Modeling InstructionLessons from America

Mechanics Modeling Workshop

90 hours of professional development consisting of• intensive immersion in the mechanics modeling

curriculum and pedagogy• discussion of research literature• building connections with the modeling teaching

community

- Traditional instruction does not effectively address misconceptions

- For many students, traditional instruction is not successful in teaching conceptual understanding or scientific reasoning

Why is a new pedagogy needed?

Typical Misconceptions in Motion• Velocity is proportional to applied force

• Double applied force, double velocity of object?

• Objects require an “impetus” or applied force to sustain motion

• The net force on an object always acts in the direction of its motion

eg. Draw net force on object moving in a circle in same direction as the tangential velocity

• “Active forces” are greater than “reactive forces”

Eg If a brick is thrown at a wall, assert that the force applied on the wall by the brick is greater than the reaction force of the wall on the brick

Force Concept Inventory• Developed by David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells and

Ibrahim Halloun to probe student conceptual understanding of forces

• 30 multiple choice questions

What is modeling?Students actively engaged in

1.construction of a phenomenological model based upon their own observation and experimentation

2.deployment of the model in problem solving and testing

3.model breaking

Braunschweig and Guinals-Kupperman explain modeling

Essential Tools1. Multiple representations

2. Small whiteboards to facilitate presentation of ideas

3. Socratic questioning

OutcomesEffective scientific reasoners who have advanced problem solving skills.

How is this measured?

1. Performance on conceptual assessment instruments such as Force Concept Inventory

2. Results on conventional statewide tests.3. Retention of students in Science

Hestenes, D. 2000 Findings of the modeling workshop project (1994 – 2000). Final report submitted to the National Science Foundation

10000 students170 teachers

Hake, R. 1998 Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66(1) 64-71.

Hake, R. 1998 Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66(1) 64-71.

Is modeling only for Physics?

Modeling curricula are being written for• Chemistry• Biology• Humanities – English and History

Modeling creates multiple connections between physical and mental model.

• with explicit statements of the relationships between these representations

• Success of modeling possibly due to connection visual-spatial and language processing centres in the brain.

Symbolic Representations

Physical System

Mental Model

Verbal

Algebraic

Diagrammatic

Graphical

Outcomes in the USA

Using a modeling approach find that• Students are engaged• Students improve their reasoning through communication

of their scientific thinking and by debating with peers.• Students achieve a deeper conceptual understanding

and become better problem solvers• Students increase their learner confidence by building

their own conceptual framework.• Both girls and boys respond well to approach.

Modeling instruction is a demonstration of the power of teaching informed by education research.

Outcomes at JMSS• At JMSS used modeling for VCE Physics Unit 2,

Motion• Approximately 23, 75 minute lessons spread over

10 teaching weeks• Performance on motion tests improved,

performance on final examination did not.• Average score on FCI pre test 37%, post test 60%,

average normalised gain 39%

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-300%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

FCI Pre and Post test data

11SPHYBC2014 pre test

11SPHYBC2014 post test

11SPHYBC2013 post test

number of questions answered correctly

% o

f st

ud

ents

Misconception Analysis

Modeling Instruction students significantly improved their facility to

1. analyse the forces acting upon an object

2. determine net force acting on an object

3. determine the motion of the object

Points to consider Modeling takes more time, can’t cover as

much curriculum.

The Physics First experience in the USA:• Students in Year 9 spend a year doing Physics using

modeling• Improves outcomes in Chemistry and Biology • Increases retention in Science

Don’t have to teach everything using modeling for procedural benefit to be retained.

Challenges for JMSS

• Modeling has been found to be most successfully delivered when teacher has attended three week workshop.

• Whiteboard discussions best suited to groups of 15-24

• Matching curriculum to the Australian National curriculum.

My goals

• Continue to evaluate teaching of mechanics in Physics using the Force Concept Inventory

• Use a modeling approach in Year 10 Science this year

• Build a modeling community in Australia

Other Australian modelers

• George Przywolnik School Curriculum and Standards Authority WA

STA John de Laeter medal winner 2007

• Kenneth Silburn Head of Science, Casula HS, NSW

National Award for Teaching: Excellence in Teacher Leadership (2009)

Australian Academy of Science Teaching Award (2010)

Prime Minister’s Commendation for Excellence in Science Teaching (2010).

I want to know more about modeling:• American Modeling Teachers’ Association

http://modelinginstruction.org/• Mark Schober “What is Modeling”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDgulnEVE10&feature=related

• Mark Schober’s webpage http://modelingphysics.org/• Franck Nochese’s webpage

https://fnoschese.wordpress.com/modeling-instruction/• Arizona State University Modeling website:

http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling-HS.html• Success stories from teaching Physics using modeling to

American 9th graders http://home.comcast.net/~physicsfirst/site/

I would be interested in exploring modeling in Australia

Please contact Barbara McKinnon, Physics teacher at John Monash Science School

Email: Barbara.mckinnon@jmss.vic.edu.au