and running the program.

Chris Mansfield (Martin County): Dr. Chris Mansfield is the Martin County LEA contact. Dr. Mansfield taught earth science, chemistry, physical science, and physics for nine years before moving into public school administration. He has served as an assistant principal and principal in addition to his current position as the Science and Mathematics Coordinator for Martin County Schools. Projects in which he is currently involved include AVID and Gear Up programs, the development of place-based education programs, and school improvement and high school turnaround. He holds a BS in Biochemistry, a MAEd in Science Education, and an EdD in Educational Leadership from East Carolina University.

20

Clarissa Schmal, 6-12 Curriculum specialist (Watauga County): Clarissa currently serves as the 9-12 Curriculum Specialist for Watauga High School. She has a BA in English and Communications from East Tennessee State University and a Masters in Curriculum and Instruction from Appalachian State. She has over 22 years of experience teaching English at Watauga High School, where she was the Teacher of the Year for Watauga County in 2002. She achieved National Board Certification in 2001 and has served as ILT Coordinator for Watauga County Schools. Her current responsibilities include assisting teachers and principals with professional development opportunities and working with them to successfully improve their teaching practices. She also stays cognizant of changes in the North Carolina Standard Courses of Study and State Board of Education Policy as it relates to curriculum.

Alan Lenk (Buncombe County): Alan has served as Science Curriculum Specialist with Buncombe County Schools for 30 years., most of that time at the K-12 levels. During his tenure, he also served as an Assistant Principal at a middle school concurrently for seven years. He is presently working on a part-time basis as Buncombe County Science Specialist. Prior to working with Buncombe County, Alan began his career as a middle school science teacher in Swain County while serving the Teacher Corps Program, and then became the Assistant Directory of the Environmental Education Center providing science staff development for a consortium of schools around Asheville, N.C. Following this position he worked as the Nature Center School Program Coordinator with Asheville City Schools. Alan also taught a science methods course for Western Carolina University in Jamaica.

Janet Scott (Durham County): Janet is the Director of Science 6-12 for the Durham Public Schools. Her primary focus is to improve instructional practices in middle and high school science classrooms. Responsibilities include consulting with stakeholders in schools and central services to plan a comprehensive 6-12 science program; using test results and other statistical data to inform the program design; providing leadership in the coordination and implementation of the science program; serving as a liaison between schools and central services; and coordinating professional development activities for teachers. Janet served as the Project Director for the Durham Public Schools/UNC-Chapel Hill Mathematics and Science Partnership Grant 2005-2007 and currently serves as Project Director for the Durham Public Schools/NC State Trajectory of Science Scholars MSP Grant 2007-08. Caryl Burns (Caldwell county): Dr. Caryl Burns has a history of leadership in North Carolina. From serving as Caldwell County's first female principal to her current role as Associate Superintendent for Educational Program Services, Dr. Burns has worked to bring high quality programming and opportunities to the children of Caldwell County. She holds B.A. from Lenoir-Rhyne College, M.A. and Ed.S. degrees from Appalachian State University and an Ed.D. Degree in Administration, Curriculum and Teaching from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

Workshop Instructors:

As a result of the previous program of modeling workshops in North Carolina, we are fortunate to have a group of qualified and experienced modeling instructors in the state. Their

21

responsibilities are to plan and lead the modeling workshops, and to provide ongoing support for participants during the school year. As we do not have qualified instructors for chemistry, physical science or second semester physics modeling, we may bring instructors in from out of state or send some of these instructors to Arizona State for additional training.

Matt Greenwolfe: Dr. Greenwolfe has a BS in Physics from Washington University in St. Louis and a PhD in Physics from the University of Michigan. He is a former assistant professor at Union College in New York, and is currently physics teacher at Cary Academy, with over ten years of experience teaching physics at independent schools. Matt participated in the two year Physics Modeling workshop at Appalachian State University during 2001-2003, and the Advanced Modeling Workshop at Arizona State University in 2005. He has taught several modeling workshops, given presentations on modeling physics at professional meetings in North Carolina and at the National Science Teachers Association 2007 annual conference. He is past president of the American Modeling Teachers Association, the national membership organization for modeling teachers, and the unofficial editor of the modeling wiki, which is hosted by the National Science Digital Library.

Mike Turner: Mike is currently teaching physics at Aubry Kell High school in Charlotte. Mike served as co-PI for the Extended Physics Community (North Carolina's previous statewide physics modeling program), has been the instructor in most of the EPC workshops held at UNCG, worked with the LAAP (Learn Anywhere, Anytime Physics) program to develop an online modeling course incorporating online simulations of labs and virtual interactions with online peers, taught physics at Page High School and the American Hebrew Academy in Greensboro, and earned his doctorate in education from UNCG. He has presented numerous times at DPI summer science institutes, at state NSTA conferences and at AAPT regional and national conventions.

Tom Brown: Tom currently teaches Physics and AP physics at Watauga High School where he serves as science department chairman. Tom was initially trained in the modeling method in 2000-2002 at UNCG and has taught modeling workshops at Appalachian State University. Tom has National Board certification in physics and a B.S. in Physics from Wake Forest University.

Jason Lonon: Jason currently teaches AP Physics, Physics, and Geometry at Spartanburg Day School, in Spartanburg, SC. He received a B.S. in Engineering Physics from the University of Oklahoma, and an M.A. in Science Education from East Carolina University. Jason is a member of AAPT and attended the Physics Modeling workshops during 2000-2002 and co-taught modeling workshops in North Carolina with Terri McMurrary (2003-2004).

Art Woodruff: Art Woodruff has a M. Ed. in Physics Education from the University of Central Florida and has attended UNC-Chapel Hill. He has worked with Modeling Physics at Arizona State University and Appalachian State University. He is a actively involved in AAPT and has been a high school teacher since 1985, teaching physics and various technology-related courses.

Terri McMurray: Terri McMurray has an M. Ed. in Physics from UNCG and recently completed

22

National Board Certification. She taught AP Physics at the Career Center for the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools, served two terms as the pre-college representative for the NCS-AAPT, and has participated in many summer-long physics workshops including Project Piedmont and the Woodrow Wilson Physics workshops. She attended the EPC workshops at UNCG during 2000 - 2002. She was an instructor for several modeling physics workshops from 2002 – 2004. In her current position as science curriculum specialist for Forsyth County Schools, she organized training in modeling instruction for all physics and physical science teachers in the district, and led those training sessions with another Forsyth teacher.

Vonnie Hicks: Vonnie Hicks teaches physics at William G. Enloe Magnet High School in Wake County, North Carolina. He has taught physics at the Career Center in Winston-Salem, NC, as well as in several other North Carolina and California High Schools. He has authored and co-authored several publications on inquiry methods for physics and physical science teachers. Vonnie participated in the two year Physics Modeling workshop at UNC Greensboro from 2000-2002. He has instructed or assisted with several modeling workshops since 2002. He has participated in numerous workshops including the Modern Physics program at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, and Projects Piedmont and Archimedes at UNCG. Vonnie was awarded a Tandy Prize for Outstanding Teacher in 1999.

23

N. Evaluation Plan and Research Design External Evaluator: Dr. Michael N. Howard will serve as the External Evaluator for the Modeling project. Dr. Howard has extensive experience in evaluating professional development initiatives addressing mathematics, science, and technology (see vita in Appendix H). Among his recent activities, he has served as lead evaluator for several National Science Foundation-supported projects addressing mathematics and science reform, and coordinates evaluation of state-level Title IIB MSP projects in KY, NC, TN, and FL. Dr. Howard’s responsibility is to oversee all evaluation-related activities for the project, including: 1) identify and/or develop needed instruments and protocols; 2) oversee data collection according to the evaluation plan; 3) analyze evaluation data, using valid and appropriate statistical techniques; 4) prepare annual mid-year and end-of-year evaluation reports discussing evaluation results, as well as periodic formative reports highlighting issues identified in the evaluation and recommendations for the project; 5) collaborate with project staff in preparing required reports for USDoE and DPI; and 6) participate as a regular member of project planning and decision-making meetings. Project personnel will conduct the local data collection activities, working closely with Dr. Howard to ensure that all aspects of the evaluation plan are carried out. Evaluation Plan: The Modeling project views evaluation as an integral element for successful planning and implementation. The project’s plan for formative and summative evaluation serves two basic purposes: 1) documenting project activities, outcomes, and impacts for reporting to the U.S. Department of Education, DPI and other stakeholders; and 2) providing regular feedback into planning and decision-making to keep the project on-course toward its goals and objectives. The evaluation is closely integrated into the project from the outset, allowing project personnel to monitor progress and incorporate lessons learned into subsequent plans and activities. The Modeling project evaluation is designed to yield valid, defensible evidence of project effectiveness. The specific questions that frame the Partnership evaluation directly reflect the project’s goals and objectives. Addressing these questions informs both the formative and summative components of the evaluation. Obj. Evaluation Question: To what extent . . . Data Source

GOAL 1: TEACHER CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

1.1

. . . do participating teachers demonstrate growth in their understanding of key science concepts identified by the project and aligned with the NC Standard Course of Study?

Concept Inventory (FCI, CCI, PCI), as appropriate, given pre-workshop, post-workshop, and end-of-year

Participant logs during workshop

1.2

. . . do participating teachers demonstrate growth in their understanding of current research on student learning in science and its pedagogical implications?


Narrative prompts during workshop and follow-up sessions

24

Obj. Evaluation Question: To what extent . . . Data Source

1.3

. . . do participating teachers demonstrate appropriate understanding of the key characteristics of the Modeling approach to science teaching?


Lesson/unit plans reviewed by project coach

1.4

. . . do participating teachers demonstrate growth in confidence in their ability to design & implement high-quality science instruction?

Teacher questionnaire, given pre-workshop, post-workshop, and end-of-year

GOAL 2: CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION

2.1

. . . do participating teachers demonstrate increased frequency and fluency in using research-based, constructivist instructional practices?

Classroom observation by project coach, using Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)

Teacher questionnaire, given pre-workshop and end-of-year

2.2

. . . do participating teachers effectively integrate technology tools into their science teaching?


Lesson/unit plans reviewed by project coach

2.3

. . . do leaders in participants’ schools demonstrate knowledge and actions that support effective use of the Modeling approach in participants’ classrooms?


Principal questionnaire, given pre-workshop and end-of-year

GOAL 3: STUDENT UNDERSTANDING

25

Obj. Evaluation Question: To what extent . . . Data Source

3.1

. . . do students of participating teachers demonstrate growth in their knowledge of the physical science concepts detailed in the state standards?

Concept Inventory (FCI, CCI, PCI), as appropriate, given beginning and end of the school year to all relevant classes

3.2

. . . do students of participating teachers demonstrate decreased frequency of common misconceptions regarding targeted physical science concepts?

Concept Inventory (FCI, CCI, PCI), as appropriate, given beginning and end of the school year to all relevant classes

GOAL 4: SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS

4.1

. . . do participating teachers participate in a learning community of practitioners to support implementation and provide ongoing learning opportunities for the Modeling approach?

Teacher feedback form, given end-of-year

Project records of online and onsite interactions, reviewed end-of-year

4.2

. . . do participating teachers enhance their awareness and use of state and national resources for the Modeling approach, including university faculty, exemplary high school teachers, and validated instructional materials?


Project records of online and onsite interactions, reviewed end-of-year

4.3

. . . are Modeling workshops implemented by the project institutionalized as a regular part of the professional development program offerings by the Science House?

Project records of workshops planned or given, reviewed end-of-project

26

Additional formative evaluation questions address the fidelity and quality of project implementation, to provide ongoing feedback into project planning and decision-making: Formative Evaluation Question: To what extent . . .

Data Source

. . . do project professional growth activities (courses, institutes, school-based support, etc.) demonstrate consistency with research on adult learning and effective professional development?

Observation of 5 p.d. activities per year by external evaluator

Participant feedback forms from each p.d. activity and end-of-year

. . . are school-based and electronic support activities effective in enhancing participants’ knowledge and skills, engaging them in collegial networks, and addressing their concerns about implementation?


. . . do partners work effectively together in planning, delivering, and supporting project activities?

Partner interviews, project records, reviewed end-of-year

The combination of qualitative and quantitative data collected provides a rich set of triangulated information with which to document the project’s progress and impact. The instruments and procedures for collecting evaluation data are described briefly below:

Assessment of teacher and student content knowledge. Content knowledge of both teachers and students is assessed using the Force Concept Inventory, Chemistry Concept Inventory, or Physical Science Concept Inventory, as appropriate for the particular workshop. These nationally-developed Concept Inventories have a solid history of use for both research and instructional diagnosis, and their validity and reliability are well-established. Because adults and students can both hold the same common misconceptions, the same instrument is used for both groups. Participating teachers will take the assessment on the first day of the summer workshop, on the final day of the workshop (to measure growth due to the workshop), and at the end of the school year (to measure sustained understanding). Students of participating teachers will take the assessment at the start and end of the school year, to measure growth in their understanding.

Teacher and administrator questionnaires. The external evaluator will construct questionnaires to be administered to participating teachers and their school administrators. Most questionnaire items will be drawn from existing validated instruments, such as the National Survey of Mathematics and Science Teachers (Horizon Research, Inc.). The teacher questionnaire addresses participants’ perceived content and pedagogical preparation, perception of challenges and supports for their teaching, and frequency of using particular instructional

27

strategies. The questionnaires are administered prior to the summer workshop and at the end of the school year, to look for changes in perceptions and reported practice. The administrator questionnaire addresses their perception of standards-based science, knowledge of the Modeling approach, and actions to support classroom implementation of reform-based instruction.

Classroom Observations. As the project coach visits participants’ classrooms, she will conduct structured observations of the lessons using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). The RTOP is a valid, reliable instrument, developed through a National Science Foundation project, and since used in numerous research and evaluation studies. It examines specific aspects of instruction associated with an “inquiry” approach and produces ratings in five dimensions. Dr. Howard will work with the project coach to ensure she has the training to use the RTOP protocol in a reliable manner.

Participant logs. During the summer workshop, each participant will be required to keep a log of activities done, personal notes and reactions, summaries and reflections on the readings, and comments on expected student difficulties and how to address them. The logs will be reviewed by project staff for degree of understanding of the implications of using the Modeling Method. Using rubrics designed by project staff with input from the external evaluator, the logs will provide data on the impact of the summer workshop on participants’ views of science teaching and the scientific process, as well as their comfort with the science content.

Participant feedback forms. Dr. Howard will develop feedback instruments to gather participant perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of project activities (workshops, coaching, electronic networks, etc.). The instruments will have both “participant rating” items and open-ended prompts for narrative response. They will be completed by participants in each major project activity and as an end-of-year reflection.

Research Design: In addition to conducting the evaluation of its impact on participants, the Modeling project will conduct research designed to contribute to the broader knowledge base concerning effective professional development. It investigates two questions, each using a quasi-experimental design:

Research Question 1: To what extent are participant impacts observed in this project comparable to effects observed in other sites conducting Modeling workshops? The national Modeling Project has well-documented the impact of its professional development approach on participants’ content knowledge. This project will therefore measure its effectiveness by investigating the extent to which it achieves results similar to the national research base. First, pre-assessment FCI results for project participants will be compared to national pre-assessment data for participants and comparison teachers, to establish degree of similarity of the groups. Then pre/post FCI gain scores for project participants will be compared to gains for the national groups, using Analysis of Variance statistical testing. Results of the analysis will yield conclusions about the effectiveness of the project’s professional development, compared to what would be expected from the national model.

Research Question 2: To what extent are different student outcomes observed when the project’s instructional model is implemented to a greater or lesser degree? The project will use a variety of data, including classroom observations, participant feedback, lesson/unit plans, project coach rating, to group participating teachers according to their level of implementing the project’s instructional model – low, moderate, or high. It is hypothesized that greater

28

implementation fidelity will yield greater gains in student understanding of the targeted concepts. The analysis will use data from the pre and post-testing of participants’ students, using the pertinent Concept Inventory assessment. Pre/post gains will be compared for students whose teachers are in the three implementation groups, using Analysis of Variance statistical testing. To allow the pre/post data from the different assessments to be combined for analysis, students’ gain scores will be normalized by converting to z-scores. Pooling the data in this way, rather than analyzing each assessment separately, allows for greater statistical power in the analysis.

29

O. Dissemination The Modeling Workshop paradigm has an excellent record of replication and

dissemination,1-6 and so the proposed project is already a replication, both of a national 20-year effort and of the workshop held in North Carolina from 2000 – 2004. The best instruments of dissemination are the teachers themselves, through their daily interactions with others in their schools and at local teacher meetings. Participants will be encouraged to make Modeling presentations in their district during the 2007-08 school year. Modeling instructors, the coach, and Science House staff are also available to make presentations to their teachers and administrators. Although this will not enable attendees to fully implement Modeling, it will expose them to appropriate scientific pedagogy and create a demand for more professional development activities consistent with this program. Modeling workshop instructors, modeling alumni and Science House Staff will give presentations on modeling and the findings of the program at statewide meetings of science teachers, including North Carolina section meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Chemical Society, as well as the North Carolina Science Teachers Association's professional development and summer science leadership institutes. Several project staff, particularly Patty Blanton, Mike Turner, John Makous and Matt Greenwolfe, have experience presenting to groups of faculty and administrators in a variety of different contexts. Their presentations on modeling have been well received in past years.

30

P. Budget

Total Project Budget Title II, Part B Mathematics Science Partnerships

Program Title: Workshops for Modeling Instruction in Physics, Physical Science and ChemistryName of Fiscal Agent LEA: Watauga County school districtNames of Partners: Caldwell, Buncombe, Durham, and Martin County school districts and The Science House at NC State

Total Request for Project Categories Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

1. Salaries & Wages (Professional and Clerical) $92,000 $94,960 $98,039 $284,999

2. Employee Benefits $23,000 $23,740 $24,510 $71,250

3. Substitute Pay $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $27,000

4. Teacher Stipends $56,400 $56,400 $56,400 $169,200

5. Contracted Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $45,000

6. Workshop Expenses $25,584 $15,520 $15,520 $56,624

7. Office Supplies & Materials $1,550 $1,550 $1,550 $4,650

8. Tuition Fees

9. Equipment (Purchase)

10. Other (Equipment rental, printing, etc.)

11. Other (please describe) $16,250 $13,500 $21,000 $50,750

12. Indirect Cost (maximum 8%)

$11,595 $10,879 $11,281$33,755

Total Requested $250,379 $240,549 $252,299 $743,227

31

Partner Funding Request Title II, Part B Mathematics Science Partnerships

Name of Partner Organization: Watauga County school district (Lead LEA)Cost Requested for Partner Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

1. Salaries & Wages (Professional and Clerical) $50,000 $52,000 $54,080 $156080


3. Substitute Pay $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 $16,200

4. Teacher Stipends $55,600 $55,600 $55,600 $166,800

5. Contracted Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $45,000

6. Workshop Expenses

7. Office Supplies & Materials $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000

8. Tuition Fees




12. Indirect Cost (maximum 8%) $4,372 $4,365 $4,668 $13,406

Total Funding to Partner from Grant $150,122 $149,865 $160,268 $460,255

Budget Narrative for Partner Funding Request: The Lead LEA will direct payment for substitute teachers to the appropriate school districts, and directly pay the coach, evaluator and participant stipends. The amounts for its own substitute pay and stipends for administrator visits, as well as that for teachers from non-partner LEA's also remain in this sub-budget. The indirect expense rate is assumed to average about 3% for school districts. See the general budget narrative in section Q below for a detailed breakdown of each of these items.

32


Name of Partner Organization: The Science House at NC StateCost Requested for Partner Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

1. Salaries & Wages (Professional and Clerical) $42,000 $42,960 $43,958 $128,918


3. Substitute Pay

4. Teacher Stipends

5. Contracted Services

6. Workshop Expenses $25,584 $15,520 $15,520 $56,624

7. Office Supplies & Materials $550 $550 $550 $1,650

8. Tuition Fees




12. Indirect Cost (maximum 8%) $7,091 $6,382 $6,481 $19,954


Budget Narrative for Partner Funding Request: The project director, Scott Ragan, is an employee of the science house and will have the detailed knowledge of the day-to-day running of the workshop. Therefore, funds to pay his salary and the instructors' salary, workshop expenses (class materials, lunch and visiting experts, office supplies and materials), and travel and subsistence for instructors will be first directed from the Lead LEA to the Science House. The indirect expense rate is 8% for Science House. Please see the general budget narrative in section Q below for a detailed breakdown of each of these items.

33


Name of Partner Organization: ------- County school districtCost Requested for Partner Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

1. Salaries & Wages (Professional and Clerical)

2. Employee Benefits

3. Substitute Pay $900 $900 $900 $2,700

4. Teacher Stipends $200 $200 $200 $600

5. Contracted Services

6. Workshop Expenses

7. Office Supplies & Materials

8. Tuition Fees



11. Other (please describe)

12. Indirect Cost (maximum 8%) $33 $33 $33 $99


Budget Narrative for Partner Funding Request: The Lead LEA will direct funds for substitute pay and stipends for administrator visits to the respective school districts. This amount assumes that four teachers from each participating district will attend workshops, and the rest of the participants will be drawn from other districts throughout the state. $75 per day substitute pay times four teachers times three Friday follow-up days equals the total of $900, and two administrator visits times $100 equals the total of $200. The indirect expense rate is assumed to average about 3% for school districts. See the general budget narrative in section Q below for a detailed breakdown of each of these items.

34

Q. Budget Narrative Participants receive benefits far exceeding the minimum 80 contact hours of instruction specified in the request for proposals, while the total budget averages $6194 per participant, which is close to the $6,000 per teacher guideline listed on page 2 of the Request for Proposals. This program is a great value. This amount is justified as follows. Salaries and Wages:

Coach: Full time salary for coach, $50,000 first year with 4% raise each year. Project Director: half FTE, $24,000 first year with 4% raise each year. Instructors: $18,000 - four instructors paid at $225 per day for 20 days.

The Lead LEA will directly pay the coach and direct salary for the Project Director and Instructors to Science House.Employee Benefits:

Coach: Employee benefits for coach assumed at 25% of salary - $12,500 first year with 4% raise each year. Projector Director: Employee benefits for project director assumed at 25% of salary - $6000 first year with 4% raise each year. Instructors: $4,500 – Employee benefits for instructors assumed at 25% of salary.

The Lead LEA will directly pay employee benefits for the coach to Watauga county and direct benefits for the Project Director and Instructors to Science House. Substitute Pay:

School-year Follow-up: $9,000 3 Friday follow-ups times 40 participants times $75/day. The Lead LEA will forward the substitute pay to the appropriate school districts.

Teacher Stipends: School Administrator Visits: $2000, 20 administrators times $100. Summer Workshops: $44,800 - $80/day times 14 days times 40 participants. School-year Follow-up: $9,600 - $80/day times 3 days times 40 participants. Each follow-up session is two days long, but the school district continues to pay teacher salaries for the Friday, while the grant picks up the sub pay.

The Lead LEA will forward funds for school administrator visits to the appropriate school districts, and the participant stipends are paid directly from the Lead LEA to the participants.Contracted Services:

Evaluator: $15,000 to be paid directly by the Lead LEA.Workshop Expenses:

Class Materials: All physics and physical science teachers receive “Teaching Introductory Physics” by Arnold Arons ($80), lab book ($10), Modeling mechanics manual ($23), binder/inserts($10), photocopies ($10) and CD-ROMs ($10). All chemistry teachers receive a lab book, Modeling chemistry manual, binder/inserts, and CD-ROMs. This totals $143 per participant Lunch: This workshop has very important informal, working lunches that help to establish the community. The average cost is $7.50 per participant per day. Visiting Education Experts: Two nationally recognized experts, one in physics education and one a high school teacher who uses Modeling instruction, will be invited to come and give a brief presentation during the workshop and help oversee activities for the

35

day. Funds include honorarium ($200 per visit), travel, room and board ($700 per visit). Visitors will most likely come from out of state. Alumni of the program are also invited to these talks and to join the visitors and workshop participants for meals, thus helping to maintain the community. Lab Materials for Physics and Physical Science: 12 sets of (two whiteboards $4 + Constant Velocity Buggy $5 + Labquest $329 + Motion Detector $78 + Force Sensor $109 + two Photogates $90 + Dynamics System $264 = $879) + Logger Pro $179 + Quick Cam $79 = $11,064. This will be spent in the first year to purchase equipment, but used for all three years. The lab materials will be available on loan to the participants during the school year as part of the coaching program. General Lab Equipment: Computers, stop watches, meter sticks, balances, springs, corks, string, force tables, mass sets and other general lab equipment are available from The Science House, on loan from high school science labs or from workshop locations at no cost to the program. Expendable Lab Materials: Such as batteries, chemicals and whiteboard markers. Estimate $1000 during the first year, and $2000 during the second and third years when we will likely offer chemistry and second semester physics for the first time.

General Lab Equipment and Expendable Lab Materials cover most expenses for chemistry, physical science and second semester physics workshops. The Lead LEA will forward funds for workshop expenses to The Science House, which will make the actual purchases.Office Supplies and Materials:

For coach: $1000, paid by Lead LEA. For scantron sheets and electronic grading: $550 forwarded from Lead LEA to Science House.

Other: Travel for coach: $3750 - The coach, Patty Blanton, lives in Boone, so expenses are less when the workshop is held in the west and greater when it is held in east. The estimate of $3750 in travel when the first summer workshops are held in the triangle area is based on approximately 18 trips of about 400 miles round trip reimbursed at the current state rate of $0.505 per mile. Subsistence for coach: $2500 – Similarly, subsistence expenses are less when the workshop are held in the west and greater when they are held in the east. The estimate of $2500 in subsistence when the first summer workshops are held in the triangle area is based on 25 overnight stays reimbursed at the state rate of $100/day. Travel for instructors: $2,000 – Assuming plane fare or automobile travel for four trips per year. An effort will be made to find qualified instructors within commuting distance of the workshop sites, so this assumes significant travel for only two instructors per summer. Subsistence for instructors: $8000 – Four instructors reimbursed at the state rate of $100/day for 20 days of workshops.

The Lead LEA will directly pay travel and subsistence for the coach and direct travel and subsistence for the instructors to Science House.Indirect Cost: The indirect cost rate for Science House is 8%; for school districts is 3% (est).

36

Q. References

[1] M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, “A Modeling Method for High School Physics Instruction,” Am. J. Phys. 63: 606-619 (1995).[2] D. Hestenes, “Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers,” in E. Redish & J. Rigden (Eds.) The Changing Role of the Physics Department in Modern Universities (American Institute of Physics, 1997).[3] R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six Thousand-student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74 (1998)[4] D. Hestenes, “Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction,” Am. J. Phys. 55: 440-454 (1987).[5] Unpublished data in the Modeling Workshop Project at ASU for over 10,000 students. Reported in the “Findings” section of the final report to the NSF; download at http://modeling.asu.edu. Click on “Research and Evaluation”, then “Download Findings”.[6] Available at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/math-science.html Promising and Exemplary Programs in Science (1-2001)[7] M. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change (Teachers College Press, 2001).[8] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force Concept Inventory,” The Physics Teacher 30: 141-158 (1992).[9] D. Hestenes and M. Wells, “A Mechanics Baseline Test,” The Physics Teacher 30: 159-166 (1992).

[10] J. M. Cervenec & K. A. Harper, “Ohio Teacher Professional Development in the Physical Sciences,” in Proceedings of the 2005 Physics Education Research Conference, Heron, Franklin, & McCullough, editors (American Institute of Physics, 2005).[11] Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., and Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), ACEPT IN-003. The RTOP rubric form, training, and statistical reference manuals are available at http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu/rtop/

37

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/math-science.html

Appendix A: Synopsis of the MODELING METHOD

The Modeling Method aims to correct many weaknesses of the traditional lecture-demonstration method, including the fragmentation of knowledge, student passivity, and the persistence of naive beliefs about the physical world.

Coherent Instructional Objectives

• To engage students in understanding the physical world by constructing and using scientific models to describe, to explain, to predict and to control physical phenomena.

• To provide students with basic conceptual tools for modeling real objects and processes, especially mathematical, graphical and diagrammatic representations.

• To familiarize students with a small set of basic models as the content core of science.

• To develop insight into the structure of scientific knowledge by examining how models fit into theories.

• To show how scientific knowledge is validated by engaging students in evaluating scientific models through comparison with empirical data.

• To develop skill in all aspects of modeling as the procedural core of scientific knowledge.

Student-Centered Instructional Design

• Instruction is organized into modeling cycles which move students through all phases of model development, evaluation and application in concrete situations –– thus promoting an integrated understanding of modeling processes and acquisition of coordinated modeling skills.

• The teacher sets the stage for student activities, typically with a demonstration and class discussion to establish common understanding of a question to be asked of nature. Then, in small groups, students collaborate in planning and conducting experiments to answer or clarify the question.

• Students are required to present and justify their conclusions in oral and/or written form, including a formulation of models for the phenomena in question and evaluation of the models by comparison with data.

• Technical terms and concepts are introduced by the teacher only as they are needed to sharpen models, facilitate modeling activities and improve the quality of discourse.

• The teacher is prepared with a definite agenda for student progress and guides student inquiry and discuss5ion in that direction with questions and remarks.

• The teacher is equipped with a taxonomy of typical student misconceptions to be addressed as students are induced to articulate, analyze and justify their personal beliefs.

Appendix B: Modeling Cycle Example—Constant Velocity

I. Constant Velocity Paradigm Lab A. Pre-lab discussionStudents observe battery-powered vehicle moving across floor and make observations. The teacher guides them toward a laboratory investigation to determine whether the vehicle moves at constant speed, as it appears, and to determine a mathematical model of the vehicle’s positionB. Lab investigationStudents collect position and time data for the vehicles and analyze the data to develop a mathematical model. (In this case, the graph of position vs. time is linear, so they do a linear regression to determine the model.) Students then display their results on small whiteboards and prepare presentations.C. Post-lab discussionStudents present the results of their lab investigations to the rest of the class and interpret what their model means in terms of the motion of the vehicle. After all lab groups have presented, the teacher leads a discussion of the models to develop a general mathematical model that describes constant-velocity motion.

II. Constant Velocity Model Deployment A. WorksheetsWorking in small groups, students complete worksheets that ask them to apply the constant-velocity model to various problem-solving situations. They are also asked to prepare whiteboard presentations of their problem solutions and present them to the class. The teacher’s role at this stage is continual questioning of the students to encourage them to articulate what they know and how they know it. B. QuizzesIn order to do mid-course progress checks for student understanding, the modeling materials include several short quizzes. Students are asked to complete these quizzes individually to demonstrate their understanding of the model and its application. Students are asked not only to solve problems, but also to provide brief explanations of their problem-solving strategy.C. Lab PracticumTo further check for understanding, students are asked to complete a lab practicum in which they need to use the constant-velocity model to solve a real-world problem. Working in groups, they come to agreement on a solution and then test their solution with the battery-powered vehicles. D. Unit Test

As a final check for understanding, students take a unit test. (The constant-velocity unit is the first unit of the curriculum. In later unit tests, students are asked to solve problems using models developed earlier in the course, emphasizing the spiral nature of the curriculum.)

MODELING INSTRUCTION in HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS

Mechanics Course Description and Syllabus (2008 version 2)

The Modeling Workshop in mechanics is an intensive 3-week course with these goals:1. educate teachers in use of a model-centered, guided inquiry method of teaching high school physics.2. help participants integrate computer courseware effectively into the physics curriculum.3. help teachers make better use of national resources for physics education.4. establish electronic network support and a learning community among participants. 5. strengthen local institutional support for participants as school leaders in disseminating standards-based reform in science education.

Syllabus/AgendaWeek 1

Mon

Day 1

(am) Welcome, introduce participants, schedules, workshop description, goals, FCI overview, FCI and ECI pre-tests (pm) Unit I: Scientific Thinking in Experimental Settings Pendulum lab, graphical methods, lab report format, grading of lab notebook

Readings: 1)Hestenes, “Force Concept Inventory,” (on website)2)Hestenes "Wherefore a science of teaching.” (on website)

Tue

Day 2

(am) Discuss readings, clarify Unit I lab. lab write-ups, worksheets/test unit 1.(pm) whiteboarding, presentation criteria, discuss unit materials Unit II: Particle with Constant Velocity. Battery-powered vehicle lab, post-lab

discussion, motion maps, deployment. MBT pre-test.

Readings: McDermott, "Guest Comment: How we teach…"Arons, ch 1 (special attn: sections 8, 9, 11, 12)

Wed

Day 3

(am) Discuss readings, problems, worksheets/presentations, Intro to Body modeling, Sonic Rangers(pm) Unit II lesson plan, Whiteboard WS and test.Intro. Unit III: Uniformly Accelerating Particle Model

Readings: Hake, "Socratic Pedagogy in the...", Arons 2.1-2.6

Thu

Day 4

(am) Discuss readings, Timer software, ball-on-rail lab, whiteboard results(pm) Sonic Rangers, post-lab extension: instantaneous velocity, acceleration, motion maps, deployment worksheet/whiteboard

Reading: Mestre, "Learning and Instruction in Pre-College..."

Fri

Day 5

(am) Discuss readings, Intro to Graphs and Tracks, instructional comments, descriptive particle models, more deployment exercises. wrap up unit III materials, test, free fall w/ picket fence

Reading: Arons 2.7-19. Minstrell, "Explaining the 'at rest' condition…"Turn in notebooks for grading

Week 2

Mon

Day 6

(am) Discuss reading, Unit IV: Free Particle Model-inertia & interactions inertia demo (Newton 1), the force concept, force diagrams, statics lab, normal force demo questioning strategies(pm) deployment worksheets/whiteboard, force probes, paired forces, Newton 3 wrap up unit IV, critique activities, test

Reading: Introduction & chapter 1, Preconceptions in Mechanics, Camp & ClementReading: Beichner: Tug-K article and TUG-K2 test

Tues

Day 7

(am) Discuss reading, more deployment exercises. wrap up unit IV materials, test, test (turn in lab books)(pm) Unit V: CDP Model-force and acceleration, weight vs mass lab, modified Atwood's machine lab (compare different equipment)Reading: Arons 3.1-4. Hestenes, Wells: "A Modeling Method For High School...

Wed

Day 8

(am) Discuss reading, whiteboard results of previous day’s labs, post-lab extension: derivation of Newton 2, lab write-up(pm),deployment worksheets/whiteboard, Unit V test Reading: Arons 3.5-9

Thu

Day 9

(am) Discuss reading, friction lab: pre lab and data collection, whiteboard. (pm) Unit VI: Particle Models in Two Dimensions, combinations of FP and CDP models, deploymentReading: Arons 3.15-24. Rex Rice: Role of lab practica.

Fri

Day 10

(am) Discuss reading; worksheets/whiteboard, projectile motion lab, explore video technology,Reading: "Making Work Work,” by Gregg Swackhamer (on website)Turn in notebooks for grading

Week 3

Mon

Day 11

(am) Discuss reading. Unit VII: Work, Energy, & Power, Stretched spring lab, work on lab notebooks, graph, whiteboard prep & practice critiques. (pm) Gravitational potential energy, work-kinetic energy theorem,Reading: Arons 4.1-5, 8, 9. Hestenes: Modeling Methodology for Physics ..."

Tue

Day 12

(am) Discuss readings, Further discussion of working/heating as means of changing internal energy of system. Energy practicum (pm) Unit VIII: Central Force Model, uniform circular motion lab, collect/analyze data; further use of spreadsheets

Reading: Arons 5:1-6. Hestenes: Modeling Methodology for Physics ..." (re-read)

Wed

Day 13

am) Discuss readings, circular motion lab practicum. Alternative tests and testing.(pm) Unit IX: Impulsive Force Model, conservation of linear momentum lab,, collect data, plot rfinal Vs rinitial . Take FCI posttest

Submission of lesson plans for those contracting for an A grade

Thu

Day 14

(am) deployment worksheets, worksheets/tests, instructional comments, test(pm) a look at second semester materials w/ modeling approach. Notebooks. Take ECI posttest

Turn in notebooks for grading

Fri

Day 15

(am) Take MBT posttest. w/b presentations, more deployment exercises, worksheets/tests. closing remarks

Each follow-up session focuses on implementation successes and challenges. Review units, and more indepth on Unit IX: Impulsive Force Model. More practicums. Discuss parents night, school inservices, local physics alliances, school board presentations. Schedule visitation. Fill out survey.

modeling.asu.edumodeling.asu.edu/modeling/professdevelop/MSPgrant... · Web viewFor the physical science workshop, Introductory Physical Science (8th edition) by Haber-Schaim, Gendel,

Documents