1. The Effects of a Model-Based Physics Program with a Physics First Approach Ling L. Liang, Ph. D. La Salle University liang@lasalle.edu

2. Outline of Presentation  Introduction: Physics First (PF) and Its Implementation  Research on Model-Based Physics Curriculum  Other PF Related Research  A Look Into the Future: Potential Collaborative Research Opportunities

3. An Example from the BSCS Text (adopted by 9 th grade honors classes)

4. A Trademark of US Science Education: “Layer-Cake” Model of B-C-P  Problems with B-C-P:  Fails to represent the structure of modern science  Only 30% of U.S. high school students take any course in physics  Does not respect changes in mathematics teaching

5. Why Physics First?  Being more logical: scientific and pedagogical perspectives  Supports an inquiry-based approach  Learning physics and algebra concurrently creates synergy  Led to increased enrollment of science courses/AP science courses

6. Physics First: Implementation Efforts  9% of private schools and 3% of public schools (according to a survey by the AIP, 2005).  PF has been implemented in high schools in NJ, CT, MD, CA, MA, PA, ME, …  Sample PF curriculum/textbooks: Conceptual physics (Hewitt), Active Physics (Eisenkraft), Modeling Physics (ASU). Modeling Physics

7. Outline of Presentation  Introduction: Physics First (PF) and Its Implementation  Research on Model-Based Physics Curriculum  Other PF Related Research  A Look Into the Future: Potential Collaborative Research Opportunities

8. The Effects of a Model-Based Physics Curriculum Program with a PF Approach: A Causal-Comparative Study Ling L. Liang Gavin W. Fulmer David M. Majerich Richard Clevenstine Raymond Howanski

9. What is a Scientific Model? A scientific model can be defined as a representation of structure that abstracts and simplifies a system to allow one to make explanations and predictions. Models may include physical objects, analogies, diagrams, graphs, computer programs, and mathematical relationships.

10. Why Model-Based Physics Instruction? To make students’ classroom experience closer to the scientific practice of physicists. To make the coherence of scientific knowledge more evident to students by making it more explicit. Construction and testing of math models is a central activity of research physicists. Developing and using models are recognized as critical elements of scientific and engineering practices in the new framework for K-12 science standards.

11. Essential Elements of the K-12 Science and Engineering Curriculum: Dimension 1 - Practices 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

12. Why Model-Centered Instruction? Cognitive Research (Categories Hierarchy) Scientific Knowledge (Conceptual Hierarchy) Superordinatee.g., vehicleTheory Basic Levele.g., car, bus, or truck Model Subordinatee.g., sports car, or four-door sedan Concept

13. 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.

14. “Teaching by Telling/Demonstrating” is Ineffective Students usually 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.

15. Teacher Demonstration #1

16. A Common Student Misconception Plank evens out the load, so scale reading doesn’t change.

17. Teacher Demonstration #2

18. Student Responses After Class Demonstration… “As demonstrated in lecture both scales will read 10 N regardless of where the center of mass is located. The platform and the metal block form one unit that is being measured, so the scales show two evenly distributed readings, no matter where the metal block is placed along the platform.” 18

19. SO… What we see is influenced by what we know/believe.

20. A Better Model for Class Demonstration  Predict outcome before observation  Record observation  Reconcile prediction with observation

21. What is Model-Based Instruction? Use a small set of basic models as the content core of physics. 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. Use modeling as the procedural core of scientific knowledge development. Evaluate scientific models through comparison with empirical data.

22. Sample Modeling Physics Units  Particle with Constant Velocity (Free particle model)  Uniformly Accelerated Particle Model (one- dimension)  Particle Models in Two Dimensions  Central Force Model (Uniform Circular Motion)  Impulsive Force Model

23. Model-Based Approach vs. Traditional Teaching Constructivist vs. Transmissionist Cooperative Inquiry vs. Lecture/Demonstration Student-Centered vs. Teacher-Centered Active Engagement vs. Passive Reception Student Activity vs. Teacher Demonstration Student Articulation vs. Teacher Presentation Lab-based vs. Textbook-based

24. What Does “Model” Mean? with explicit statements of the relationships between these representations

25. Multiple Representations with explicit statements describing relationships

26. Modeling Cycle: 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. Students in Post-Lab Analysis  whiteboard presentation of student findings  multiple representations (Verbal, diagrammatic, graphical, algebraic)  Justification of conclusions

27. Modeling Cycle: Model Deployment (Application) In deployment phase, students  apply model to a variety of related situations.  articulate their understanding in oral presentations.  Complete worksheets, quizzes, lab practicum, unit test.  are guided by instructor's questions: -- Why did you do that? -- How do you know that?

28. Model Development & Experimentation

29. 29 slope related to angle of incline

30. Model Application & Presentation

31. Previous Findings on Effectiveness of Modeling Method

32. Our Research Questions When compared to a conventional physics program, does the modeling physics curriculum combined with PF result in the students’ greater understanding of physics concepts? If so, what specific teaching practices associated with the model-based approach might have played a significant role in the students’ conceptual learning?

33. Participants Two high schools: modeling with PF vs. non-modeling with non-PF. Five teachers and 301 students (in grades 9 through 12) involved in the study. -predominantly Whites (91-95%) -middle income households as defined by the state ($37,501 to $57,000). -The physics courses were all one semester in length, for 85-90 minutes a day following a block schedule.

34. Data Collection and Analysis 

35. Results (I): FCI Source Pretest Posttest Mean SDMeanSD Comparison A (Honors) Modeling with PF 24.80 7.3747.506.57 Non-Modeling with Non-PF 28.69 9.1841.956.57 Comparison B (Non-Honors) Modeling with Non-PF 25.18 9.4647.337.65 Non-Modeling with Non-PF 26.28 8.0238.474.36

36. Results (II): Analyses of Covariance Comparison A SourcedfSum SqMean SqF value FCI Rasch Pretest1560.2 15.836*** Treatment (Modeling with PF) 11415.1 40.004*** Error1234351.035.4 Note: Dependent variable is Rasch-scaled FCI posttest score. ***p<.001; Effect size Hedges ’ g=2.45.

37. Results (II): Analyses of Covariance Comparison B SourcedfSum SqMean SqF value FCI Rasch Pretest1382.7 15.34*** Modeling12494.7 99.98*** Error1724291.725.0 Note: Dependent variable is Rasch-scaled FCI posttest score. ***p<.001; Effect size Hedges’ g=2.62.

38. Results (III): Student Ratings on Selected Instructional Activities Item Sig.ES (d) 2) Formulate our own hypotheses or predictions to be tested in an experiment or investigation. ***0.67 3) Design and conduct experiments or investigations. ***1.10 4) Write explanations about what was observed and why it happened. ***1.34 5) Recognize and analyze alternative explanations by weighing evidence and examining reasons. ***0.58 6) Develop conceptual models using scientific evidence. ***0.92

39. Results (III): Student Ratings on Selected Instructional Activities Item Sig.ES (d) 7) Revise models and explanations based on evidence. ***0.98 9) Make a presentation to the class on the data, analysis, or interpretation. ***1.30 10) Critically review other peers’ work or presentations. ***1.12 13) Work together in small groups to discuss our ideas. ***0.80 14) Use multiple means (diagrams, graphs, symbols, equations, models, concrete materials, etc.) to represent the same situation ***0.82 16) Use mathematics to solve problems. **0.40

40. Results (IV): RTOP RTOP CategoryRTOP Scores by Teacher* Teacher A Ob1 Ob2 Ob3 Teacher B Ob1 Ob2 Ob3 LESSON DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION CONTENT Propositional Knowledge Procedural Knowledge CLASSROOM CULTURE Communicative Interactions Student Teacher/Relationships TOTAL SCORE 15 12 14 15 16 15 18 15 17 15 16 16 15 18 16 78 77 78 19 18 19 20 19 20 19 18 19 17 16 17 20 19 20 95 90 95

41. Student Enrollment in Various Advanced Science Courses in the Modeling School by Year

42. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Thanks to all participating teachers and students in the member schools of the Math Science Partnership of Greater Philadelphia (MSPGP).  Thanks to Jane Jackson, David Hestenes, Xiufeng Liu, Steven Kramer, Joseph Merlino, Victor Donnay, Deborah Pomeroy, Laurie Bernotsky, Donna Cleland, and other MSPGP research team members, for their support and valuable input regarding this research.

43. Outline of Presentation  Introduction: Physics First (PF) and Its Implementation  Research on Model-Based Physics Curriculum  Other PF Related Research  A Look Into the Future: Potential Collaborative Research Opportunities

44. Other PF Related Research (I) O'Brien, M. J., & Thompson, J. R. (2009). Effectiveness of Ninth-Grade Physics in Maine: Conceptual Understanding. Physics Teacher. ( A total of 321 students in seven high schools in Maine participated in this study)  Grade Honors (H/N) Modeling (M/N) N Pre-test (max. 27) Post-test (max. 27) <g><g>p-value (post-pre) 9NN805.66.33%0.072 9NM325.08.918%0.000 9HN285.513.035%0.000 9HM764.912.535%0.000 12NN1056.010.923%0.000

45. Other PF Related Research (II) Goodman, R., & Etkina, E. (2008). Squaring the circle: A mathematically rigorous physics first. (Bergen County Technical High School, Teterboro, NJ)  PF -- a mathematically rigorous ninth-grade algebra-based physics course  P (the first half of AP Physics B curriculum) – C (topics selected from AP Chem) – B (topics selected from AP Biology)  Use AP Results as a Measure of Student Achievement

48. Other PF Related Research (III) Glasser, H. M. (2012). The Numbers Speak: PF Supports Math Performance:  one academically competitive K-12, co-ed, private day school  9 th grade Conceptual Physics (Hewitt): motion, Newton’s laws, momentum, energy, rotational mechanics, wave, sound, and light; Math used was algebra and some topics from geometry.

49. Glasser’s Findings: Pre-inversion vs. Post-inversion PSAT Scores ClassesNCPT III (Gr. 8) Percentile Mean PSAT (Gr. 10) Percentile p value 2000- 2002 15490.567.3 20036689.471.60.094* 20046891.075.30.0035** 20056589.175.70.0036**

50. A Quick Summary  Compared to B-C-P, PF is more logical and represents the structure of modern science  Concurrent ap­plications of algebra to learning physics led to improved learning in math  PF has led to increased performance and enrollment of science courses/AP science courses  Model-based approach appears to be more effective in developing deeper understanding of science among students

51. Outline of Presentation  Introduction: Physics First (PF) and Its Implementation  Research on Model-Based Physics Curriculum  Other PF Related Research  A Look Into the Future: Potential Collaborative Research Opportunities

52. Questions for us to ponder (I)…  What content should be included in a PF curriculum (scope, sequence, and coordination)? What are the most effective approaches for developing student understanding of physics/science?  Abandon the “layer-cake” model?

53. Questions for us to ponder (II)…  How to assess student understanding of science concepts and NOS from a learning progression perspective? How to effectively measure effective instructional approaches?

54. Questions for us to ponder (III)…  How do we develop an effective professional development model(s) to improve our science teacher education (pre-service & inservice)?

55. Physics Education Content (China) 2 ND Cycle (Gr. 10-12) 1 ST Cycle (Gr. 7-9) Scientific inquiry; matter & properties of matter; motion & forces; sound, light, electricity, magnetism; types of energy & conservation of energy 55

56. Senior High School Physics Curricula (China, Gr. 10-12) Elective 1-2 (2cr.) Molecular motion; thermodynamics; nuclear energy Elective 2-2 (2cr.) Equilibrium, materials & elasticity; machines Elective 2-3 (2cr.) Refraction of light; optical instruments; Interference, diffraction, & polarization of light; Laser; nuclear energy Elective 1-1 (2cr.) Electromagnetism Elective 2-1(2cr.) Electromagnetism Elective 3-1(2cr.) Electric & magnetic fields Elective 3-4 (2 cr.) Oscillations, mechanical & electromagnetic waves; properties of light; relativity Elective 3-5 (2cr.) Conservation of momentum; wave-particle dualism; atomic theory & nuclear energy Elective 3-2 (2cr.) Electromagnetic induction; alternating current; sensors Elective 3-3 (2cr.) Molecular motion; state of matter & change of phases; thermodynamics; Physics 2 (2 cr., 36 hrs) Physics 1 (2 cr., 36 hrs) Motion & Forces, Potential & Kinetic Energy Electives Required for all Required elective

57. “Science is not just a collection of laws, a catalogue of facts, it is a creation of the human mind with its freely invented ideas and concepts. Physical theories try to form a picture of reality and to establish its connections with the wide world of sense impressions.” - A. Einstein and L. Infield, The Evolution of Physics, 1939

58. References  Ewald, G, Hickman, J., Hickman, P. and Myers, F. (2005). Physics First: The right-side-up science sequence. The Physics Teacher, 43, 319-320.  Glasser, H. M. (2012). The Numbers Speak: Physics First Supports Math Performance. The Physics Teacher. 50(1), 53-55.  Goodman, R., & Etkina, E. (2008). Squaring the circle: A mathematically rigorous physics first. The Physics Teacher, 46 (4), 222-227.  Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction, American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454  O'Brien, M. J., & Thompson, J. R. (2009). Effectiveness of Ninth-Grade Physics in Maine: Conceptual Understanding. Physics Teacher. 47(4), 234-239.

59. Thank You!