*Modeling
Instruction meets **the standard for moderate evidence established
by the What Works Clearinghouse. The effect size is large: 0.91 for more than
1600 students in regular first-year physics courses in public high schools.*

Quantitative evidence supporting the impacts of Modeling Summer
Institutes has been established through a well-designed, well-implemented study
undertaken as part of the Modeling Workshop Project evaluation (Hestenes 2000).
Findings of this study have been cited many times and used in national-level,
influential reports (Clewell 2004) and by the U.S. Department of Education to
identify Modeling Instruction as one of two Exemplary K-12 Science Programs
(Expert Panel Review 2001).

** Study Design. **The study was a quasi-experimental, repeated measures design. The
repeated measures design maintains a high level of validity by reducing
variability. In this design, teachers who applied to participate in the
Modeling Workshops were asked to administer the Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
(Hestenes et al. 1992) to their students near the end of the school year (i.e.,
post-instruction) prior to participating in the Modeling Workshop during the
subsequent summer. The FCI measurement was then repeated with different
students in the same course (which minimized practice effects). Teachers who
then participated in a second Modeling Workshop in the next summer repeated the
measurement. Teachers, teaching in the same school with similar students,
matched the data, and the approximate equivalence of the students
pre-instruction was established. This was done because pre-instruction FCI
scores consistently show no difference on the average (25.38% - 26.80%).
Together, the measured equivalence criteria and the repeated measures design
established this quasi-experimental study as meeting the standard for moderate
evidence established by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC 2008).

** Instruments and Measures. **The study utilized the Force Concept Inventory, a 30-question
conceptual test that has been the standard instrument for evaluating conceptual
understanding of introductory mechanics since publication (Hake 1998).
Estimates of reliability employing CronbachÕs alpha measured on the FCI
posttest range from the mid 0.80s to the mid 0.90s and average higher than alpha
= 0.85, which provide evidence for the reliability of the FCI (Osborn Popp 2000, Hake 2002).

** Data Collection. **Data for this study were collected at two points: first, baseline
FCI posttest data were collected from teachers who applied to attend a Modeling
Workshop – these are the comparison data. Then data were collected again,
after teachers had completed a Modeling Workshop – these are the
treatment data. Baseline data (i.e., data from the comparison group) were
collected during the spring semester of 1996-1997 from 1,653 students, and data
from the treatment group were collected from 2,018 students during fall and
spring of 1998-1999. The matching criteria applied were: data were collected
only from students of the same 26 teachers who were in the same school and
teaching the same first-year physics course in the baseline and treatment
group, in order to maximize the likelihood of equivalence of groups prior to
instruction. (The course was regular physics for 22 teachers, honors physics
for two teachers, 9

** Data Analyses. **In order to establish the effects of a Modeling Workshop on
student understanding, the study used the post-instruction FCI score achieved
by students as the dependent variable. The independent variable was whether the
studentsÕ teacher had previously completed two four-week summer Modeling
Workshops. These data were analyzed using a two sample t-test for equivalence
of means, to compare the FCI scores of students at the end of the school year
but prior to their teacher attending a four-week summer Modeling Workshop, with
the FCI scores of students at the end of the school year after their teacher
attended their second four-week summer Modeling Workshop. The before-workshop
average of 42% (N=1,653) was significantly different than the after-workshop
average of 53% (N=2,018), p < 0.001. Furthermore, these differences between
before- and after-workshop averages were all large as indicated by the effect size,
d = 0.91. The 95% confidence interval on effect size was 0.84 – 0.98.

** Summary of Evidence. **The data supporting the impact of Modeling Workshops on high
school physics teachers clearly meet the evidence standards with reservation as
established by the What Works Clearinghouse. This is the maximum attainable
from a quasi-experiment. (The study design did not include random assignment to
treatment groups, but did include checks of group equivalence. It is difficult
to conduct an experimental design in physics, for the vast majority of high
schools have only one physics teacher. Rural schools typically have one section
of physics.)

Furthermore, the study meets the criteria for drawing causal
conclusions. *Temporal precedence *is clear because student scores rise
only after the teacher attends the Modeling Workshop. The repeated measures
design of the study ensures *covariance of cause and effect, *as student
scores rise only after the teacher attends the Workshop. Further, because the
sample size is substantial, the study is resilient to threats of internal
validity such as selection bias or single sample threats.

*References cited:*

Clewell., B., et. al. (2004). Review of Evaluation Studies of Mathematics and Science Curricula and Professional Development Models. (Urban Institute study commissioned by the GE Foundation). http://www.urban.org/publications/411149.html

Expert Panel Review (2001): Modeling Instruction in High School Physics. (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC). See http://modeling.asu.edu/ModlInstr-ExemplarySci-2001.pdf

Hake,
R (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six
thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics
courses. *Am. J. Phys. ***66**, 64-74.

Hake,
R. (2002), Lessons from the physics education reform effort, *Ecology and Society* **5**(2): 28; online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/.
*Ecology and Society*

is a free online "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research" with tens of thousands of subscribers in many nations.

Hestenes,
D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory, *The Physics Teacher* **30**, 141-158. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html

Hestenes, D. (2000). Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project (1994-2000) (from Final Report submitted to the National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA). http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingWorkshopFindings.pdf

Osborn-Popp, S. (2000). Personal Communication via e-mail on October 16, 2000 with Modeling Workshop Project Statistical Consultant.

What Works Clearinghouse (2008). WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook v 2.0.

*End note: *

This
document is a slightly modified excerpt, by Sharon Osborn Popp and Jane
Jackson, from* *the *Investing In Innovation (I3)* proposal to
the U.S. Department of Education by the American Association of Physics
Teachers. Submitted May 12, 2010. Unfunded. CFDA # 84.396B PR/Award # U396B100210.
Title:** **Teacher Enhancement for STEM
Education Reform: A National Network of Modeling Instruction Sites. Philip W.
Hammer, Principal Investigator.** **The section, on pages 14 to 16, is entitled
ÒStrength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect:
Moderate Evidence in Support of a Validation GrantÓ. It was written by Eric
Brewe, Ph.D., science education faculty at Florida International University.
Data were given him by Sharon Osborn Popp, Ph.D., internal evaluator of the
Modeling Workshop Project at Arizona State University (1995-2000). Data were Phase II teachers of
Leadership Modeling Workshops (summers 1997 & 1998 at University of
Wisconsin at River Falls, University of Akron - Ohio, and Arizona State
University).

Demographics:
Of the 26 teachers who contributed matched data,

- 20 taught regular first-year
physics, two taught honors first-year physics, one taught 9
^{th}grade physical science, and one taught principles of technology. - 25 taught at public schools,
and one at an independent school.
- 18 taught at suburban and/or
middle class schools, three at small rural schools, and three at urban
high-poverty schools.
- 18 teachers were male.
- They taught in 16 states
across the nation (eight taught in Wisconsin, three in Arizona).
- 18 teachers did
__not__have a degree in physics or physics education. Content areas of degrees were: four chemistry, four physical/general science, three life science, two math, two engineering, and one each of elementary education, dietetics, and meteorology.

December
2014.