Modeling Instruction in the High School Physics Classroom Kris Troha Wilsonville High School Wilsonville, OR kris.troha@wlwv.k12.or.us We’re here to tell you about the Modeling Method of instruction: developed in a collaborative effort by Malcolm Wells, a HS teacher and David Hestenes, prof of physics at ASU. These are the folks who developed the FCI and MB test which appearedin Mar 92 TPT. The MM, using results of physics education research attemprs to match instructional design to the way we believe students learn

Background Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University Master of Education at George Washington 12th year teaching Physical Science, Physics, Geology, Chemistry 5th Year in Oregon (McMinnville, Wilsonville) 6 weeks of Modeling Instruction workshops Using Modeling Instruction since 2004

Brief History of Modeling Instruction David Hestenes at Arizona State University develops the Mechanics Diagnostic test [which later became the Force Concept Inventory (FCI)] and publishes findings in the AJP 11/1985. Building on the foundation of Hestenes’ research in the mid-80’s, the Modeling Instruction on High School Physics Project ran from 1994-2000 with 200 teachers being trained. Today over 3000 science teachers have learned Modeling Instruction and the program has expanded to chemistry and physical science.

“Teaching by Telling” is Ineffective Students will often miss the point of what we tell them. Key words or concepts do not elicit the same “schema” for students as they do for us. Watching the teacher solve problems does not improve student problem-solving skills. Students’ intuitive reasons for phenomena are rarely changed through straight lecture. Our students don't share our background, so key words, which conjure up complex relationships between diagrams, strategies, mathematical models mean little to them. To us, the phrase inclined plane conjures up a complex set of pictures, diagrams, and problem-solving strategies. To the students, it's a board. All my careful solutions of problems at the board simply made ME a better problem-solver.

Instructional Objectives Construct and use scientific models to describe, to explain, to predict, and to control physical phenomena. Model physical objects and processes using diagrammatic, graphical and algebraic representations. Small set of basic models as the content core of physics. Evaluate scientific models through comparison with empirical data. Modeling as the procedural core of scientific knowledge.

Why modeling?! Pro Con Make students’ classroom experience closer to the scientific practice of physicists. Make the coherence of scientific knowledge more evident to students Construction and testing of math models is a central activity of research physicists. Explicitly address student misconceptions It takes more time to cover content. While the materials are good to use, without the learning method they lose their effectiveness. The full training is a time commitment (two 3-week courses) Emphasis on points 1 and 2.

Models vs Problems The problem with problem-solving Students come to see problems and their answers as the units of knowledge. Students fail to see common elements in novel problems. “But we never did a problem like this!” Models as basic units of knowledge A few basic models are used again and again with only minor modifications. Students identify or create a model and make inferences from the model to produce a solution. We use the ability to solve problems as a means for evaluating our students’ understanding. But our students come to see problems and their answers as the essential units of knowledge. They call for us to show them as many examples as possible and pray that the test has problems like the ones they saw. How do novices solve problems? They reach into their gunny sack of equation and find one with nearly the same variables. How do experts solve problems? They start by drawing a diagram.

What Do We Mean by Model? This word is used in many ways. The physical system is objective; i.e., open to inspection by everyone. Each one of us attempts to make sense of it through the use of metaphors. Unfortunately, there is no way to peek into another’s mind to view their physical intuition. Instead, we are forced to make external symbolic representations; we can reach consensus on the way to do this, and judge the fidelity of one’s mental picture by the kinds of representations they make. So the structure of a model is distributed over these various representations; later we’ll provide some specific examples.

Multiple Representations Multiple representations. We all use them, but before I began to use this method, I didn't make the connection between the features of the various representation explicit. with explicit statements describing relationships

I - Model Development Students in cooperative groups design and perform experiments. use computers to collect and analyze data. formulate functional relationship between variables. evaluate “fit” to data. Instead of following a set of pre-determined instructions, students devise their own procedures. (collectively, with guidance?) Computers are used in the collection and analysis of data - a novel use when you consider what students ordinarily use computers for is word-processing or tutorial activities. All of the kinematic equations we use in mechanics come from experimental results.

MAKE OBSERVATIONS

DEVISE AN EXPERIMENT

FIND A PATTERN

CONSTRUCT A MODEL

I - Model Development Post-lab analysis whiteboard presentation of student findings multiple representations verbal diagrammatic graphical algebraic justification of conclusions Students articulate their findings to their peers using white boards. We all know that the first time we really learned a topic was when we had to prepare to teach it. Giving our students the same opportunity allows them to work out the details clearly in their minds.

PRESENT YOUR RESULTS

II - Model Deployment In post-lab extension, the instructor brings closure to the experiment. fleshes out details of the model, relating common features of various representations. helps students to abstract the model from the context in which it was developed. Instructor reinforces what students have learned in the lab, points out essential features of the model, and demonstrates appropriate modeling techniques.

II - Model Deployment In deployment activities, students learn to apply model to variety of related situations. identify system composition accurately represent its structure articulate their understanding in oral presentations. Students get to apply model to a variety of situations. They develop confidence because they realize there is NOT a separate approach to each situation. Instructor elicits thorough explanation from presenters, encourages students to appeal to a model for justification of their claims, and brings students to confront their misconceptions. Instructor is no longer the source of explanations or the final authority. are guided by instructor's questions: Why did you do that? How do you know that?

II - Model Deployment Objectives: Ultimate Objective: to improve the quality of scientific discourse. move toward progressive deepening of student understanding of models and modeling with each pass through the modeling cycle. get students to see models everywhere Ultimate Objective: autonomous scientific thinkers fluent in all aspects of conceptual and mathematical modeling.

Where to Find More Information Arizona State University Modeling Instruction modeling.asu.edu American Modeling Teachers Association www.modelingteachers.org “Don’t Lecture Me” – public radio series AmericanRadioWorks.publicradio.org Kris Troha – kris.troha@wlwv.k12.or.us