**Modeling
Instruction in college/university**
(compiled by Jane Jackson)

Modeling
Instruction began in calculus-based general physics at Arizona State
University, in the early 1980s. That early effort is discussed at the end of
this compilation. Modeling Instruction is an evolving research-based pedagogy,
and the focus here is current-day Modeling Instruction in college physics.
(updated in Sept. 2017)

__PHYSICS IN
ARIZONA:__

* **Estrella
Mountain Community College, **in
a western suburb of Phoenix, Arizona, is the world leader in post-secondary use
of Modeling Instruction. All physics faculty and chemistry faculty use Modeling
Instruction, and courses are taught workshop-style (i.e., lab is integrated
with lecture). Estrella Mountain
CC has excelled at Modeling Instruction in all three levels of general physics
since Dwain Desbien became the founding physics faculty there, in 2002.

From 1995 to 2002, Dwain
taught Modeling Instruction as a graduate student in physics at **Arizona
State University** (ASU).
His calculus-based physics courses evolved into studio format (combined lab and
lecture; typically 65 students, Òscale-upÓ). Courses were team-taught; DwainÕs co-instructors included,
in different years, Eric Brewe, Michael Politano, Nicole Herbots, and Mangala
Joshua. Students achieved high
learning gains, as measured by the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and Mechanics
Baseline Test (MBT), among others. His Ph.D. dissertation, entitled ÒModeling Discourse
ManagementÓ is at http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/ModelingDiscourseMgmt02.pdf
. Later he was a subject of study in Colleen MegowanÕs ASU doctoral
dissertation, Framing
Discourse for Optimal Learning in Science and Mathematics . Excerpts are at
http://modeling.asu.edu/Projects-Resources.html.

In
some of these same years, Dwain was an adjunct instructor at **Chandler-Gilbert
Community College**. His
calculus-based physics students had extremely high FCI posttest scores, even
though a sizable fraction of students were disadvantaged minorities and/or
female, and few had taken high school physics. FCI scores at both institutions
are documented at http://modeling.asu.edu/rup_workshop/

Dwain Desbien received the AAPT 2015 *David
Halliday and Robert Resnick Award* for Excellence in Undergraduate Physics
Teaching. The press release states, in part, ÒBuilding on the accomplishments
of Malcolm Wells, who revolutionized high school physics teaching with his
contributions to Modeling Instruction, Desbien has creatively and tirelessly
worked to encourage students to take charge of their own learning. He developed
new techniques to achieve that goal, such as Modeling Discourse Management,
Circle Whiteboarding, and Seeding. His skill in implementing such techniques
has made him a very effective physics teacher. His continued efforts to help
others develop these skills have made a major contribution to physics
education.Ó http://www.aapt.org/aboutaapt/pressreleases/DwainDesbien_2015HallidayResnickAward.cfm

* At **Mesa
Community College **in
Arizona, Mangala Joshua wrote, ÒI use a modeling approach using models and
model-centered discourse and sometimes the modeling cycle in the algebra-based
and calculus-based courses. I teach the courses in a lecture/lab integrated
style, making it possible to use the modeling approach. Typical post-test mean
score for FCI has been around 70% for calculus-based courses and around 65% for
algebra/trig-based courses. I havenÕt administered the FCI for a while now. I
do continue to administer the MBT.Ó

Her
son and daughter-in-law, Ph.D. students in physics and math, respectively, took
a mechanics Modeling Instruction graduate course at ASU in 2016. Mangala
produced a 13-minute video of Dwain DesbienÕs calculus-based physics class at
Chandler-Gilbert Community College: view it at https://vimeo.com/channels/modelingphysics.
She invites queries at Mangala.joshua@mesacc.edu

* At **Central
Arizona College**, Clark
Vangilder uses Modeling Instruction in all three levels of physics courses:
calculus-based, algebra, and non-science major courses. He wrote in December
2015, Òhowever, in many ways, what
I do is a bit of a departure from the standard model according to David
Hestenes. We construct models in a
more fundamental way than the modeling curriculum prescribes; but nonetheless
construct (then deploy) models within a model-centered discourse that relies
heavily on Dwain DesbienÕs Modeling Discourse Management (MDM). I have written my own curriculum that
leverages the best parts of CIMM [http://modeling.asu.edu/CIMM.html]
with the method developed by Rob MacDuff and me, whereby one can craft physical
laws from natural language descriptions of empirically familiar regularities by
means of arithmetic. We blend the
theoretical and the empirical. I
take it a few steps further by using Visual Python and facilitating a
writing-intensive course (i.e., journals, concept maps, learning outcomes
essays) that demands students express their understanding of models in multiple
representational systems (MRS): natural language, symbolic, diagrammatic,
graphical, etc., as well as continuously describing how this impacts their
views of physics and reality.
Giving attention to personal epistemology with respect to the content of
physics and reality appears to be a more fruitful way of delivering that content
because it is more of a whole-brain approach to learning.Ó He invites educators
to email him at clark.vangilder@centralaz.edu if they have questions.

* At **Chandler-Gilbert
Community College** in
Arizona, Sean Flaherty wrote, ÒMy MNS degree is what
qualified me to teach @ CGC full time. Modeling Workshops were the most
important for preparing me to help my students learn content, as they provided
the pedagogical structure that is student-centered and effective.Ó

* At **Arizona
State University **in
Tempe, Jeff Hengesbach, an adjunct faculty and Modeling Workshop leader,
teaches calculus-based general physics to 70 students in a Ôscale-upÕ type
classroom. He is constrained by separate labs. He Òuses practicums in class to
facilitate discourse and generate cooperative engagement among the students.Ó
His FCI normalized gains are high! --typically 0.5 [much better than typical
gains of 0.15 to 0.25 with lecture-based instruction]. In 2017 he accepted a
full-time position at Estrella Mountain Community College.

* At **Cochise
Community College** in
southern Arizona, Joann Deakin wrote, ÒI use modeling instruction with my
students, interspersed with other techniques. I use it in both the introductory college physics and
university physics. I give the FCI with all my students as a measure of what I
need to focus on. I am currently collecting some interesting data that I intend
to use to in a written document at some point. The problem is that the classes are small and I am trying to
give the FCI to students in both Algebra/Trig based and then in the Calculus based
with the same students. What I am
finding is that students who are taught in the Algebra/Trig based course with
the modeling approach perform much better in the calculus-based course even
when the instructor uses a typical "sage on the stage" approach. The students make tremendous gains on
the FCI, especially when they are high school Òrunning startÓ students and
taught in a college setting with a modeling approach. They continue to make small gains in the follow-on
University Physics classes, and I suspect this is not so much due to the
instruction but more the fact that the students have all or most of the
fundamental underpinnings and now can teach themselves.Ó She invites educators to contact her at
deakinj@cochise.edu

* At **Eastern
Arizona Community College**,
Ms. Madhuri Bapat wrote that she has Òused partial modeling method for
calculus-based physics for 11 years. Students were not comfortable teaching
without a book. Very little for trig-based and none for conceptual.Ó She has
Òalways kept records of their pre- and post- FCI test. There was a significant
difference in modeling vs. traditional.Ó

__PHYSICS IN
OTHER STATES: __

* At **Mount
St. Antonio Community College**
in Walnut, California, Martin Mason wrote in December 2015, Òall physics
courses are taught workshop style and use a learning cycle of exploration,
model, discourse and practice. The
algebra-trigonometry course uses an explicit learning cycle that is derived
from the modeling cycle. The discourse is based on Dwain DesbienÕs Ph.D.
dissertation, and 3 of the lead instructors have been to one of Dwain's
workshops. The course
curriculum is based on the ICP/21 project, which explicitly addresses
scientific models. This course has about 30 sections per year and is reasonably
coherent. The first semester course is used to train adjuncts on physics
education research (PER) strategies.

The
calculus-based physics course is more instructor dependent. Again, since
3 (and soon 4!) of the faculty have taken Dwain DesbienÕs workshops, there is a
strong influence of modeling discourse and modeling method in the course. There
are ~15 sections per year. Ò

* At **Florida
International University**,
Modeling Instruction is used in trigonometry-based and calculus-based physics.
Research on these courses shows high effectiveness. (FIU is a hispanic-serving
university.) Success is documented
in two publications; the lead
author is Eric Brewe, who learned Modeling Instruction at ASU.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0602/0602086.pdf

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=tl_fac

The President of
**Florida International University**,
Mark Rosenberg, extolled Modeling Instruction in physics at FIU, in his
presentation to PCAST, the Presidents Council of Advisors in Science and
Technology, on Nov. 30, 2012. The 36-minute video recording is at:

Start at the 15
1/2 minutes mark. His 20-minute presentation focuses on
physics at FIU. At the 26-minute mark is a 2-minute video interview of a
hispanic physics student, Idaykis Rodriguez, and her physics professor, Dr.
Laird Kramer, the director of Modeling Instruction at FIU. In 2017, Idakis is a post-doctoral
physics student at FIU. Her story exemplifies the power of Modeling
Instruction.

Idakis is one of many FIU students whose lives and careers
have been transformed by Modeling instruction. In 2009, Ted
Hodapp, then Director of Education & Diversity at the American Physical
Society, said that when he was in a meeting with physics majors at Florida
International University, they were asked what made them decide to become
physics majors. Many pointed to
their professor, Laird Kramer, and others spoke explicitly that their
introductory physics course was taught using Modeling. They found the
experience so engaging that it inspired them to become physics majors. (In May
2009, this paragraph was reviewed by Ted Hodapp, and it can be freely shared.)

* At the **University
of New England**, in
Biddesford, Maine, James ÒJamieÓ Vesenka uses Modeling Instruction fully in his
courses on calculus-based general physics and introductory physics for the life
sciences. He has developed the latter course to focus on scientific models
specifically for use by life sciences majors, including a half semester on
modeling fluids. Even with that half-semester modification, his students
achieve well on the FCI: their mean FCI postest score is ~60% (N>240 students).
He invites queries at jvesenka@une.edu .

Jamie Vesenka
had high student gains in algebra-based general physics when he used Modeling
Instruction at **California State University – Fresno in 1998-99**, and the following year at the **University
of New England**. Instruments included the FCI, TUG-K
(Test of Understanding Graphs and Kinematics), and MBT. His publication in the *Journal of
Physics Teacher Education Online*
is at http://modeling.asu.edu/Evaluations/VesenkaJ_ModInst-undergrad.pdf

* **Buffalo
State College**, in
Buffalo NY, has a MS Ed (physics) degree that is based on Modeling Instruction.
This physics content degree includes two Modeling Workshops (in mechanics and
e&m) that are similar to ASU's. The adjunct physics faculty who earned this
degree consistently has the HIGHEST student learning gains of the 6 faculty who
teach algebra-based general physics, as measured by the FMCE and BEMA. (Private communication from Dan MacIsaac,
Director of the MS Ed degree.) The website is http://physics.buffalostate.edu/
Click on Graduate: Physics Education, M.S. Ed.

* At
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (**M.I.T**.), David Pritchard and colleagues
adapted Modeling Instruction for students who earned a "D" grade in
mechanics. A 3-week reView course using ** Modeling Applied to Problem
Solving (MAPS)**
pedagogy resulted in much better achievement in the subsequent e&m course,
than a control group. The course (and a similar mechanics reView online course
for teachers) is described in weblinks at

http://relate.mit.edu/current-projects/maps-pedagogy/
.

A reference on
measured outcomes is at http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/63094

* At **Drury
University** in
Springfield, Missouri, Brant Hinrichs wrote, ÒI definitely use models and
model-centered discourse (in fact, Dwain DesbienÕs Modeling Discourse
Management; i.e. board meetings, exclusively).Ó In calculus-based and
algebra/trigonometry-based physics, Òin all cases we start with a lab, and/or
data (in case the lab is not possible for us to do in-class, such as single photons
through two slits) and see how to best model it. So, for example, (following
Dwain and Eric and the *ASU Remodeling University Physics Workshops* of 2001 and 2002), I use Real Time
Physics Lab #1 (RTPL), and out of that comes the constant velocity model, out
of RTPL #2 comes constant acceleration, etc. I do a heavy development of a variety of representations for
all models. We then apply that
model in familar and novel situations. As much as possible, I try to ÒbreakÓ
the current model by introducing data that it does not work onÉÓ ÒI also use
this modeling approach in ALL my classes, even upper-level, including: intro
calculus-based physics III (optics, waves, magnetism), modern physics,
upper-level E&M, upper-level quantum mechanics.Ó ÒI took a sabbatical in
spring 2009 with Dwain to shadow him for an entire semester. You can see some effect on my
conceptual/beliefs data, but it had an even better effect on my end of semester
evaluations. I learned a lot from Dwain.Ó His student normalized FCI gains each
year in calculus-based physics are excellent: 0.6 to 0.8. His class size is
typically 15 to 20 students. His PERC Proceedings paper on board meetings is at
http://modeling.asu.edu/Projects-Resources/HinrichsB-discourse-PERC13.pdf.
His PERC Proceedings paper
on system schemas is at
http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/SystemSchema_3rdLaw_Hinrich.pdf
. He invites educators to
contact him at bhinrichs@drury.edu .

* At **Judson
University **in Elgin,
Illinois, Dr. Pete Sandberg, Professor of Math and Physics, wrote that in his algebra-based
general physics course (of mostly architecture students) Òmodels and
model-centered discourse are used extensively, but not much of the modeling
cycle.Ó ÒNon-science majors:
models quite a bit, and model-centered discourse some but not as extensively.Ó He invites interested educators
to contact him at psandberg@judsonu.edu .

* At **Eastern
Illinois University**
(EIU), Cherie Lehman wrote, ÒThe EIU physics department is still set up in the
traditional way — lecture courses and lab courses. My assignment varies
from semester to semester. I always approach lab courses from a modeling
perspective, but we use department lab manuals that do have pretty detailed
instructions. Even so, we are always looking for the mathematical model which
relates the variablesÉ. The summers spent with you folks in Arizona had a major
impact on my teaching. Even though I am not able to incorporate a full-out
modeling approach, I try to use my own version of it in both my lecture and lab
classes.

* At **Otterbein
University** in Wooster,
Ohio, Paul Wendel wrote, ÒWells-style modeling instruction is part of what I do
at Otterbein University, along with POGIL, Physics by Inquiry, and other
evidence-supported practices.
However, **the process of building, evaluating, refining, and replacing
models is at the forefront of my practice.** For example,
in a general education course I co-created with chemistry professor Dr. Robin
Grote, Integrative Studies 2404 *Fearless Investigators: How to Ask Questions
About Energy*, the class
builds and refines a particle model for temperature, thermal energy, and energy
transfer through heating & radiating (and to a lesser extent through
working). As we refine the model,
we gradually apply the model to increasingly complex systems. Students design each investigation,
then compare results in board meetings and critique experimental
technique. WeÕve experienced
moderate successÉÓ

ÒModeling also plays
a strong role in my Physics 2100 Physical Science course (a one-semester course
surveying mechanics, E&M, optics, and modern physics—ridiculous
breadth, I know). We build crucial
models using multiple representations, but model-building is one of many tools
in my tool bag, given the crazy breadth of this course.Ó

** MODELING
INSTRUCTION IN CHEMISTRY**:
(I asked only one faculty, Lorelei Wood, of Chandler-Gilbert Community College.
Her reply is long, and she invites educators to contact her at
Lorelei.Wood@cgc.edu .) Modeling
Instruction is used extensively at Estrella Mountain CC, led by Levi Torrison,
Ph.D. in chemistry.

__MODELING
INSTRUCTION IN ÒMETHODS OF TEACHING SCIENCEÓ COURSES:__

* **Brigham
Young University** in
Provo, Utah has two methods courses for undergraduate physics education
majors. Duane Merrell, Associate
Professor of Physics, wrote, ÒWe teach Physics 310 and Physics 311. First semester modeling is in Physics
310, and Physics 311 is CASTLE electricity with use of the Modeling-adapted
CASTLE electricity units, but we go through all CASTLE units and some have not
been adapted for Modeling Instruction.

I measure FCI scores, but to be honest
the physics majors taking the test are almost always above 60% and most above
80%, with quite good FCI pretest scores.Ó
He invites educators to contact him at Duane_merrell@byu.edu .

* At **California
State University – East Bay**,
Michele Korb wrote, ÒI am
currently using models and some model-centered discourse in my science teaching
methods courses for secondary teaching majors. This is related mainly to the
use of models and discourse related to the Next Generation Science Standards.
Since CA is a state that has adopted NGSS, we integrate the aspects of models
in planning lessons for middle and high school students.

I
have worked on a grant in the recent past, and we used the Physical Science Concepts Inventory
(PSCI) for middle school students. This was part of a large NSF grant working
with middle school teachers and developing their inquiry-based teaching skills.
The PSCI was used pre and post instruction. If you want a basic report from that, I have some analytics
related to that. Educators are welcome to contact me at
michele.korb@csueastbay.edu, regarding my thoughts on modeling and connections
to NGSS.Ó

* At the **University
of Illinois at Chicago**,
Nathan Harada, adjunct faculty, wrote, ÒThis is my second year of teaching a
methods course at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Last year, I taught just the methods of
teaching physics class and had seven students (six were student teachers and
one was a graduate student in geology).
This year, due to funding issues, the university has changed the minimum
requirement to run a class from 5 students to 10 students. As a result, we wouldn't have been able
to run either the physics methods or the chemistry methods courses. We decided to combine the two classes,
so this year I had nine chemistry students and three physics students.

I
run my class like a modeling workshop where we worked through a semester's
worth of material. I tried to use
the three components [models, modeling cycle, model-centered discourse] in
class with the students playing the role of high school students to give them
some experience with teaching. The
students also were required to teach two sample lessons, discussing how their
lesson connected to previous lessons and how they used the models that we
developed. This year, with both
disciplines combined into one methods course, I tried to run each discipline
separately to give them experience with their material. However, about a quarter of the time,
we were together to do discussions, talk about modeling and general teaching
aspects, and discuss common topics to both disciplines such as energy, fields,
forces, and whiteboarding techniques.

I
pre- and post-tested all the students with the ABCC (for chemistry) and FCI
(for physics). For the physics, my FCI post-test results are: 2014 (7 students)
- 25.4 [out of 30];

2015 (3
students) – 28.Ó Nathan
invites educators to contact him at
nharada@gmail.com.

* At the **University
of North Carolina**, Nick
Cabot wrote, ÒI introduce Modeling and scientific argumentation to experienced
elementary and middle grades teachers seeking a master's degree, but this is
not full-fledged Modeling. This is
changing next year when I will be teaching methods to pre-service MAT
candidates.Ó (In 2017 Nick teaches at Oregon State University, in the College
of Education Master degree program in science.)

* At **Otterbein
University **in Ohio, Paul
Wendel wrote, ÒIn my science teacher preparation courses, (elementary,
middle-level, and secondary), students learn to use experimental evidence to
build and refine models together with their students. However, there is insufficient time to conduct anything
resembling a modeling workshop, so these one-semester courses produce, at the
very most, novice modelers. I
strongly encourage/nag future high-school-level teachers to attend the nearby
content-focused modeling workshops offered through Ohio State University (Kathy
Harper). I strongly encourage our
elementary teachers to take our Fearless Investigators class, as this course
employs modeling practices we hope they will apply when they become teachers.Ó

__AN AWARD
FOR COLLEGE MODELING INSTRUCTION:__

* The Science
and Mathematics Teaching Imperative (SMTI), an initiative of the **Association
of Public and Land-grant
universities **(APLU),
recognized **Modeling Instruction in university physics** as a ** Promising Practice**, after a review of evidence supporting the impact on
quantity, quality and/or diversity of science teacher candidates.

For information
and context, see

An excerpt from
that webpage:

-----------------------

**Modeling
Instruction: Content & Pedagogy at Florida International University**

The first
university course in the preparation of physics teachers is the introductory
physics course. The introductory course may be viewed as the first sanctioned
exposure to physics. During this initial exposure, students learn what content
is valued by the discipline as well as the expected ways that this content is
conveyed. Student experience in these introductory courses is therefore
critically important for the recruitment and preparation of physics teachers.
Florida International University has implemented Modeling Instruction in
several sections of the introductory physics sequence, which has had the effect
of improving pre-service teacher recruitment and preparation while
simultaneously improving overall student learning retention and attitudes.
Modeling Instruction is a transformed learning environment for introductory
physics and is a promising practice for the recruitment and preparation of
physics teachers.

For more information,
contact:

Eric Brewe, Associate
Professor of Science Education and Physics

Florida International
University

Eric.Brewe@fiu.edu

To learn more,
visit: http://casgroup.fiu.edu/fiuperg/index.php

-----------------------

**APPENDICES:**

I. Modeling
Instruction began in calculus-based general physics courses at **Arizona State
University**, in the early
1980s. David Hestenes & I.
Halloun published this paper on their method: Modeling Instruction in
mechanics: http://modeling.asu.edu/Halloun,Hestenes-Mdlg87.pdf
.

They justified
the need for better instruction than traditional in their two earlier
publications:

-- The initial
knowledge state of college students. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/InitialKnowledge.pdf

-- Common sense
concepts about motion: http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/commonsense.pdf

David Hestenes
published the theoretical foundation in ÒToward A Modeling Theory of Physics
InstructionÓ, available at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingThryPhysics.pdf

II. Background information on APLU and SMTI
(compiled in 2011 by Jane Jackson):

The
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) -- the nation's public
research universities -- launched an initiative, known as the Science and
Mathematics Teacher Imperative (SMTI), to transform middle and high school
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education by preparing
a new generation of world-class science and mathematics teachers.

As of 2011,The SMTI initiative had grown
to include 129 public research universities in 44 states. Collectively, SMTI
members prepare more than 8,000 science and mathematics teachers annually --
making it the largest STEM new teacher initiative in the country.

FIU,
ASU, NAU, and UA belong to APLU and are committed to SMTI. ASU produces about 70 math and science
teachers each year; and it intends to double the number.

Core
purposes of SMTI are to increase the quantity, quality and diversity of science
and mathematics teachers.

The
APLU is a membership institution of presidents and provosts. It is working with
the American Physical Society (APS) as a grant partner in a leadership
effort, a component of SMTI. The
APS is a disciplinary society with physics faculty as members, which has a
nationwide initiative called the *Physics Teacher Education Coalition* (PTEC). The APLU is also working with the American Chemical Society
as they create the *Chemistry Teacher Education Coalition* (CTEC). Objectives are to create and
support a national leadership network of presidents, chancellors, provosts, and
their designees who are active in improving mathematics and science education
and especially teacher education. Another objective is to increase the number
of faculty who contribute to teacher preparation, including mentoring,
induction, and professional development.

III. More
information and documentation of effectiveness at:

Arizona State
University Modeling legacy website: http://modeling.asu.edu

American
Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA): http://modelinginstruction.org