Return to home pageA Comparison between traditional and “modeling” approaches to undergraduate physics instruction, by James Vesenka et al. (1.4MB in pdf, pages 3 to 7 in Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, vol. 1, #1. June 2002. www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo)
Effect of Modeling Method Training on Physics Teacher Development in California’s
Central Valley
by David Andrews, Jaime Arvizu, and James
Vesenka. (2004, 3MB in .doc)
Minimizing resistance to inquiry-oriented science instruction: the importance
of climate setting, by Carl Wenning and
Six years of Modeling Workshops: Three
cautionary tales, by James Vesenka.
(900kB in pdf.)
Both are in Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, vol. 3, #2. Dec.
2005. www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo)
Review of Evaluation Studies of Mathematics and Science Curricula and Professional Development Models, by Beatriz Clewell, C. Cosentino de Cohen, et al (2004). An Urban Institute study submitted to the GE Foundation in December 2004. Available at http://www.urban.org
EVALUATIONS OF OTHER SCIENCE PROGRAMS:
TIMSS Physics Achievement Comparison Study,
April 2000 (44 pages, 400kB in pdf).
Conducted for the National Science Foundation by the TIMSS International Study
Center at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. The author is Eugenio Gonzalez
<EGonzalez@ets.org>.
The six NSF high school programs in the TIMSS study were: Modeling Instruction,
PTRA (Physics Teacher Resource Agents: an American Assn of Physics Teachers
program), Physics by Inquiry (at the University of Washington), Constructing
Physics Understanding (CPU, at San Diego State University), C3P (at the University
of Dallas, TX), and Minds-on Physics (at the University of Massachusetts).
The C3P Project: A Study
of Dissemination, Implementation, and Effects, by Kay Thomas (an external evaluation
report using the FCI, 1998). (78 pages, 240kB in pdf)
Updated 12/06/07